'Moral Difficulties Involved in War Reporting\r'

'Moral Difficulties Involved in contend Reporting Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………. summon 3 Historical perspective on the ontogeny of diaristic example philosophy………………. rapsc aloneion 4 Deontology and Utilitarianism……………………………………………… rapsc altogetherion 5 honourable Dilemma: Should reporters eer disclose and/or discover classify reading in a sentence of fight fara behaviore? Arguments in save……………… pageboy 5 Ethical dilemma: Should reporters ever break out and/or publish assort nurture in a magazine of fight? Arguments contrary………………page 6 Applying principles of Deontology and Utilitar ianism to the honourable dilemma………………………………………………………page 8 Conclusion…. ………………………………………………………………page 10\r\nBibliography………………………………………………………………… page 11 Introduction Journalists covering wars and competitivenesss be nest with numerous honourable dilemmas regarding professed(prenominal) codes of conduct, laws regulating e call forthal certificate and individualal commitments to ideals such(prenominal) as the unrestricted’s right to cognize, and performing as the after part estate (with the front terce estates creation the executive, legis lative and judicial branches of governing body). Of the ethical theories we studied in the parley Ethics rail dash line, I chose to comp atomic add 18 and contrast Deontology and Utilitarianism, withdraw how they apply to a detail lesson difficulty, and expound what conclusions wad e drawn. For brevity sake, I engage left out such theories as arbiter and Fairness, Cargon Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and Moral Intuition as exposit by Jordin and Beaken (2009). I r separately as healthy as left out numerous new(prenominal) dilemmas, such as the role advocacy or slash plays in the news media profession as it relates to war and date. Here ar just a hardly a(prenominal) of the contemporary clean-living difficulties that could be examined: 1. Should reporters use soggy labels to describe terrorists? When is a terrorist a terrorist? 2. When can war sequence photos and pic incite violence? What ar the journalists responsibilities? 3.\r\nShould reporters ever passing water and/or publish classify information in a date of war? 4. Can (and should) word of honor media be used for war propaganda or security system review? 5. What would overt comport have been like for WWI, WWII or Korea if there had been unlimited and unregulated scrutiny as there is today with broadcast and digital media? The conflict I am specifically examining, and the moral difficulties it presents, involves the la tryout conflict in Iraq. To thoroughly examine virtuoso dilemma within this paper’s home limitation, I have chosen number three: should reporters ever leak and/or publish class information in time of war?\r\nIt is in this atomic number 18a that, while researching the above moral difficulties, I make a significant variation in attitude from war to war. Historical perspective on the evolution of journalistic ethics I found it is useful to place this examination within the historic mount and journalistic attitudes of just a few of many past conflicts reach ing as far back as the American Revolutionary warfargon period. Ben Franklin was one of America’s earliest and nearly influential journalists (Burns 2006). Burns tell aparts (p. 91), â€Å". . . he was as ethical a journalist as America produced in the 8eenth speed of light.\r\nYet, he deceived on occasion, that merely because he thought it was a better means to tell a story, and alone because he chew the fatd his readers were educate enough to k direct the ruse and understand that it served a deeper purpose. ” Franklin’s newspaper, magazine, and former(a)(a)s he inspired covered semipolitical and foreign news and wars. War insurance coverage of the cut and Indian War of 1754 to 1763, which began in Europe as the Seven Years’ War, bequeathd exciting reading to colonists. Reports were earthy of passel movements, battles and scalpings. Advocacy journalism was in enough flourish, and readers were encouraged (Burns 2006, p. 121) â€Å". . . o d atomic number 18 their French and Indian attackers. ” As taxes were increased in the colonies, newspapers began to encourage disobedience and a boycott of British bang-ups. Franklin summarized the state of ethical journalism of the American Revolutionary War when he wrote that â€Å". . . the bosom non scarcely can ‘ hold while the iron is hot,’ simply it can ‘ heat energy’ it by continually striking. ” Richards (2005) states the prevalent newspaper partisanship of 17th and 18th century began changing in the 19th century to a to a great extent unbiassed position. This was due to the increasing dependence on advert revenue, and the destiny to appeal to the broadest market realistic.\r\nHe similarly identifies news coverage of the Spanish-American War and the circulation wars between Hearst and Pulitzer as a low buck in American journalism, and providing impetus to a call for much objectivity and delimitate standards. That c ame in 1910 when the first code of ethics was created by the Kansas Editorial Association and in 1923 by the American Society of in the rawspaper Editors. Covered in these and subsequent books and codes were such ethical topics as reporting on national security, fairness and accuracy. The Hutchins Commission in 1947 (Richards 2005, p. 8) â€Å". . . ntroduced ii key notions †the ‘public good’ and the ‘greater responsibilities’ of the press. ” He adds, â€Å"According to this theory, the responsibilities of the press . . . were to be emphasised over its emancipations, and the press was to be considered opened to moral and ethical restrictions. ” During the second half of the 20th century there was considerable criticism of this social debt instrument theory. For instance, Richards queries to whom are the journalists responsible, what should the media be free to do, and why are they watching the brass rather than the governed?