Ethics

This week's lecture started off a little differently than other lectures, we got pieces of paper where on we are supposed to decide if the ads that they were going to show us, were ethical, unethical or in good taste or in bad taste. And then we proceeded to see some very dodgy ads, mostly questionable because of their sexual innuendo's. Here are some of the ads we looked at:

It was actually an extremely interesting exercise, because I found it extremely difficult to pin point if the reason the ad is a bit uncomfortable, is because it is in bad taste or unethical. And sometimes I did not think, personally, there was anything wrong with it, but I knew why it would be questionable.

Which kind of demonstrates the point- everyone will see things differently. What I deem as inappropriate is very different to what other people might see. There was one ad we looked at, an ad about lamb chops that was banned. It feature Sam Kekovich making a political style speech about being 'truly Aussie':

(http://youtu.be/tt8wZ-xTKAU)

Now, I know that many people think it is funny or clever, because of it's exaggeration or for some unknown reason. But I HATE this ad. It makes me want to leave Australia on the first possible flight, and become a vegan just to spite the makers of this ad. Everything that it uses to make it funny, just makes me angry. I think it is because I am not Australian, and every day I have to adjust to this other culture. And what makes me like Australia is that it is so multi-cultural. But there are still people who think that it is alright to blame me for being different in the ways that I do things, and this ad reminds me of those people. It pretty much sums up everything I hate about Australia.

This ad is a prime example of how subjective ethics and taste can be. No one will agree on things if they all have different backgrounds and experiences. Which is why there are ethics codes.

The ethics codes are based on deontology- that there are rules to follow that show you what is right or wrong. The other options are consequentialism (that the ends justify the means, and what do you do fine as long as it ends up being the right thing) and virtue ethics (based on good character and virtue).

I understand what John Harrison meant when he said that it is better to have ethics based on virtue. And in a perfect, Utopian society, I agree. Things are not really black and white, and for every situation the right thing is different. But we don't live in a Utopian society. Not all people have moral values. Not everyone has the same idea of what is good and bad. People are too different, and unfortunately, too bad to let everyone follow their own moral compass when it comes to journalism. I honestly think that having ethics codes are the only practical solution.

I read an article about a journalist, Johann Hari, who wrote in his column how he had been unethical in his writing. He followed to say how he had taken words and quotes from other sources to help him write the whatever story he was writing about an interview when he did not have the right material.

"At the time, I justified this to myself by saying I was giving the clearest possible representation of what the interviewee thought, in their most considered and clear words."

(the whole story can be found at http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/09/unethical-journalism)

This is a prime example of how what YOU might think is right, really is not. And the ethics code would make this transparent.