Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2061493
T. Kelley
Nielsen (2020) reports digital content engagement rose by 215% in the U.S. alone from March 2019 to March 2020. In light of this increased traffic, newsroom and publication standards must better explain to the public how news organizations research, reporting and publish stories on big issues, especially those so prevalent like the coronavirus pandemic. Detailing the process from story idea to fruition may create safeguards at traditional and online outlets so that the lines between fact and fiction, reality and conspiracy theory aren’t blurred. The benefits of this are twofold: gaining trust with readers by being transparent and bettering the media literacy of those in the audience who don’t understand the efforts and ethics of media professionals. However, transparency is not enough. These efforts at being more open with the audience are certainly well-intended; however, research has shown that even though more consumers say they would better trust a news source if was transparent about the process, that explanation of tends to be skipped over entirely by most readers (Murray & Stroud, 2020). Tackling misinformation and disinformation while maintaining trust in an audience must be a multi-pronged approach. Journalists overuse governmental agency experts and, particularly partisan, officials to communicate efforts in the pandemic or debunk false information regarding the virus. Political researchers find “elites are capable of fostering, rather than correcting, conspiracy beliefs.” (Uscinski, Enders, & Klofstad, Seelig, Funchion, Everett, Wuchty, Premaratne, Murthi, 2020). To fact-check misleading claims or unproven information, journalists must find sources that those in their audience can trust. Leada Gore, a reporter with Alabama Media Group, told CNN’s Reliable Sources that her organization was proactive in not only having local voices explain the complexities of the virus, pandemic and vaccines, but they also sought particular questions and concerns from local readers regarding the vaccine. “ . . . we broke it down into digestible, you know, topics that allowed people to (say) ‘I’m concerned about this, what does a local doctor say?’ Because I really think we’re realizing in Alabama that that (COVID) information needs to come from the ground up as opposed to the top down.” (CNN, 2021). Finding trusted doctors who are members of the community to address such misinformation or conspiracy theories is certainly easier for those on a hyperlocal level at small-town news organizations. And data shows that trust is higher amongst community news outlets. Pew Research found that while less than half (46%) of American adults surveyed got their COVID pandemic information from local news, 50% said their local outlets get the facts right, compared to 44% of news media in general. (Shearer, 2020). Outlets must lean more into fact-checking falsehoods and inform their audiences accordingly. In the early days of the pandemic, the media needed to do a better
{"title":"Finding Better Ways for Newsrooms to Counter COVID Misinformation in the United States","authors":"T. Kelley","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2061493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2061493","url":null,"abstract":"Nielsen (2020) reports digital content engagement rose by 215% in the U.S. alone from March 2019 to March 2020. In light of this increased traffic, newsroom and publication standards must better explain to the public how news organizations research, reporting and publish stories on big issues, especially those so prevalent like the coronavirus pandemic. Detailing the process from story idea to fruition may create safeguards at traditional and online outlets so that the lines between fact and fiction, reality and conspiracy theory aren’t blurred. The benefits of this are twofold: gaining trust with readers by being transparent and bettering the media literacy of those in the audience who don’t understand the efforts and ethics of media professionals. However, transparency is not enough. These efforts at being more open with the audience are certainly well-intended; however, research has shown that even though more consumers say they would better trust a news source if was transparent about the process, that explanation of tends to be skipped over entirely by most readers (Murray & Stroud, 2020). Tackling misinformation and disinformation while maintaining trust in an audience must be a multi-pronged approach. Journalists overuse governmental agency experts and, particularly partisan, officials to communicate efforts in the pandemic or debunk false information regarding the virus. Political researchers find “elites are capable of fostering, rather than correcting, conspiracy beliefs.” (Uscinski, Enders, & Klofstad, Seelig, Funchion, Everett, Wuchty, Premaratne, Murthi, 2020). To fact-check misleading claims or unproven information, journalists must find sources that those in their audience can trust. Leada Gore, a reporter with Alabama Media Group, told CNN’s Reliable Sources that her organization was proactive in not only having local voices explain the complexities of the virus, pandemic and vaccines, but they also sought particular questions and concerns from local readers regarding the vaccine. “ . . . we broke it down into digestible, you know, topics that allowed people to (say) ‘I’m concerned about this, what does a local doctor say?’ Because I really think we’re realizing in Alabama that that (COVID) information needs to come from the ground up as opposed to the top down.” (CNN, 2021). Finding trusted doctors who are members of the community to address such misinformation or conspiracy theories is certainly easier for those on a hyperlocal level at small-town news organizations. And data shows that trust is higher amongst community news outlets. Pew Research found that while less than half (46%) of American adults surveyed got their COVID pandemic information from local news, 50% said their local outlets get the facts right, compared to 44% of news media in general. (Shearer, 2020). Outlets must lean more into fact-checking falsehoods and inform their audiences accordingly. In the early days of the pandemic, the media needed to do a better ","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"37 1","pages":"148 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87308213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-31DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2057996
