23
Media Ethics and International Organizations
The leading question for this chapter is: have international organizations contributed to the codification and implementation of media ethics?
In other words, have international organizations played a role in the (moral) standard-setting for media performance and were they actors in the development of best moral practices for media performance? Answering this question demands first a clarification of the notion “media ethics.”
Ethics is often used interchangeably with morality but there are good arguments to distinguish between ethics and morality.
Morality refers to the set of moral standards (basic values and behavioral norms derived from these values) that are important to individuals and groups. Morality (often codified in laws and professional rules, but also to be found in unwritten codes of conduct) tells people how to behave. It helps them to distinguish between “good” and “bad” and it provides guidance in the moral choices that people make (almost permanently) in both their personal lives and in social settings.
Ethics refers to the philosophical discipline that reflects on morality. Ethics or “moral philosophy” addresses such basic, existential questions as “why be moral?” Ethics also explores different approaches (such as deontological, consequentialist, or discursive methods) to making moral choices and investigates methods for the justification of such choices.
I find the distinction between morality and ethics useful because it helps us to see that whereas “morality” tends to be strongly bound to historical times and places, “ethics” can evolve into a more global process of reflection on the significance of local moralities and possibly eventually lead us to a shared morality.
Therefore, in addition to the question about codification and implementation, there is the critical issue of whether international organizations act as open, public platforms for the reflection on moral standards for media performance and their related practices.
International Organizations
International organizations are those social institutions that states and nonstate parties have developed for the management of their crossborder affairs.
Although throughout human history people traded and fought and travelled great distances, most people stayed home.
For the longest period of world history the capacity to interact between remote places was very limited. Ideas and people have moved between ancient Rome and China of the Han-dynasty. Yet, contacts were so superficial that such interaction could remain unregulated. Even when in the seventeenth century an international system began to develop, the state of the world remained anarchic. Since the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which (together with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713) laid the basis for a Eurocentric international economy, contacts between European governments increased. Apart from the more than 60 wars fought between 1648 and 1800, most contacts were of a rather shallow and formal diplomatic nature. The bulk of contacts were in fact conducted through international traders and merchants. No institutional arrangement evolved to address issues stemming from the states’ international relations and indeed little need was felt to regulate these relations.
The Westphalian system of sovereign units had no common conventions or norms and rules. Equally the world outside Europe did not establish forms of multilateral politics for its international relations.1
The creation of international organizations that function as fora for multilateral policy making by states is typically a nineteenth century phenomenon. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth century the conduct of states remained largely defined by the narrow interests of nationalism and individualism. Although these interests continue to be forceful in the early twenty-first century, socioeconomic developments of the nineteenth century made states more aware of the need to regulate their relations. The “interaction capacity” (Buzan, 1993, p. 331) between states increased and the prevailing anarchy began to cause too much inconvenience. With more contact and more conflict between states a desire for minimal rules in such areas as the control of armed force emerged. A first clear point in time was the Vienna Congress of 1814/1815. This Congress established the rules for international diplomacy and agreed to meet at regular intervals in peacetime in order to prevent war.
The industrial revolution was an important factor in the increase of interaction capacity. With the development of mass production, improved communication and transport means, the growth of markets expanded within Europe and between Europe and other parts of the world. At the same time another revolution hit Europe. The French revolution fostered nationalism in Europe and reinforced the sovereignty of the nationstates. The two movements created a peculiar tension between rapidly increasing crossborder movements of goods, capital and people and the firm national control over these movements. The first multilateral institutions accommodated this tension by providing international interaction under norms and rules controlled by independent nation-states. These institutions were the Congress of Vienna, 1815, the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, and the administrative bodies that dealt with issue areas such as post, telegraph and intellectual property.
The nineteenth century also saw the rise of a considerable number of public and private multilateral associations.
All this international activity could not prevent World War I. At the end of this war the victorious states gathered in the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919 in order to create an international system that would employ peaceful means in the resolution of inter-state conflicts. An important task of the 1919 Peace conference was the establishment of multilateral institutional arrangements that could promote international cooperation and contribute to the achievement of peace and security. Basic was the desire to shape the kind of postwar international relations that could prevent a collapse of the international system into another devastating war. The most important multilateral institution was the League of Nations.2
Concerns About the Growth of the Mass Media
With the proliferation of printed and especially broadcast media (in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century) serious concerns about the social impact of the mass media emerged.
There was considerable excitement about the positive and constructive contribution of the media to peaceful international relations. Such positive expectations were expressed in the 1933 Convention for Facilitating the International Circulation of Films of an Educational Character. This Convention was signed at Geneva on October 11, 1933. The contracting parties to the Convention, which was registered with the secretariat of the League of Nations,3 considered the international circulation of educational films which contribute “towards the mutual understanding of peoples, in conformity with the aims of the League of Nations and consequently encourage moral disarmament” highly desirable. In order to facilitate the circulation of such films the signatories agreed to exempt their importation, transit, and exportation from all Customs duties and accessory charges of any kind.
