![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to throw light on the implied and tacit moral philosophical features of rulings from an apparently effective and well-respected press council. Statements from the Norwegian Press Council are analyzed from the perspective of 3 ethical theories. The analysis shows that the institutionalized media ethics as presented by this authoritative body have distinct features of discourse ethics, while perspectives of virtue ethics are surprisingly absent. The Norwegian Press Council is preoccupied with procedural norms for the public discourse and pays less attention to the character of the journalist and the quality of the journalism. Some reflections in accordance with ethics of proximity can be traced in the council’s statements but take second place in relation to other considerations.
Notes
1. According to Claude-Jean Bertrand, a genuine press council normally appears in “a pluralistic democracy with developed media and truly professional journalists” (Bertrand, Citation2003, p. 117). In Europe, most countries today have an active Press Council. The Alliance of Press Councils of Europe numbers at present 32 national councils (www.aipce.net). The Alliance of Press Councils for the Asia and Pacific region was set up in 2012, backed by media leaders from 17 countries (http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/en/2012/ground-breaking-asia-media-forum-backs-ejn-campaign).
2. The construction of the self-regulation systems in the Scandinavian countries is not quite identical. The Norwegian Press Council, which is the subject of this study, consists of seven members, all of them appointed by the Press Association. Two of the members are journalists, two are editors (which gives the council a majority of professionals), and three are representatives from the general public.
3. telos (gr.). end, aim, goal.
4. In 1972, a substantial reorganization of the Press Council took place, and the year marks the beginning of a new epoch in the Council’s history. The period covered in the study ends in 2006, for practical reasons only, because of limits set by the project.
5. This is evident from the Council’s own statistics: http://presse.no/pfu/statistikk/
6. Norwegian Code of Ethics §§ 4.14 and 3.2.
7. See, for example, Norwegian Press Council Case 93-052, 97-131, 05-117.
8. Norwegian Press Council Case 87-085.
9. Norwegian Press Council Case 03-023, 04-202, 05-120 and 02-158.
10. “Phronesis” is the Aristotelian term for this prominent virtue, sometimes translated as “prudence.”
11. Every year, the Norwegian Press Council publishes statistics on complaints and convictions, disclosing who are “the bad guys” in the press.
12. Brurås & Røssland, 2000; Oltedal, 2001; Østnor & Lunde, Citation1998.
13. Norwegian Press Council Case 99-137.
14. Norwegian Press Council Case 97-111.
15. Norwegian Press Council Case 79-062.