A Brief History of the Study of Ethics

The study of ethics, particularly in the context of mass communication, necessitates a clear understanding of its distinction from morals. While often used interchangeably, these terms possess nuanced differences. Morals refer to an individual’s code of behavior, usually deeply rooted in religious beliefs, philosophical principles, or cultural upbringing. These define right and wrong in ways that may or may not be entirely rational or universally applicable. For instance, a moral might dictate: 1) always telling the truth, even if it causes harm; 2) never consuming certain foods based on religious dietary laws, regardless of nutritional benefit; or 3) holding a firm personal conviction against any form of debt, even if it means foregoing practical necessities like a mortgage. These are personal guiding principles.

Ethics, in contrast, represents a more rational and systematic way of deciding what is good for individuals or society as a whole. It provides a framework for choosing between competing moral principles or navigating situations where there isn’t a clear right or wrong answer. Ethics seeks to establish shared principles that can be applied consistently within a given context, such as a profession or a society.

One of the foundational thinkers in Western ethics is Aristotle, who argued that the ultimate goal of all human effort is “the good,” which he equated with “happiness” or eudaimonia (flourishing). For Aristotle, achieving this ultimate good involves striking a balance between excess and defect, a concept he famously labeled the Golden Mean. To behave ethically, according to Aristotle, individuals must first know what they are doing, meaning they act with intentionality and awareness. Secondly, they must select their action with a moral reason, choosing a path they believe is right. Thirdly, they must act out of good character, meaning their actions stem from ingrained virtues rather than fleeting impulses. In essence, a person’s character and virtuous intent determine the ethical quality of their actions.

In mass communication, Aristotle’s Golden Mean suggests: 1) A journalist, when reporting on a sensitive issue, should aim for the mean between being overly sensational (excess) and being overly bland or secretive (defect), striving for balanced and comprehensive reporting. 2) An advertiser should find the mean between deceptive exaggeration (excess) and entirely unengaging, factual presentation (defect), aiming for persuasive but truthful communication. 3) A social media manager navigating public feedback should seek the mean between ignoring criticism (defect) and engaging in an overly defensive or aggressive response (excess), opting instead for a measured, empathetic, and constructive dialogue.

Another influential philosopher is Immanuel Kant, who posited that morality lies in the act itself, not in the character of the person performing the act or their intended outcome. Since people possess the ability to reason, Kant believed they could base their actions on pure moral reasoning, obliging them to act morally regardless of personal desires or consequences. He referred to this as the “Categorical Imperative”: a universal moral law that cannot depend on individual inclination, goal, or purpose. It encourages one to act for the benefit of others first and not for personal gain. A key aspect of the Categorical Imperative is to consider what would be the result if everyone acted the same way they wish to act, asserting that one cannot justify unethical behavior by its possibly desirable outcomes.

In mass communication, applying Kant’s Categorical Imperative means: 1) A news organization should never publish deliberately false information, even if it could lead to a desired outcome like increased readership, because if all news organizations did this, trust in journalism would collapse. 2) An advertising agency should not use deceptive marketing tactics, even if they result in higher sales, because if all advertisers engaged in deception, the entire system of commercial communication would become meaningless and distrusted. 3) A social media platform should not secretly collect and sell user data without consent, even if it leads to better targeted ads and profits, because if all platforms did this without transparency, user privacy would be completely eroded, and user trust would vanish.

John Stuart Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism, offered a different ethical framework based on the Principle of Utility: “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or that which causes the least pain is best. This consequentialist philosophy dictates that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, specifically by its ability to produce the most happiness or well-being for the most significant number of people. Utilitarianism heavily influences fields like public policy and public health.

In mass communication, utilitarianism can be seen in: 1) Social Marketing campaigns that use advertising and marketing techniques to persuade people to change harmful behaviors or adopt beneficial ones, such as public health campaigns advocating for vaccination, seatbelt use, or smoking cessation. These campaigns aim to improve public health and well-being for the largest number of people. 2) A newspaper deciding to publish a sensitive story that might cause pain to a few individuals but serves a larger public good by exposing corruption or providing vital information. 3) A media company choosing to implement accessibility features (e.g., closed captions, audio descriptions) on all its content, even if it’s costly, because it benefits a large population of users with disabilities, thus promoting the “greatest good.”