There was however also a serious concern about the negative social impact of the mass media. A moral, educational concern was expressed regarding the spread across borders of obscene publications. This concern resulted in the adoption of the 1910 and 1924 treaties on traffic in obscene publications. The 1924 International Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications declared it a punishable offence “to make or produce or have in possession (for trade or public exhibition) obscene writings, drawings, prints, paintings, printed matter, pictures, posters, emblems, photographs, cinematograph films or any other obscene objects.” It was also punishable to import or export said obscene matters for trade or public exhibition and persons committing the offence “shall be amenable to the Courts of the Contracting Party in whose territories the offence … was committed.”
Concern about the negative impact of the mass media also arose from the increasing use of the mass media (in the course of the nineteenth century) as instruments of foreign diplomacy. Although this was particularly the case with the newspapers, the development of wireless radio did significantly increase the potential for this new form of diplomacy. Increasingly diplomats shifted from traditional forms of silent diplomacy to a public diplomacy in which the constituencies of other states were directly addressed. In most cases this in fact amounted to the propagandistic abuse of the radio. During World War I an extensive use was made of the means of propaganda. This psychological warfare continued after the war had ended and international short wave radio began its proliferation.
In the immediate postwar period the League of Nations initiated discussions about the contribution of the international press to peace. The underlying concern with the role of the press in international relations found expression in a resolution that was adopted on September 25, 1925 by the Assembly of the League of Nations. This resolution called for a committee of experts representing the press of the different continents “with a view to determining methods of contributing towards the organization of peace, especially: (a) by ensuring the more rapid and less costly transmission of press news with a view to reducing risks of international misunderstanding; and (b) by discussing all technical problems the settlement of which would be conducive to the tranquillisation of public opinion” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 71). The resolution referred to the press as “the most effective means of guiding public opinion towards that moral disarmament which is a concomitant condition of material disarmament.”
In August 1927 the League convened a first conference of press experts in Geneva to deal with such problems as the provision of information that would “calm down public opinion in different countries” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 54). The conference made the appeal to the press “to contribute by every means at its disposal to the consolidation of peace, to combat hatred between nationalities and between classes which are the greatest dangers to peace, and to prepare the way for moral disarmament.” In September 1931 the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted a resolution that requested the Council of the League, to consider the possibility of studying with the help of the Press, “the difficult problem of the spread of information which may threaten to disturb the peace or the good understanding between nations.” The increasing concern of the League for moral disarmament evidently reflected the actual historical developments of the period, such as the emergence of Nazism in Germany.
When the World Disarmament Conference opened in February 1932 the press was given great importance in moving public opinion towards moral disarmament.
A second conference with press experts was convened in Copenhagen (1932) and one of its resolutions addressed among other issues the problem of inaccurate news. Following the Copenhagen conference a conference of governmental press bureaux and representatives of the press was held in Madrid in November, 1933. This conference adopted a resolution on the right to correct false information.
In 1931 the League of Nations decided to ask the Institute for Intellectual Cooperation (the predecessor of UNESCO) to conduct a study on all questions raised by the use of radio for good international relations. In 1933 the study was published “Broadcasting and Peace”) and it recommended the drafting of a binding multilateral treaty. Under the war threat emanating from Germany after 1933 the treaty was indeed drafted and concluded in 1936 on September 23, with the signatures from 28 states. The fascist states did not participate. The International Convention concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace entered into force on April 2, 1938 after ratification or accession by nine countries, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Australia. Basic to the provisions of the Convention was the recognition of the need to prevent, through rules established by common agreement, broadcasting from being used in a manner prejudicial to good international understanding. These agreed upon rules included the prohibition of transmissions which could incite the population of any territory “to acts incompatible with the internal order or security of contracting parties” or which were likely to harm good international understanding by incorrect statements. The contracting parties also agree to ensure “that any transmission likely to harm good international understanding by incorrect statements shall be rectified at the earliest possible moment.” In 1994 the Convention was still in force and had been ratified by 26 member states of the United Nations.
The development of industrialization and urbanization in late-nineteenth-century Europe brought about important social changes. A modern society was constructed with “a new sense of self, of subjectivity and individuality” (Eyerman, 1992, p. 38). This modern society gave rise to the emergence of a multitude of voluntary, nonstate associations, such as the trade unions.
In the negotiations leading towards the first multilateral agreements on media and telecommunication these non state actors played an important role.
