Ethical responsibility of the media

The first European Ethics Summit is being held in Brussels on August 29 and 30. It promises to be a unique event organised by the European Ethics Network and represents the first major collaboration between the EU's leading ethics associations such as EBEN (European Business Ethics Network), Societas Ethica (European Society for Research in Ethics), EurSafe (European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics), EACME (European Association of Centres of Medical Ethics) and members of the technology and ethics groups.

Today's society is marked by profound and rapid changes arising from new scientific, biotechnological, political and economic developments. Yet these developments cannot be allowed to suppress the never-ending search for a meaningful life.

The summit, entitled "Sustaining Humanity Beyond Humanism", aims at creating a scholarly conversation on new trans-disciplinary approaches to "the humanum".

Prior to the European Ethics Summit, what is termed as an EBEN Pre-Conference Event is being held to discuss Ethical Responsibility of the Media. It is being held on August 28 at the Royal Military Academy in Brussels.

The main question to be discussed in this afternoon seminar is "What is the specific ethical or social responsibility of news media corporations?"

The question is posed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. The discussion is meant to reflect on the business organisations that had such different approaches to conveying the 'global' event. It will therefore focus on the ethical issues arising from news broadcasting.

The theme is of universal import. Ethical issues have no frontiers. Citizens have the responsibility to gather information to form or review personal critical opinions. To do this they depend on the information made available to them by the media. And yet the information available to media corporations, transferable to the public and processed by the news recipients, is already limited.

So what information should be communicated, and how? This empirical and theoretical question is the muddy terrain in which media editors and managers are engaged, and to which the seminar will try to make some constructive contributions.

Three main areas of tension are being treated.

In the debate on the coverage of domestic or foreign news it is repeatedly noted that the Western media often downsize the importance of events such as natural disasters in developing countries.

On the contrary, they emphasise small-scale domestic news and incidents that are "close to the people".

Does the social responsibility of the media corporations extend to broadening the public's perspectives beyond national borders, whether or not the public expects that?

War reporting has become an everyday, almost routine affair. Who makes war happen? In countries where the governments are keen to please public opinion, news media that shape this opinion definitely contribute to the decision to engage or not in a war. The tension between audience records and manipulation of public opinion is even more disturbing in the light of the fact that news channels thrive on military conflicts.

The third item under discussion is the publication or broadcasting of news that are still not confirmed. Yesterday's news is passé. Media corporations are under pressure to win a scoop.

When there is no news to bring, the pressure to look for or even create news is strong. Both pressures can be detrimental to the quality of the information brought as 'news' to the public.

A first step towards quality assurance is reliance on trustworthy information sources. But how are these to be found, and checked? And if a media corporation is aware that its sources are not that reliable, to what extent should it caution its audience against lack of reliability?

It has to be acknowledged that the media editor and manager faces these and other dilemmas in a particular context which has to be taken into account in finding a satisfactory balance.

Competition between media groups has intensified and taken a globalised dimension. Is competitive pressure driving the media corporations towards higher quality? Would regulation of this sector ever become necessary?

And what would the consequences of such regulation be within the context of the freedom of the press that constitutes a pillar of democratic society?

The extent of events and facts that call for reporting, and which the reading or viewing public demand to be informed about, is placing the industry in tight financial conditions.

Shareholder pressure and the concentration in the industry forces many corporations to adopt a cost-cutting strategy and to reduce editorial staff. Salaried and experienced staff are often replaced by freelance reporters; this might affect quality and reliability.

As media corporations grow larger, and the media sector becomes more concentrated, the fate of these corporations is often intermingled, through complex ownership schemes, with the interests of political or industrial lobbies.

This constitutes a threat to the independence both of the media and of the journalists themselves. Can the media preserve their independence? Which, in its turn, brings about the question "Is 'neutrality' a requirement?"

Even when media corporations are independent, it is not obvious to what extent the editorial line should be neutral. Some 'independent' media corporations pursue an openly partisan line.

To what extent is neutrality required? To what extent is it even possible to claim neutrality and objectivity?

It is not by chance that the Position Paper being considered by the Malta Press Club does tread on this same ground. In Malta, too, we have to ask ourselves questions about media neutrality and independence.

We have to ask ourselves about reliability of information, especially when this comes from 'partisan' sources and may be tainted with adherence to party lines, in which case 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' are often at a premium.

Our public has also to be taught to discern "what to believe" and "what not to believe" not only in the local context but also in the international one.