Yayu Feng
ABSTRACT This article presents an analysis of virtuous journalism as demonstrated in the award-winning movie Spotlight. It analyzes Spotlight using key concepts from virtue ethics theory – arête (virtue), phronesis (practical wisdom), and eudaimonia (happiness), revealing an in-depth understanding of the regulative ideals embedded in the movie. The article discusses major virtues exemplified in the movie, journalists’ practical wisdom, and how the journalism profession can contribute to human flourishing through its professional goals. By informing a theoretically grounded understanding of the moral lessons in this movie and its values for the profession, this article also aims to benefit ethics educators.
{"title":"‘Spotlight’: Virtuous Journalism in Practice","authors":"Yayu Feng","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2057996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057996","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article presents an analysis of virtuous journalism as demonstrated in the award-winning movie Spotlight. It analyzes Spotlight using key concepts from virtue ethics theory – arête (virtue), phronesis (practical wisdom), and eudaimonia (happiness), revealing an in-depth understanding of the regulative ideals embedded in the movie. The article discusses major virtues exemplified in the movie, journalists’ practical wisdom, and how the journalism profession can contribute to human flourishing through its professional goals. By informing a theoretically grounded understanding of the moral lessons in this movie and its values for the profession, this article also aims to benefit ethics educators.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"4 1","pages":"93 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82677768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-29DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2057993
R. Young
ABSTRACT This study uses the theory of dyadic morality to analyze construction of cyberbullying as a contested social issue in U. S. newspaper opinion pieces. The theory of dyadic morality posits that when we claim harm, we are motivated to identify a cause of harm and a suffering victim. This moral triangulation indicts determinants of harm and suggests preferred solutions. Analysis of U.S. opinion writing identified a tension between perception of cyberbullying as epidemic and the belief that some aggression was normative, that harm from speech was suspect, and that concern about cyberbullying was overblown. Cyberbullying served as a politically charged example of how technology is shaping adolescent social life and mental health; or how claims to victimhood are threats to free speech. Attention to moral dyad constructs in editorials and opinion pieces can help identify how competitive frames assert claims of moral validity in constructing arguments.
{"title":"“We All Know It’s Wrong, But…”: Moral Judgment of Cyberbullying in U.S. Newspaper Opinion Pieces","authors":"R. Young","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2057993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057993","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study uses the theory of dyadic morality to analyze construction of cyberbullying as a contested social issue in U. S. newspaper opinion pieces. The theory of dyadic morality posits that when we claim harm, we are motivated to identify a cause of harm and a suffering victim. This moral triangulation indicts determinants of harm and suggests preferred solutions. Analysis of U.S. opinion writing identified a tension between perception of cyberbullying as epidemic and the belief that some aggression was normative, that harm from speech was suspect, and that concern about cyberbullying was overblown. Cyberbullying served as a politically charged example of how technology is shaping adolescent social life and mental health; or how claims to victimhood are threats to free speech. Attention to moral dyad constructs in editorials and opinion pieces can help identify how competitive frames assert claims of moral validity in constructing arguments.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"71 1","pages":"78 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86812304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-29DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2057994
R. Cohen-Almagor, S. Lehman-Wilzig
ABSTRACT This article utilizes Aristotelian and Kantian philosophies to probe the social responsibilities of internet intermediaries that in one way or another assist and promote suicide. Striking a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility, it is argued that several actors should be involved in restricting or eliminating live-streaming suicide, sites that encourage and facilitate suicide, and insult forums that drive people, especially adolescents, to take their own lives. The remediating actors are: commercial social media/website owners through their moderators; voluntary, non-profit, NGO “public defenders”; internet platform providers; regulatory agencies based on legislative authority, and advertisers. Practical remedies are suggested for each of these actors, noting as well important exceptions and caveats regarding the respective solutions.