John Rawls, a modern philosopher, introduced the concept of the “Veil of Ignorance” as a thought experiment for determining justice. Rawls argued that justice emerges when people make decisions about societal rules without considering their status or position within that system, and without knowing where they fall within it (e.g., rich or poor, healthy or sick, powerful or powerless). This theoretical “veil” forces decision-makers to be impartial, leading to rules that would be fair to everyone, as they wouldn’t know if an unfair system would disadvantage them themselves. The classic Trolley Problem (where one must choose between diverting a trolley to kill one person instead of five) often serves as a simplified illustration of such ethical dilemmas that can be approached through different philosophical lenses, including utilitarianism and deontology.

In mass communication, the Veil of Ignorance can be applied to: 1) When developing journalistic ethics guidelines, if journalists were to decide rules of reporting from behind a veil where they don’t know if they’ll be the subject of a story, the reporter, or the editor, they might create rules that protect privacy and ensure fair treatment for all parties. 2) A social media company designing its content moderation policies might use the veil of ignorance to ensure rules are applied equally to all users, regardless of their celebrity status or political affiliation, thus fostering a truly equitable platform. 3) When creating public service announcements (PSAs) about a controversial topic, designers behind a veil of ignorance might craft messages that are universally accessible and respectful, avoiding language or imagery that could inadvertently alienate or harm specific groups.

Beyond these, the philosophy of Jürgen Habermas and his concept of the “Public Sphere” is highly relevant to mass communication. Habermas argued that a healthy democracy relies on a public sphere where individuals can come together to freely and rationally discuss issues of common concern, uncoerced by state or corporate power. In this ideal space, rational-critical debate leads to informed public opinion. In mass communication, this plays out in the perfect function of independent journalism, investigative reporting, and open public forums (both online and offline) that facilitate robust, fact-based discussions. For example, a quality news program hosting a town hall debate where diverse viewpoints are respectfully aired, or a meticulously researched investigative series uncovering systemic problems, embodies Habermas’s ideal of fostering a rational public discourse necessary for democratic functioning. When mass media fail in this role by becoming sensationalist, partisan, or controlled by vested interests, they undermine the very public sphere that Habermas deemed essential.

Media Ethics: Balancing Freedom, Public Interest, and Privacy

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of the press, a principle widely agreed upon as crucial for upholding democratic ideals. Freedom from government censorship allows the news media to keep citizens informed about the state of their society. However, a critical question arises: When does the press take this freedom from censorship and restriction too far? The tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997 brought fierce criticism against the paparazzi and tabloid reporting in general, as investigations revealed that paparazzi vehicles were aggressively pursuing the princess’s car before the fatal crash. Since then, the public’s interest in celebrity gossip has not diminished; instead, the growth of online news sources has led to a proliferation of celebrity gossip websites and an ever-accelerating news cycle.

Tabloid-style reporting, however, does not confine its coverage to public figures in the entertainment industry, and this can have far-reaching consequences, sometimes blurring the lines between news and unethical practices. A stark example of this is the “catch and kill” scandal involving the National Enquirer and its parent company, American Media Inc. (AMI), in the years leading up to and during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This practice involved AMI purchasing the exclusive rights to negative stories about Donald Trump, not with the intent of publishing them, but specifically to suppress them and prevent them from reaching the public. A prominent instance involved a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who alleged a past affair with Trump. AMI paid her $150,000 for her story but then “killed” it, effectively burying information that could have painted Trump in a poor light during his campaign. A significant amount of information regarding these “catch and kill” schemes emerged during the criminal conviction of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations related to these payments, and later during Trump’s criminal trial in 2024, where the payments and their concealment were central to the charges. This case highlighted how media organizations, even those traditionally seen as tabloids, can actively engage in practices that manipulate public discourse, raising serious ethical questions about journalistic integrity, campaign finance laws, and the public’s right to information.