Nongovernmental Organizations
Towards the end of the nineteenth century the increasingly international character of journalism stimulated the organization of journalists across national borders. In a number of European capitals associations of foreign correspondents were founded and in 1893 the first international press congress took place in Chicago. Among the topics addressed by the congress participants was the international role of the press. The following year an international congress at Antwerp (1894) established the first international organization, the International Union of Press Associations (IUPA). The congress, taking place from July 7 to 12, 1894 was attended by journalists, press owners and associations, and publishers from 17 countries (almost all from Europe). The IUPA was to address many different issues, such as property rights, work on Sundays, women’s emancipation, wages, working conditions, professional training, professional ethics, and the problems of international dissemination of false news and war propaganda.
In the early 1920s many new international organizations were set up, the IUPA became marginalized and held its last assembly in 1936.
Meanwhile the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers Associations (FIADEJ) had been established in 1933 (which was after World War II was replaced by the International Federation of Editors of Journals and Publications (FIEJ) ). Other organizations that appeared in this period were the International Association of Journalists accredited to the League of Nations in 1921, the International Sporting Press Association (ISPA) in 1924, the International Federation of the Periodic Press (IFPP) in 1925, and the International Catholic Union of the Press (UCIP) in 1927.
In 1926 the French Journalists’ Syndicate took the initiative for the establishment of an international organization of journalists. At a conference in Paris (June 1926) it was decided that this organization would be formally constituted as the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) by a congress in Geneva at the International Labor Office (ILO) headquarters. This congress took place in September 1926 and was attended by journalist organizations from several European countries and representatives of the ILO, the League of Nations, and the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation.
In 1926 the League of Nations had commissioned the ILO to study the working conditions of journalists. When this study was published in 1928 (“Conditions of Work and Life of Journalists”) it pointed among others to “an evil from which journalism has suffered since its beginnings, but which was becoming more and more threatening as the profession developed – incoherence, arbitrariness, the absence of a code which would define rights and duties, and which would introduce a little order, and at the same time a little justice, in the conditions in which this great modern profession is unfolding. The absence of a code, which is beginning to be remedied in certain countries, is a veritable anachronism” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 95). The second congress of the IFJ in November 1928 at Dijon discussed the establishment of an international tribunal of honor for journalists and decided to mandate the permanent commission to elaborate a professional code and to set up a tribunal of honor (Kubka and Nordenstreng. 1986, p. 60). The next year the IFJ executive committee discussed at length the principles to guide the tribunal (October 1929, Antwerp) and at the third IFJ congress the establishment of the tribunal was a key item on the agenda. The Berlin congress of 1930 adopted a fundamental declaration with the principles for the judgments by the tribunal. The preamble referred to the wish to create an institution which contributes to establish and maintain a good understanding among peoples, to uplift the professional dignity by prescribing for journalists special duties, and to secure the legitimate rights of the members of the professional organizations. Next to the declaration a procedural code was adopted formulating the rules of dispute settlement by the tribunal. “The International Journalists’ Tribunal of Honour” was solemnly inaugurated at the Hague (in the Palace of Peace) on October 12, 1931. In his inaugural address the president of the Tribunal, the Dutch jurist B.C.J. Loder mentioned that the “great danger for the people, even in our modern times, the source of many of their conflicts is that they do not know each other, do not understand each other, that they see only that what divides them instead of being aware of that what could unite them” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 68). The tribunal consisted of a president, a vice president, two permanent judges, four alternate judges, a public prosecutor, and two alternates. The tribunal was to deal with disputes relating to honor which might arise between journalists of different nationalities, or between a journalist and a nonjournalist of different nationalities.
In 1937 the issue of a deontological code was on the agenda and the seventh and last FIJ congress in 1939 at Bordeaux adopted a “Professional Code of Honour for Journalists.”
Also the organization of publishers was concerned about the issue of professional responsibility and especially about the spreading of false information. It drafted a convention in 1933 that included the immediate correction of false news. By 1938 the convention was adhered to by member associations from eight countries.
The origins of concern with the social responsibility of the mass media are found in the late-nineteenth century. They were related to the emergence of journalism as an independent profession in this period. The emergence of the culture of professionalism in Europe stemmed from the rise of the middle class in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This class resisted the aristocracy and needed, in this struggle, emancipatory symbols. Such a symbol was the existence of a class of independent professionals. The idea of the independent profession proliferated rapidly in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century in such fields as medicine, law, and the clergy. Journalism also developed as a profession. For many professions the formulation of an ethical code meant the recognition of autonomy and public status. Out of the development of professionalism grew the ethics of journalism. The first formal ethical code was probably formulated by newspaper publishers in Kansas in 1910. The oldest international code of conduct for journalists was probably the “Code of Journalistic Ethics” adopted by the first Pan-American Press Conference at Washington in 1926. This Code was confirmed in October 1950, at New York, by the Inter-American Press Conference as the guideline for the IAPA (Inter-American Press Association). The International Federation of Journalists made serious attempts at professional self-regulation through the adoption of a professional code of honor in 1939. Other professional organizations also adopted principles of conduct, such as the International Union of Press Associations in 1936. In the mid-1920s the International Federation of Journalists asked the League of Nations and the International Labour Office (with the International Association of Journalists accredited to the League) to study the position of journalists throughout the world in regard of their material conditions of work and in terms of professional status and social responsibilities.