{"title":"Digital Promotion of Suicide: A Platform-Level Ethical Analysis","authors":"R. Cohen-Almagor, S. Lehman-Wilzig","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2057994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057994","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article utilizes Aristotelian and Kantian philosophies to probe the social responsibilities of internet intermediaries that in one way or another assist and promote suicide. Striking a balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility, it is argued that several actors should be involved in restricting or eliminating live-streaming suicide, sites that encourage and facilitate suicide, and insult forums that drive people, especially adolescents, to take their own lives. The remediating actors are: commercial social media/website owners through their moderators; voluntary, non-profit, NGO “public defenders”; internet platform providers; regulatory agencies based on legislative authority, and advertisers. Practical remedies are suggested for each of these actors, noting as well important exceptions and caveats regarding the respective solutions.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"74 1","pages":"108 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85502792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-28DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2057995
Leslie Klein, B. Johnson
ABSTRACT U.S. journalists must walk a fine line when reporting on hate speech. Journalists have a vested interest in standing up for the First Amendment, which gives them the freedom to do their work. However, the legal protection that people who spew hateful rhetoric enjoy vastly outweighs any protections upon which the victims can rely. As such, dealing with hate speech in the United States is an inherently ethical issue. Applying the ethics of care to their reporting would allow journalists a clear framework with which to counter hate speech. This study examines if and how journalists used the ethics of care framework when covering the Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court case through analysis of articles published in U.S. newspapers. Using these articles as a representative sample for the national coverage of the case, the study finds that journalists failed to consider the human impact of their reporting.
{"title":"A Test of Free Speech: Applying the Ethics of Care to Coverage of Snyder V. Phelps","authors":"Leslie Klein, B. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2057995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057995","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT U.S. journalists must walk a fine line when reporting on hate speech. Journalists have a vested interest in standing up for the First Amendment, which gives them the freedom to do their work. However, the legal protection that people who spew hateful rhetoric enjoy vastly outweighs any protections upon which the victims can rely. As such, dealing with hate speech in the United States is an inherently ethical issue. Applying the ethics of care to their reporting would allow journalists a clear framework with which to counter hate speech. This study examines if and how journalists used the ethics of care framework when covering the Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court case through analysis of articles published in U.S. newspapers. Using these articles as a representative sample for the national coverage of the case, the study finds that journalists failed to consider the human impact of their reporting.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"128 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75575009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-24DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2057313
M. Popova, I. Valkov
{"title":"Media Representations and the Politics of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Bulgaria","authors":"M. Popova, I. Valkov","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2057313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2057313","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75077347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-23DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2022.2056038
Ashish Sharma
Viral diffusion of fake news is very significant in India with its 1.38 billion population, because it impacts how the public receives information required to make responsible, informed decisions and shape views on socio, economic, and political issues. Fake news is not a new phenomenon on Indian social media. The availability of low-cost Internet via mobile networks in India has resulted in a significant growth in the number of social media users (Banerjee, 2021). One out of six pieces of COVID information generated from India in 2020 was fake, which makes India the country for the source of most COVID misinformation. India’s unfortunate distinction as the purveyor of misinformation is tied to the higher Internet penetration rate and increasing social media consumption. India has almost 323 million Internet users, out of which 67% are urban and rest 33% are rural. Lack of media literacy remains one of the key factors in the spread of misinformation during the pandemic.