\r\nAls o, how does the journalist touch on the public good and of which of many potential publics are we speaking? To summarize, there have been times end-to-end journalistic history when untruth and taking sides was acceptable, but objectivity and responsibility were largely considered to be sea captain standards as we entered the 21st century. Deontology and Utilitarianism Of the many methods for applying ethical theories to war reporting, I narrowed the choice down to Deontology and Utilitarianism as referenced in the introduction.\r\nDeontology involves applying a universal place of principles (Jordin 2009, p. 15) â€Å". . . which makes the duty or the obligations we owe other merciful beings the fundamental principle of ethics. ” Doing our duty is not ground on a particular set of circumstances. Since acts are judged only by their consequences, the means justify the ends. Utilitarianism is defined by the consequences of actions, not the act’s moral or intrinsic v alue. Jordin (2009, p. 17) states, â€Å"Where deontological theories thus talk more in terms around what is right, consequentialist theories are more concerned with the good. Moral worth is determined by its capacity to produce the most amount of good for the greatest number. Here, the ends justify the means. How can these two standards patron resolving power our ethical dilemma? We can answer this question by examining a few cases from the real Iraq conflict and others. Ethical Dilemma: Should reporters ever leak and/or publish classified information in a time of war? Arguments in privilege: Former Pentagon aid Daniel Ellsberg leaked a highly classified study, subsequently called The Pentagon Papers, claiming the U. S. government deceived American citizens almost the acres’s involvement with Vietnam.\r\nMitchell (2008) refers to Ellsberg as establishing the precedent for when the public’s right to know outweighs claims of national security and secrecy. Ells berg argued that the ends justify the means since journalists well-nightimes do not question government war statements and do not delve deep enough. In a U. S. ultimate Court ruling on Ellsberg’s case, legal expert Hugo Black wrote (Bauder 2009, p. 110), â€Å"The government’s power to outlaw the press was abolished so that the press would remain eternally free to censure the government. The press was defended so that it could bare the cloak-and-daggers of the government and inform the passel. Alterman (2003) concurs, maintaining that graciouss are flawed and abuse authority if they believe no one is watching. He speaks not only of politicians and polity makers, but military leaders as well. Alterman reason it is the journalist’s role to hold political and military leaders accountable. Dean Baquet and Bill Keller (Bauder 2009, p. 111) say â€Å"Our job, especially in times like these, is to begin our readers information that go away enable them to j udge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price. ”\r\nThey add that the White House never intended for the public to know classified secrets about faulty give-and-take service that led to the current war in Iraq, about prisoner abuse, alleged torture, or about electronic eavesdropping without specific warrants. They claim Americans have a right to know how the war is being waged. Others maintain that denying the public’s right to know amounts to censorship, and sometimes this censorship is not used to cling to troops and prevent operational information from constituent the resistance (Williams 2009), but is used to promote co-occurrence for the war effort and sanitize its brutality and human cost.\r\nWilliams cites as an example that the often promoted â€Å"smart” weapons in the Iraqi Gulf War, which supposedly reduced noncombatant casualties, comprised only seven per cent of the bombs used. â€Å"The rationale for th is policy was that the public will no longer support any war involving a large number of civilian casualties. ” (Williams 2009, p. 159). He added, â€Å"When the flow of information in a democratic society is controlled by the authorities and when military considerations take precedence over all other considerations hence democracy itself is endanger. (Williams 2009, p. 167). To summarize, some believe it is ethical to expose government rail atdoing and deception because the public has a right to know how its government behaves behind closed doors and in foreign conflicts. Ethical dilemma: Should reporters ever leak and/or publish classified information in a time of war? Arguments opposed: At the beginning of WWII editor Tom Hopkinson withheld the truth from his British readers regarding the military contingency at Dunkirk, believing (Williams 2009, p. 154) â€Å". . . he truth would get off people and make them less able to resist an invasion. ” Williams goes o n to explain that similar restraint in revealing brutal photographs during the Korean War was so they would not â€Å"give aid and comfort to the oppositeness. ” Williams (2009, p. 156) explained the indication as to when it might be acceptable to carry on classified and potentially damaging information to a war effort: â€Å"The Second World War was a matter of national survival. at that place was a direct threat to Britain’s way of life. chastise would have resulted in subjugation.