All these developments ended temporarily when World War II began.
Developments since 1945
After World War II the international community established the system of the United Nations and its specialized organizations. Among them the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) became particularly relevant for standard-setting in the media field.
An important contribution to international standard-setting was also offered by a rapidly growing group of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). These INGOs were partly really international in terms of membership and activities, partly they were nationally-based but with activities that had an international impact. Obviously, they did not have the legal power to issue binding decisions, but they could influence the policy making processes of the intergovernmental organizations as expert groups or as lobbying agents. They also defined standards for their own conduct with political significance beyond the members of the group they represented. Illustrations are the efforts of the international professional bodies in journalism to arrive at a self-regulatory code of conduct, or the self-regulatory codes that are adopted by the International Public Relations Association and the International Advertising Association.
Focus on Freedom and Responsibility of the Media
The international debates on freedom of information have always had an association with reflections and viewpoints on the social responsibility of the media of mass communication. The key normative provisions on freedom of information permit freedom of expression “without fetters,” but also bind this to other human rights standards. The clear recognition of the right to freedom of information as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was positioned in a standard-setting instrument that also asked for the existence of an international order in which the rights of the individual can be fully realized (Article 28). This implies that the right to freedom of information is linked with the concern for a responsible use of international media. This linkage laid the basis for a controversy in which one position emphasized the free flow principle, whereas another position stressed the social duty principle.
Already the UNESCO Constitution, adopted in 1945, contained the tension between the two approaches. It accepted the principle of a free exchange of ideas and knowledge, but it also stressed the need to develop and use the means of communication toward a mutual understanding among nations and to create an improved factual knowledge of each other. The two approaches can also be seen in the postwar development of the professional field. On March 26, 1946 the IFJAFC convened a World Congress of Journalists that was held at Copenhagen, June 3–9, 1946. This congress was attended by some 165 delegates from 21 countries. In the invitation letter the Executive Committee of the IFJAFC indicated among the purposes of the congress, “to discuss methods of assuring the freedom of the press” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 10). The discussions largely focused on the establishment of a new international professional organization, a provisional constitution was unanimously adopted and the International Organization of Journalists was created. Special attention was given to the debate on the liberty of the press and at the end of the Congress a Statement of Principle on the freedom of the press was adopted. “The International Congress of Journalists affirms that freedom of the press is a fundamental principle of democracy and can function only if channels of information and the means of dissemination of news are made available to all” (Kubka and Nordenstreng, 1986, p. 115). The Statement stressed “the responsibility of every working journalist to assist by every means in his power the development of international friendship and understanding and instructed the Executive Committee to examine the various codes of professional ethics adopted by national bodies, particularly in respect of any journalist deliberately and knowingly spreading – whether by press or radio or news agencies – false information designed to poison the good relations between countries and peoples.”
The social duty dimension was even stronger present in the resolution on press and peace that stated that “this congress considers the cementing of lasting international peace and security the paramount aim of humanity, and calls upon all the 130,000 members of the IOJ to do their utmost in support of the work of international understanding and co-operation entrusted to the United Nations.” The provisional constitution, read under aims and objectives:
Article 2. (a) Protection by all means of all liberty of the press and of journalism. The defence of the people’s right to be informed honestly and accurately. (b) Promotion of international friendship and understanding through free interchange of information.
As the Cold War was already warming up by 1948 the social duty principle and the free flow principle collided in the early UN debates largely as East/West ideological confrontations. For instance in the General Assembly of 1947 the Yugoslav delegation proposed legislation to “restrict false and tendentious reports calculated to aggravate relations between nations, provoke conflicts and incite to war.” This was unacceptable to the Western delegations and eventually a compromise text (proposed by France) was adopted that recommended the study of measures, “to combat, within the limits of constitutional procedures, the publication of false or distorted reports likely to injure friendly relations between states” (UNGA, Resolution. 127(II) ).
After 1948 the principles of freedom of information and social responsibility largely followed separate paths and could be found as separate provisions in standard-setting instruments that were adopted since 1948. Some instruments also linked the two principles, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the UNESCO Mass Media Declaration (1978). Article 19 of the Covenant, for example, acknowledges the freedom of information, whereas article 20 states important restrictions, “Any war propaganda shall be prohibited by law … Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
After World War II the 1948 UN Conference on Freedom of Information at Geneva articulated normative prescriptions for the conduct of the mass media. After the Conference the United Nations Sub-Commission on Freedom of Information and of the Press became involved in a very extensive attempt at the formulation and adoption of a professional code of conduct.