{"title":"India’s Floating Disinformation during the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Ashish Sharma","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2022.2056038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2022.2056038","url":null,"abstract":"Viral diffusion of fake news is very significant in India with its 1.38 billion population, because it impacts how the public receives information required to make responsible, informed decisions and shape views on socio, economic, and political issues. Fake news is not a new phenomenon on Indian social media. The availability of low-cost Internet via mobile networks in India has resulted in a significant growth in the number of social media users (Banerjee, 2021). One out of six pieces of COVID information generated from India in 2020 was fake, which makes India the country for the source of most COVID misinformation. India’s unfortunate distinction as the purveyor of misinformation is tied to the higher Internet penetration rate and increasing social media consumption. India has almost 323 million Internet users, out of which 67% are urban and rest 33% are rural. Lack of media literacy remains one of the key factors in the spread of misinformation during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"475 1","pages":"145 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77041224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2021.2014848
Theodora A. Maniou
ABSTRACT Based on the emerging argument that understandings of digital content comprising both editorial and advertising components require alternative cultures for critical inquiry sufficiently sensitive to the online news environment, this study assesses the professional practice of balancing news and sponsored (commercial) information while focusing on preserving traditional journalism values within the realm of reasoned discussions of media ethics. In this qualitative content analysis study, different forms of sponsored content published in global media digital platforms are examined and inductive content analysis is employed.
{"title":"Managing Sponsored Content in Hybrid Media Systems: A Proposed Alternative Journalistic Practice","authors":"Theodora A. Maniou","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2021.2014848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2021.2014848","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Based on the emerging argument that understandings of digital content comprising both editorial and advertising components require alternative cultures for critical inquiry sufficiently sensitive to the online news environment, this study assesses the professional practice of balancing news and sponsored (commercial) information while focusing on preserving traditional journalism values within the realm of reasoned discussions of media ethics. In this qualitative content analysis study, different forms of sponsored content published in global media digital platforms are examined and inductive content analysis is employed.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"18 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84541242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2021.2014847
P. Anderson
ABSTRACT Government whistleblowers are those who disclose classified government documents in violation of the law but do so to bring to light serious government wrongdoing. Scholarly debates have identified various procedural requirements for whistleblowing, and this paper expands upon these insights by providing an account of Edward Snowden’s moderate theory and Julian Assange’s radical theory of government whistleblowing ethics. Through the practice of ethical listening, this essay places Snowden and Assange into conversation with academic theories of government whistleblowing. By including the previously neglected voices of real-world government whistleblowers and their publishers, this paper provides a more dynamic understanding of whistleblowing’s procedural requirements, interrogates the ethical paradigms of whistleblowers, and shows that different theories of government whistleblowing depend upon a wide range of assumptions about audience, professionalism, and ultimate aims.
{"title":"On Moderate and Radical Government Whistleblowing: Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as Theorists of Whistleblowing Ethics","authors":"P. Anderson","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2021.2014847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2021.2014847","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Government whistleblowers are those who disclose classified government documents in violation of the law but do so to bring to light serious government wrongdoing. Scholarly debates have identified various procedural requirements for whistleblowing, and this paper expands upon these insights by providing an account of Edward Snowden’s moderate theory and Julian Assange’s radical theory of government whistleblowing ethics. Through the practice of ethical listening, this essay places Snowden and Assange into conversation with academic theories of government whistleblowing. By including the previously neglected voices of real-world government whistleblowers and their publishers, this paper provides a more dynamic understanding of whistleblowing’s procedural requirements, interrogates the ethical paradigms of whistleblowers, and shows that different theories of government whistleblowing depend upon a wide range of assumptions about audience, professionalism, and ultimate aims.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"47 1","pages":"38 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81040243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-28DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2021.2020257
K. Berg