\r\nThe Korean War, on the other hand, at least as far as the British public was concerned, was in essence a police action happening on the other side of the world. There was no national emergency. There was no direct threat to national life. It is only when the very survival of a society is threatened that the truth can be interfered with. ” During the early stages of the first Gulf War in Iraq, detailed classified information regarding the extent and proceedsiveness of bombin g raids was withheld and restrictions displace on a reporter’s ability to interview pilots and troops (Hatchen 2000).\r\nInterviews conducted by pool reporters were subject to censorship. The U. S. Pentagon had decided there was a high antecedence assigned to the dismantling of the communications and military assure structure in Iraq. It was vitally important that the enemy could not anticipate coalition force intentions, targets, troop strength or movements. U. S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld verbalise that making classified information available to people who are not cleared for it makes finding and dealings with the responsible terrorists much more difficult.\r\nRumsfeld added (Tapper 2001) that â€Å". . . the inevitable effect is that the lives of men and women in uniform are rig at risk. ” President Bush concurred (Berkowitz 2003), stating â€Å"Our nations progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the nat ional defense team has required that certain information be hold in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. ” James B. Bruce (2007) argues that slide fastener is more important than national security.\r\nHe believes leaks previse and forearm the enemy and allows them to develop countermeasures, thus placing national welfare and our citizens at home and abroad at risk. He adds in an article published on www. cia. gov that, â€Å"The US press is an open vault of classified information on US intelligence gathering sources and methods. This has been true for years. But the problem is worse now than ever before, given the scope and seriousness of leaks twin with the power of electronic dissemination and search engines. He states that press leaks allow the enemy to see how secret intelligence works, and how to defeat it. Schoenfeld (2006) rails against newspaper leaks that opene d the classified network of CIA prisons in Europe retentivity theme captives, the disclosure of government surveillance of al-Qaeda suspects, and the monitoring of Al-Qaeda financial transactions. He adds the most serious leak was of a classified memoranda raising serious USA administration doubts about Iraq’s Prime Minister.\r\nHe states, â€Å"At a moment when the United States faces the present danger of plunder by Islamic terrorists and is struggling to protect itself from travel victim to a second September 11, a murmuration of overzealous, self-interested, and mistaken advocates is striving to shield the press’s independence of movement at the disbursal of many if not all of the competing imperatives of a dodging based upon the rule of law. ” To summarize, some believe the test for publication any kind of information, whether classified are not, is as follows.\r\nWill publishing the information: 1. provide aid and comfort to the enemy? 2. threaten t he pencil eraser of our troops and allies engaged in the conflict? 3. threaten our safety as a nation? Some believe if the answer is â€Å"yes” to any of the above, than the natural should not be published or distributed. Applying principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism to the ethical dilemma Universalists, and in particular consequentialists (Jordin 2000), would argue that the greater good is served by releasing secrets during a time of war.\r\nWithholding secrets could threaten the very foundation of democracy, and the principles we are fighting to defend. If revealing a secret exposes fell treatment of prisoners or casts doubt on intelligence gathering which led to the current Iraqi war, then the ends justify the means. A Deontologist would say releasing secrets would abrogate the right of a government to possess information that might prove harmful in other people’s hands. The duty to protect state secrets in a time of war is reflected in the â€Å"univers al human right to life” as described by Jordin (2009, p. 6), and life, whether it be a citizen’s or the nation itself, might be jeopardise if secrets were revealed. The means (keeping classified information secret) justify the ends (national security and public safety). How then can a reporter decide when confronted with this ethical dilemma? One betterment would be to answer the general questions from the URJC manikin (Jordin 2009, p. 29). URJC stands for Utilitarianism, rights and duties, and arbiter and care ethics. For the purpose of this discussion, I am employing only the Utilitarianism and rights and duties (Deontology) standards: . â€Å"Does the decision optimise the welfare and satisfaction of all the stakeholders? ” No, it would satisfy stakeholders such as crusading journalists opposed to the war, freedom of speech and public right to know advocates, but not necessarily the government, military or intelligence personnel whose lives may be placed i n danger, and not the stakeholder citizens who support the war. 2. â€Å"Does it respect the rights and duties of the individuals involved? ” No, for the same reasons as stated above. 