27
The Second Question:
Why Not Follow the Rules?
Are there some precedents, guidelines, codes, or laws you should keep in mind? If so, are there
reasons your dilemma can’t be resolved by them?
hapters 2 and 3 help students take the first personal step toward doing ethics:
determining which rules may apply to the dilemma they defined in the first question,
and whether those rules should be followed. Parents, educators, ministers, the media,
to reinvent the wheel each time we take our ethics out for a spin. But we also should
remember that the rules may not be sufficient to solve our problems. The next chapters
show that:
It’s useful to start by thinking about the formalized rules that our government,
society, and mass media discipline have provided for us.
Codes of ethics have value but often don’t provide the specifics needed to make
C
28
Chapter 2
Codes of Ethics and Justification Models
t one level, Chapter 2 feels as if we’re asking students to walk out onto and investigate
some planks—and then rattling the planks to show just how untrustworthy they can be.
Those planks are the rules and codes of ethics supplied by mass communication
The chapter then provides students with a more secure footing when thinking about
ethics: justification models. The chapter introduces seven frameworks that help decision
makers formalize their thinking— three specific models for media practitioners and
four for general uses. We conclude with an extended discussion of the “Ws and H”
model that frames this book.
This chapter is the first of eight that conclude with new cases for journalism, online
media, public relations, advertising, and entertainment media. Each set of cases is
A
29
Learning Objectives
A successful discussion of Chapter 2 will lead students to understand:
That law and codes of ethics are necessary but not sufficient in “doing ethics.”
The varied purposes of codes and their varied audiences. It is further hoped
Teaching Suggestions
We suggest these activities:
1. Begin class with an example of two groups/people who do essentially the same
thing—but one person’s act is seen as morally neutral or even praiseworthy by some,
2. The goal is this exercise is for students to recognize that while both told “lies,”
one mass communicator’s untruth was seen more harshly precisely because of the rules
that communicator’s discipline have accepted as their norms. (This also is a foreshadow
30
of Chapter 3’s discussion of professionalism.)
3. Work through the chapter’s key points in a lecture/discussion. If using the
accompanying PowerPoint, they include:
c. A discussion of reasons for codes of ethics. (Codes help justify an
organization’s existence to society, offer the value of public relations [“we must be good
people; see, we have an ethics code”], and help offer trailheads to newcomers to the
organization.)
e. Working through a specific code of ethics that interests your students. (This
could be a group activity, with groups organized by type of major.) Ask students to
identify aspirational and minimal standards language, and see which one dominates. If
time permits, compare the types of codes.
g. Considering accountability and codes.
31
h. Discussing how codes can and cannot be enforced. (Aren’t employer-sponsored
codes, especially ones with minimal standards and rules, really just contracts that can
get you fired if you break the rules? How can you enforce an aspirational code? What
can the Society of Professional Journalists or Public Relations Society of America do if
you break a rule?)
4. Time permitting, work through a case at the end of Chapter 2 to see the
helpfulness of the ethics code(s) mentioned in the case.
This code-writing exercise offers a useful transition into the discussion of the nature of
professionalism. As part of the assignment, ask students whether they’d be willing to
show their codes to the rest of the class—and, if so, whether anonymously or by name.
What do their codes say about human nature? To whom is accountability owed in the
students’ codes?
Case Study Notes
Case 2.1) Journalism: The Club and Code
32
It also may be worth noting that the publisher and/or editor might ultimately make the
decision about pursuit and publication of the story, which has its own ethical
implications under the SPJ’s “Act independently” clause.
Case 2.2) New Media: Make a Link—or Not?
It also is worth asking students to compare the blogger’s code to the SPJ code on which
it is based. Does the SPJ code have a higher standard for accuracy? Are those two codes
in conflict?
For even more fun, let Margaret Dumont be an actress instead of a lame-duck senator
(and change other circumstances) to see whether the students’ standards change when
it’s a celebrity and not a political public figure.
Case 2.3) Public Relations: The Truth of “Left to Pursue Other Interests”
33
The Chapter 1 discussion of relationships comes into play because the PR practitioner is
in an assigned relationship as a bank employee. Might the decision be different if the
practitioner is in a contracted relationship, working as an outsider PR aid for the
company?
Case 2.4) Advertising: Does This Ad “Suck?”
It’s likely that the word “suck” won’t bother most students, so Questions 3 and 4 (about
different age groups’ reaction to the word) may be a place to start building empathy (or
at least concern about others.) Question 4’s discussion of whether children should hear
the word likely will turn into a discussion of “it’s the parents’ fault”—which, if you’re a
parent, might lead you to remind the students that they’ll find out the difficulties of
raising children in a media–saturated society when it’s their turn.
Case 2.5) Entertainment: So What’s Gratuitous Violence?
34
The last question—about how much responsibility a broadcaster has for the actions of
people who watch their shows—may be useful for an extended discussion. Or save it
for Chapter 5’s discussion on loyalties, in which students will be asked to identify
stakeholders that may not be readily apparent.