In 1950 a group of experts serving on the Sub-Commission drafted an international code of ethics that was sent by the UN Secretary General to some 500 professional organizations in the mass media field. Based on the replies which in majority indicated that respondents thought a code would be useful, the Sub-Commission produced a second draft which it submitted (in 1952) to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC). In the same year the Council adopted the draft international code of ethics as resolution 442B (IV). The Code proposed that media should strive towards factual accuracy, should desist from willful slander, plagiarism, calumny, and libel, be responsible and devote themselves to the public interest. The Draft International Code of Ethics was sent to professional associations and mass media enterprises. Commercial organizations such as the Motion Pictures Association of America and the US National Conference of Business Paper Editors had no objections to the code. Also in 1952 the UN General Assembly called upon media professionals to arrange for a conference to elaborate the draft and to discuss its implementation (UNGA Res. 635 (VII) and 736 (VII) ). No further action was taken and the proposed Code never developed beyond its draft status.
Also in the 1970s UNESCO entered the debates on journalistic ethics. The organization convened a consultation on ethical principles in 1973 and a consultative meeting with working journalists in 1978.
Discrimination
An important provision in international law that affects the social performance of the mass media concerns discrimination. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains next to the propaganda provisions, a paragraph that states, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This was even stronger formulated in Article 4 of the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (adopted as UNGA Resolution 2106 A(XX), December 21, 1965). Here “all dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin” was declared a criminal offence. Essential to this provision is that states are also required (in Article 4b.) to declare organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination illegal. The UNESCO 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice mentioned in this context the mass media specifically in Article 5. The Declaration provides a strong prescription for media conduct as it urges the “mass media and those who control or serve them” to “promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among individuals and groups and to contribute to the eradication of racism, racial stereotyped, partial, unilateral or tendentious picture of individuals and of various human groups.” The mass media are also told to be “freely receptive to ideas of individuals and groups which facilitate communication between racial and ethnic groups.”
The UNESCO Mass Media Declaration
The issue of racial discrimination was also addressed in the most extensive regulatory instrument to address the concern for social responsibility in the mass media, the UNESCO Mass Media Declaration. This Declaration originated from the 19th General Conference of UNESCO (in 1979 in Nairobi) when a first multilateral discussion about a draft declaration on fundamental principles governing the use of the mass media in strengthening peace and international understanding and in combating war propaganda, racialism and apartheid, took place. The heart of the controversy at that meeting was a proposed Article XII of the draft declaration which stated “States are responsible for the activities in the international sphere of all mass media under their jurisdiction.” For many member states this reference to state responsibility suggested the possibility of state control over the mass media. Also the phrasing on “the use of the mass media” in the title of the draft declaration was deemed unacceptable. In particular for Western member states this meant that standards would be set for the mass media by users and among those users states could play a prominent and potentially dangerous role. The draft declaration that was proposed at the 19th General Conference had been adopted in 1975 during an experts’ conference. The Group of Nine EC countries (the Federal Republic of Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) had walked away in protest from this meeting. For them the text was unacceptable because of its reference to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 on Zionism as a form of racism and because of the fact that the state was accorded an important role with regard to the mass media. During the General Conference of 1976 there were three positions.
For the Western countries, Japan and some Latin American countries the draft declaration was totally unacceptable. Several delegations from the East-European countries pushed for the adoption of the draft declaration. A group of African and Asian countries supported the draft declaration but did plead for postponement in order to design a new text with better chances for consensus.
The decision taken in Nairobi referred the draft to the Director General and the General Conference invited him “to hold further broad consultations with experts with a view to preparing a final draft declaration which could meet the largest possible measure of agreement … and to submit such a draft declaration to member states at the end of 1977 or early in 1978.” It was also decided to establish a commission for “a comprehensive study on the problems of communication in the modern world.” This became the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, usually called after its chairman Sean MacBride, the MacBride Commission. During the 20th General Conference of UNESCO in 1978 in Paris the amended draft declaration was unanimously adopted as “Declaration on fundamental principles concerning the contribution of the mass media to strengthening peace and international understanding, the promotion of human rights and to countering racialism, apartheid and incitement to war.”
The Conference also adopted a resolution aiming at practical recommendations concerning the Mass Media Declaration. The resolution proposed the holding of a congress to discuss the application of the declaration and was accepted with 61 votes in favor (the socialist and developing countries), one vote against (Switzerland) and 26 abstainers (all of them Western countries). During the 1980s there was no follow-up to the Declaration.