It is rare to have two edited volumes on media ethics published within a month of each other. Yet, The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics and the Handbook of Global Media Ethics were both released in fall 2021. Combined, they offer a comprehensive analysis of the state of global media ethics along with a global perspective on journalism ethics. A handful of authors have pieces in both books, which speaks to their expertise in the field of ethics. It should be noted that Patrick Plaisance, editor of Journal of Media Ethics, wrote a chapter on moral psychology in media for the Handbook, and I wrote a chapter on fake news and public trust in journalism for The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics. There is no doubt that both volumes make major contributions to the fields of media ethics and journalism ethics, and each will continue to inspire future scholars, students, and practitioners to be mindful, and sometimes critical, of how ethics plays out in theory and practice in contemporary society. After taking a deep dive into both books, I will be editing my graduate ethics syllabus to include multiple chapters from each book. Ward, S. J. A. (Ed.). (2021). Handbook of global media ethics. Springer.In the Handbook on Global Media Ethics, Stephen J. A. Ward, professor emeritus and Distinguished Lecturer on Ethics at the University of British Columbia, brings together a collection of entries that results in one of the first comprehensive research and teaching tools for the developing area of global media ethics. Ward worked with Prof. Clifford G. Christians, a team of seven editors, and 77 authors in dozens of countries to make this book a reality. The Handbook addresses all major approaches to global media ethics and contains contributions by leading, internationally recognized authors in the field of media ethics. According to Ward, the advent of new media that is global in reach and impact has created the need for journalism ethics that is global in principles and aims.The 70 chapters in the Handbook are divided into seven sections, each of which had editors who expertly developed their chapters, worked with authors, and wrote the section introductions. The first section, edited by Ward, sets the context for the field of global media ethics by providing 10 chapters on basic concepts and practical problems. Cliff Christians explains how section two, “contributes to the Handbook’s purpose by representing up-to-date reviews of the approaches taken to conceptual issues and to theory in global media ethics,” (p. 179). Section three tackles ethical issues presented by our ever-evolving sphere of digital and social media. Kathleen Bartzen Culver writes, “Through eight chapters covering an array of disparate technologies and questions, the section seeks to illuminate the reasoning and processes that can guide us through tumultuous times” (p. 425).The fourth section on global issues for global media was edited by Ian Richards. He notes that the list
{"title":"A Global Perspective on Ethics: New Resources for Teaching and Discussing Media Ethics and Journalism Ethics","authors":"K. Berg","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2021.2020257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2021.2020257","url":null,"abstract":"It is rare to have two edited volumes on media ethics published within a month of each other. Yet, The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics and the Handbook of Global Media Ethics were both released in fall 2021. Combined, they offer a comprehensive analysis of the state of global media ethics along with a global perspective on journalism ethics. A handful of authors have pieces in both books, which speaks to their expertise in the field of ethics. It should be noted that Patrick Plaisance, editor of Journal of Media Ethics, wrote a chapter on moral psychology in media for the Handbook, and I wrote a chapter on fake news and public trust in journalism for The Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics. There is no doubt that both volumes make major contributions to the fields of media ethics and journalism ethics, and each will continue to inspire future scholars, students, and practitioners to be mindful, and sometimes critical, of how ethics plays out in theory and practice in contemporary society. After taking a deep dive into both books, I will be editing my graduate ethics syllabus to include multiple chapters from each book. Ward, S. J. A. (Ed.). (2021). Handbook of global media ethics. Springer.In the Handbook on Global Media Ethics, Stephen J. A. Ward, professor emeritus and Distinguished Lecturer on Ethics at the University of British Columbia, brings together a collection of entries that results in one of the first comprehensive research and teaching tools for the developing area of global media ethics. Ward worked with Prof. Clifford G. Christians, a team of seven editors, and 77 authors in dozens of countries to make this book a reality. The Handbook addresses all major approaches to global media ethics and contains contributions by leading, internationally recognized authors in the field of media ethics. According to Ward, the advent of new media that is global in reach and impact has created the need for journalism ethics that is global in principles and aims.The 70 chapters in the Handbook are divided into seven sections, each of which had editors who expertly developed their chapters, worked with authors, and wrote the section introductions. The first section, edited by Ward, sets the context for the field of global media ethics by providing 10 chapters on basic concepts and practical problems. Cliff Christians explains how section two, “contributes to the Handbook’s purpose by representing up-to-date reviews of the approaches taken to conceptual issues and to theory in global media ethics,” (p. 179). Section three tackles ethical issues presented by our ever-evolving sphere of digital and social media. Kathleen Bartzen Culver writes, “Through eight chapters covering an array of disparate technologies and questions, the section seeks to illuminate the reasoning and processes that can guide us through tumultuous times” (p. 425).The fourth section on global issues for global media was edited by Ian Richards. He notes that the list","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"204 1","pages":"72 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89647555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：