Scholarship in this issue of the journal reflects the important roles that both descriptive and prescriptive work plays in the field of media ethics. Kevin Healey and Robert Woods seek to dissect some increasingly controversial ideological assumptions of what’s called the Silicon Valley “moral catechism.” In collapsing the distinctions between important concepts such as processing and judgment, our technologically deterministic narratives exacerbate inequality and inappropriately cede moral and social gatekeeping functions to Google and other tech conglomerates, the authors argue. Brett Johnson presents an argument that social media companies and other “digital intermediaries” must take a stance of more active accountability regarding user-generated content. He offers an examination of the philosophical rationales behind the seemingly conflicting duties of minimizing harm from speech and promoting healthy democratic discourse. Serena Daalmans and her colleagues offer an examination of the “moral natures” of figures seen in the various genres of Dutch television content. They find some striking patterns in the use and presentation of “morally ambivalent characters” by gender, age, and ethnicity, as well as patterns in the types of transgressions and whether these transgressions are punished. Last, Erin Schauster and Marlene Neill aimed to document how practices reflecting the increasing integration of marketing and public relations practices affect moral decision making in those industries. They conclude that trends such as native advertising and datamining are providing expanded opportunities for unethical behavior, and they make several suggestions to help marketers along in their institutional moral development.
This issue also inaugurates a new “Trends” section that will provide perspective essays on media ethics-related topics as well as briefs about ethics scholarship from other disciplines. Trends Editor Kati Berg devotes her first installment to public relations and crisis communication. It is also worth restating that Kati, as well as “Cases & Commentaries” Editor Ginny Whitehouse, enjoys full editorial autonomy regarding the content of their sections.