An attempt was made cojointly by the leading journalists’ bodies, the IFJ and the IOJ, to arrange an international congress to discuss the declaration. Largely due to the unwillingness to cooperate expressed by the International Federation of Editors of Journals (FIEJ) and the International Press Institute (IPI) the meeting never took place.
Nongovernmental Actors
In the nongovernmental community the two main professional bodies in journalism did address issues of social responsibility.
The IFJ (founded in 1952) adopted in 1954 at its Second Congress in Bordeaux, an International Code of Ethics, The Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists. This “Bordeaux declaration” stated among its principles, “The journalist only accepts, professionally, while recognizing the acknowledged right of every country, the jurisdiction of his equals, to the exclusion of any other interference, governmental or other.”
The IOJ adopted at its various international conferences resolutions that articulated the organization’s concern about journalistic ethics.
In 1956, a meeting organized by the IOJ at Helsinki (June 10–15) was attended by 200 journalists from 62 countries who adopted among other resolutions a statement on professional ethics. This read in part “The journalist profession imposes a great moral responsibility on those that exercise it. It demands that he acts in accordance with the aspirations of peoples for peace, mutual understanding and cooperation. Reporting must be truthful and impartial in order to help people understand events taking place in the world and in their countries. A journalists’ professional ethics requires him to work for a better future for mankind, for peace and for social progress and to oppose war propaganda…. We believe the ethics of journalism requires every journalist to fight against the distortion of the truth and to oppose all attempts at falsification, misinformation and slander…. He should support freedom of the press in those countries where it is restricted, should oppose mass communication media monopolies that hamper the discharge of his duty, should protect against the persecution of journalists, their imprisonment, the banning of newspapers and discriminatory press legislation.”
The second meeting of journalists organized by the IOJ in Baden-Baden, October 1960 stated “We are convinced that professional ethics imply, at the present time, the duty of every journalist not to tolerate the distortion of the truth and to take a stand against all attempts at falsification of information and slander. Each journalist should be aware of the responsibility which rests with him. All journalists should safeguard professional ethics and morality.”
From the UNESCO consultative meeting with working journalists in April, 1978, in Paris emerged the so called Consultative Club. This was a network of professional organizations that regularly convened to discuss matters of professional importance, such as ethics.
Meetings took place in Mexico City (1980), Baghdad (1982), Prague and Paris (1983), Geneva (1985), Brussels and Sofia (1986), Cairo and Tampere (1987), and Prague (1988).
The Club met under UNESCO auspices, but without direct involvement of the organization. It also liaised with the International Labour Office (ILO) and the International Committee of the Red Cross. At the first meeting it was agreed “to examine possible common grounds for a definition of basic ethical principles of the journalistic profession.” At the second meeting in Mexico this examination produced a draft document that was adopted by the representatives of the attending organizations as the “Mexico Declaration.”4 The meeting also appointed a working group with the brief to produce a draft international code of ethics. In its preparatory work the working group changed the notion of an international code to a set of ethical principles. It seemed to the group that the concept of code was more adequate for national or regional efforts than for an international type agreement. The group retained the basic structure of the Mexico Declaration and presented a draft at the Prague meeting of 1983. As a result of some reservations expressed by the IFJ it was decided to postpone a final decision on the document till the consultative meeting to be held late 1983 in Paris. The Paris meeting, after more amendments, decided to adopt the text even in the absence of the IFJ.
Self-regulation
The professional organizations have by and large preferred self-regulatory measures over public regulation. Voluntary professional regulation has found expression in codes of conduct, but also in the establishment of national press councils (for example in Australia, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) which hear complaints from individuals about the performance of the press. Some countries developed in addition to the press council the institute of a Press Ombudsman (Sweden) who may arbitrate in conflicts between the public and the press, in other countries the newspapers themselves have their own ombudsman (for example in Canada). Guidance for decisions about complaints is often provided by the standards articulated in professional codes of conduct. It is common that the outcome of the council’s proceedings is the obligation for papers to publish its decisions.
The effectiveness of self-regulation is dependent upon the compliance by the offenders. It remains a voluntary arrangement with no formal obligations towards the complainants.
Other Media Products
The concern with social responsibility has to a large extent addressed the issue of international news provision. This should however not obscure the fact that also other media products have given rise to a similar concern. This can be illustrated in the fields of advertising, consumer information, and public relations.