3. â€Å"Is it fair and consistent with the norms of rightness? Yes, government leaks in Iraq and prior wars have seldom resulted in government prosecution or professional censure. 4. â€Å"Does it arise from and reflect an impulse to care? ” Yes, acting as the fourth estate and holding the government accountable and responsible for its actions is an altruistic goal. We can see from this exercise that the answers are evenly split: two â€Å"no” and two â€Å"yes. ” A further approach might be to use the modified URJC model as developed by Velasquez et al and described in Jordin (2009, p. 29) by answering the following questions: . â€Å"Who will be affected by each affirmable communication channel of action and what eudaimonias and harms will be derived from each? â⠂¬Â The publication of classified information in time of war could provide aid and comfort to the enemy and potentially endanger public officials, military and intelligence sources both at home and abroad. However, there are situations when governments may wish to cover up ill-chosen or potentially illegal activities, and the only way to shed light on the situation is by publishing secret information.\r\nTherefore, each situation would need to be reviewed in a case-by-case compend; weighing the potential for harm against the greatest good. 2. â€Å"Does the socio-economic class of action respect everyone’s rights to choose freely how they will live their lives, to the truth, to privacy, not to be harmed or injured, to what has been promised or agreed? ” No, revealing secrets during the time of war may result in harm and stain to its citizens and to the security of the government, even while promoting truth and democracy. 3. â€Å"Does the course of action treat e verybody in the same way or does it show favouritism or favoritism? No, selectively choosing which laws to break and which secret data to reveal does not treat everyone the same way and can show favouritism to a particular point of view, course of action or even a political party. The only way not to remove would be to blanketly publish all available leaks or secret data a reporter comes across, or to publish none at all. 4. â€Å"What kind of person do I aspire to be? Which course of action promotes the development of that character within myself and my biotic community? ” The decision is up to each reporter.\r\nSpeaking from private experience as a professional journalist I can answer that adherence to the principles of democracy, freedom of the press, and the public’s right to know are of highest importance. Yes, it may be acceptable in some circumstances to leak or publish classified material in a time of war. In reviewing the previous four questions there was one â€Å" perchance”, two â€Å"no” and one â€Å"yes” answers. Conclusion By answering the previous eight questions in the context of Deontology and Utilitarianism theories, it can be concluded that leaking and/or publishing classified information in a time of war is not acceptable.\r\nTherefore, it is possible to solve this specific moral difficulty concerning war reporting. Though it is possible to determine a course of action by applying these theories to such an ethical dilemma, the final result is not clear cut. The outcome was decided by a single â€Å"no” answer out of eight questions. Due to such a close margin, I believe these two basic theories can benefit from further modification and application of other ethical models to help find a solution to moral difficulties in war reporting. Bibliography ALTERMAN, Eric (2003).\r\nWhat liberal media? New York, prefatory Books. BAUDER, Julia (2009). Media ethics. Michigan, Greenhaven Press. BERKOWITZ, Bill (2003). Escalating secrecy wars. WorkingForChange. com, 9 July. [online]. coda accessed 21 Dec. 2009 at: http://www. alternet. org/story/16369/ BRUCE, James (2007). The consequences of permissive neglect. www. cia. gov, May. [online]. Last accessed 20 Dec. 2009 at: https://www. cia. gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v47i1a04p. htm BURNS, Eric (2006). Infamous scribblers.\r\nNew York, Public Affairs. HATCHEN, William (2000). Reporting the Gulf War. In: Graber, tendency A. , Media Power in politics. Washington D. C. , CQ Press, pp. 304-312. JORDIN, Martin. Ethical Theories. In: Communication ethics, Revised (2009) by Beaken, Mike. Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, pp. 14-30. MITCHELL, Greg (2008). So wrong for so long. New York, Sterling Publishing Co. , Inc. RICHARDS, Ian (2005). Quagmires and quandaries: exploring journalism ethics. Australia, University of New South Wales Press Ltd. SCHOENFELD, Gabriel (2007).\r\nWhy journalists are not abo ve the law. Commentarymagazine. com, Feb. [online]. Last accessed 20 Dec. 2009 at: http://www. commentarymagazine. com/viewarticle. cfm/why-journalists-are-not-abo ve-the-law-10827 TAPPER, Jake (2001). Bush scolds Congress. Salon. com, 9 Oct. [online]. Last accessed 20 Dec. 2009 at: http://www. salon. com/politics/feature/2001/10/09/bush/index1. hypertext markup language WILLIAMS, Kevin. Something more important than truth: ethical issues in war reporting. In: Communication ethics readings. Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University, pp. 154-171.\r\n'