When in the late-nineteenth century advertising emerged as an industry, it confronted suspicion and opposition. There were accusations of distortion, waste of resources, and the creation of false needs. The establishment of active consumer groups in many countries led to self-regulation of the industry. In many countries national advertising industries developed their own self-regulatory structures and mechanisms. In spite of the fact that advertising was becoming a global business, very little effort developed to align self-regulatory policies across national borders. Probably, the first international attempt was made in 1911 at the Convention of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the World at New York City. This was the Truth in Advertising Resolution. The first comprehensive self-regulatory code was formulated in 1937 by the International Chamber of Commerce (revised in 1973). Among the standards the Code sets are “All advertising should be legal, decent, honest, and truthful … Every advertisement should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility…. No advertisement should be such as to impair public confidence in advertising.” The ICC has played a very active role in the past decades to coordinate efforts “to establish a common ground upon which national systems of marketing self-regulation may be based. It has sought to outline the principles and to encourage business communities in many countries to set up the machinery for their observance” (Neelankavil and Stridsberg, 1980, p. 7). Efforts at self-regulation have generally been seen by the industry as an attractive way “to protect both the consuming public against deceptive advertising and themselves against unfair competition on the one hand and overzealous government regulatory bodies on the other” (Neelankavil and Stridsberg, 1980, p. 2).
Also in the field of consumer information the need for guidelines arose. Increasing pressure was mounted by consumer organizations to provide information in a responsible manner. Important steps were the unanimous adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in 1981 and the listing a year later (1982) of products harmful to health and the environment. The increasing concern with consumer information was strongly motivated by accidents due to deficient product information, including instructions for use. The British Medical Jourmal has claimed (2001) that a lack of data on underlying causes, incidence, prevalence, long-term consequences and costs of injury results in “patchy and often ineffectual efforts to prevent injury.”
Like in the advertising field the world’s Public Relations professionals also felt the need of self regulation. On May 12, 1965 the General Assembly of the International PR Association (IPRA) adopted an International Code of Ethics at Athens. This so called Code of Athens (which was modified on April 17, 1968 at Teheran) provided that all IPRA members would observe in the course of professional duties the moral principles and rules of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Members would also refrain from “taking part in any venture or undertaking which is unethical or dishonest or capable of impairing human dignity and integrity.” The preamble of the Code refers to the issue of social responsibility by stating that Public Relations practitioners can substantially help to meet social needs.
European Convention on Human Rights
In the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) an essential standard for media behavior is codified in Article 10 on the freedom of information. Part of this article reads “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
In the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights this article constructs a right to receive information and ideas, not just broadcast signals and it imposes upon broadcasters the duty to accommodate this receivers’ right. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court the European citizen has the right to be properly informed. In several opinions the Court has stated that not only do the mass media have a right to impart information, they have the task “to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest,” and the public has a right to receive such information and ideas. The European Court has ruled that the media are purveyors of information and public watchdog. This matches the classical opinion of the US Supreme Court in the Red Lion Broadcasting v. the FCC in 1969: “the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of broadcasters is paramount.”
Another example is the variety of rules on a right of reply in different legislations. These rules vary from the entitlement to respond to critical opinions to a right of reply to factual allegations. In countries that recognize this provision the reply is usually published in the offending newspaper. If newspapers refuse this, the persons who feel wronged may in some countries (for example in France and Spain) seek redress through the assistance of a court of law
World Summit on the Information Society
In 2003 (Geneva) and 2005 (Tunis) the United Nations convened a world summit on the information society (WSIS). The two gatherings of the Summit focused primarily on technology issues and offered little, if anything, in terms of guidance for or reflection upon media performance. During the preparatory meetings there were some (sometimes heated) exchanges about the media, but the summit never became a platform to discuss the key moral issues confronting the media in the twenty-first century.
Conclusion
The international community (both governmental and nongovernmental organizations) has produced a fairly large volume of moral standards for media practices and has codified them in both binding law and voluntary self-imposed codes.
There are standards for media performance that address among others the freedom of information, the protection of privacy, discrimination, incitement to violence, presumption of innocence, propaganda, and exposure of prisoners of war. However impressive all this rule-setting may be most of it remains largely ineffective. In relation to media practices the international community faces a problem similar to most other social domains: the absence or weakness of tools of implementation.
With regard to the performance of media it is ironic that robust mechanisms of rule implementation would have caused great risks to the professional autonomy of media practitioners. The final adjudication of the (non)enforcement of rules almost inevitably implies a degree of arbitrariness and thus a space for the abuse of rules, certainly in case governmental organizations are involved.
Serious problems also occur in the case of professional voluntarily accepted rules of conduct. Codes of conduct fulfill important purposes, such as the identification of an autonomous professional community. They provide a common set of moral rules for the members of a profession which contribute to the credibility of their professional performance. A code of conduct tells clients what quality to expect from the professional conduct.
Codes can be a starting point for ethical inquiry, but – given the variety of choice-situations and the almost inevitable general nature of their rules – they are not likely to produce concrete moral guidance. Prescriptions in a Code suggest an almost universal applicability which is of course not realistic since actors, situations, and interests differ greatly over time and place.
Codes tend to reflect the “common sense morality” that most people will share anyway and – as a result – they are rather superfluous for most day-to-day moral choices. A professional code of conduct may tell the professional what the collective consensus of colleagues is but it does not help in knowing what to do in a concrete case. The Code may proscribe the receiving of bribes, but it does not tell whether accepting a special gift in a special situation is alright.
It is rather pointless to present prescriptions as general principles for professional conduct without explaining how these principles have to be applied in concrete choice situations.
In the daily practice of moral decision making a growing scepsis emerged about the usefulness of the conventional theories in the resolution of moral choices in real-life situations. Concrete experiences in such fields as medical and business ethics have led “to a serious if not widespread erosion of confidence in the power of normative theory to decisively guide the resolution of real practical problems” (Winkler and Coombs, 1993, p. 3). In the quest for a more adequate approach it has been proposed to conceive of morality as “an evolving social instrument” that is part of a specific cultural context (Winkler and Coombs, 1993, p. 3). This suggests a contextual approach to moral decision-making which “adopts the general idea that moral problems must be resolved within the interpretive complexities of concrete circumstances” (Winkler and Coombs, 1993, p. 4).
In the contextualist approach the moral argument begins casuistically with the concrete choice-situation and moves towards a selection of applicable moral principles. From this perspective, a primary task in the situation of choice is the precise interpretation of the moral issue at stake. The first step is the attempt to understand in detail what the basic choice is in a concrete case.
In the course of this inductive moral reasoning, questions are asked about the institutional setting and the cultural context in which choice-situations are located. In this connection questions are also asked about the consequences of different choices (what benefits versus which damages, who are winners versus losers) and about the interests that are at stake.
Contextualism offers the possibility of a more eclectic model in which the ethical dialogue moves back and forth between general moral principles and specific details of choice-situations. This dialogical type of ethics views the resolution of moral choice-situations as a mutual learning experience. It is a process in which people learn from each other, listen to the outsider and try to understand the rationale of the outsider. In the ethical dialogue people also discover that the moral practices of “us” are not always morally defensible and that those by “them” are not always morally despicable. The attempt to understand different moral premises and conclusions may lead to feelings of mutual respect in spite of fundamental disagreement.
Over the years there have been inspiring and fascinating debates about best (and worst) media practices in a variety of public fora such as the UN institutions and the professional associations. However, there never was the concrete effort to develop an international platform for ethical reflection: a place where the global ethical dialogue among those involved (policymakers, regulators, practitioners, and audiences) could be conducted.
If such a place had been established, the dialogue would not depart from a consensus on fundamental moral values, but would work on the basis of an agreement on common procedure to seek those solutions to moral dispute that optimally accommodate the parties’ interests and principles. In the dialogue moral choice is conceived as a reiterative and dynamic process since situations and moral standards change over time and space. There are no single good answers to the questions media ethics raises. However, in the process, growing consensus on what constitutes best practices could emerge.
More important than the development of institutional tools for the implementation of standard-setting in the field of the media is indeed the issue of ethical reflection on professional media morality.
The emergence of a global communication ethics needs an independent global forum for permanent dialogue among professionals and users to identify common ground and common sense for “best media practices.”
Notes
1 An exception may be found in the ancient Greek councils that established multilateral cooperative arrangements in order to prevent warfare between the participating parties.
2 Copies of League of Nations/ United Nations Treaties are available at http://untreaty.un.org/English/CTC/CTC_04.asp (accessed June 30, 2010)
3 Signatories of the treaty establishing the League of Nations were the United States, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, the British Empire, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hejaz, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Siam, and Uruguay.
4 Participating international organizations in the Mexico Declaration were the International Organization of Journalists, the Latin American Federation of Journalists, the International Catholic Union of the Press, the Latin American Federation of Press Workers, the Federation of Arab Journalists, the Union of African Journalists and the Confederation of ASEAN Journalists.
References
British Medical Journal (2001) Editorial: The continuing global challenge of injury, June 30, 322. 1557–1588, www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7302/1557 (accessed July 20, 2010).
Buzan, B. (1993) From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47 (3), 327–351.
Eyerman, R. (1992) Modernity and social movement, in Social Change and Modernity, (eds H.Haferkamp and N.J.Smelser), University of California, Berkeley, pp. 37–54.
Kubka, J., and Nordenstreng, K. (1986) Useful Recollections, Part I, International Organization of Journalists, Prague.
Neelankavil, J.P., and Stridsberg, A.B. (1980) Advertising Self-Regulation: A Global Perspective, Hastings House, New York.
Winkler, E.R., and Coombs, J.R. (eds) (1993) Applied Ethic, Blackwell, Oxford.