As privacy advocates have long argued, should the government impose stricter regulations on certain forms of reporting? The Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press, and although it never explicitly mentions the concept, the courts have agreed that Americans enjoy certain privacy rights. Most journalists would also concur that standards of ethical journalism include efforts to protect these rights. However, some paparazzi photographers and celebrity journalists notoriously disregard journalistic codes of ethics in their relentless pursuit of a story (Alach, 2008). Many argue that because people classify celebrities as “public figures,” the same privacy rights that protect the general public do not apply to them. Us Weekly’s former editor-in-chief, Janice Min, famously argued, “A celebrity is like an elected official. If you’re getting paid $20 million a movie, you have to rely on public goodwill to stay in office. You have to accept the fact that you’re a public commodity (Freydkin, 2004).” Harvey Levin, editor in chief for the popular celebrity gossip outlet TMZ, has expressed similar sentiments, reportedly proclaiming, “Britney is gold; she is crack to our readers. Her life is a complete train-wreck and I thank God for her every day (New York Times, 2009).”

On the other side of the debate, many argue that the public-figure limitation needs to be balanced with a critical consideration of a story’s genuine newsworthiness and its broader social value. As law professor Patrick J. Alach has argued, “If ‘social value’ is what constitutes newsworthiness, it is hard to imagine a more perverse concept of social value that incorporates…Paris Hilton’s late-night dining preferences or Lindsay Lohan’s driving habits (Alach).” This perspective emphasizes that not all information about public figures serves a legitimate public interest, and the relentless pursuit of trivial details can constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

TMZ, a website that pioneered publishing celebrity news in real-time, was launched in 2005 and quickly became a dominant force. Since its creation, the site has received numerous criticisms from more prestigious news sources, including The Washington Post and ABC News, for its aggressive tactics and often sensationalist approach. Yet, as Thane Burnett, a reporter for The Toronto Sun, admitted, “despite the sideways glances, mainstream news services prowl TMZ’s site for coverage (Burnett, 2009).” With the immediacy of Internet news coverage, mainstream media outlets face increasing pressure to release major news while it is still fresh. Celebrity gossip sites like TMZ, which may resort to unorthodox methods to gather information, compound that pressure; the shelf life of breaking news has grown increasingly shorter, forcing a re-evaluation of ethical boundaries in a hyper-competitive media environment.

The Importance of Truth in Mass Communication Messages

Journalists have historically championed their unwavering commitment to truth-telling, often citing it as the cornerstone of their profession. This obligation is deeply embedded in journalistic codes of ethics, emphasizing accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. For example, during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein meticulously pursued leads and corroborated information, despite immense pressure and attempts at obfuscation from the Nixon administration. Their relentless pursuit of the truth, which ultimately led to the President’s resignation, stands as a testament to this perceived journalistic duty. Another instance can be seen in the reporting following the September 11th attacks; news organizations around the globe prioritized factual reporting and verification amidst chaos and misinformation, working to provide the public with accurate information about the unfolding tragedy.

Despite these historical claims and examples, the news media today often contend with a pervasive sense of public distrust and low esteem regarding their truthfulness. A survey by USA Today highlighted this sentiment, finding that only 36 percent of respondents believed news in general was reported accurately. This skepticism is not an isolated incident; numerous modern statistics reinforce this trend. For instance, a 2023 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey found that 72% of Americans believe news organizations intend to mislead, misinform, or persuade them, while only 26% believe news organizations do not intend to deceive. Furthermore, the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2024 indicates that trust in news remains low globally, with less than half (40%) of respondents across 47 markets saying they trust most news most of the time. These figures underscore a significant challenge for the media, suggesting that the public perceives a considerable gap between journalistic ideals and actual practice.

Several factors contribute to this erosion of trust. Many editors voice concerns that the relentless pace of online news dissemination often leads to a breakdown in traditional journalistic safeguards, such as rigorous sourcing, thorough fact-checking, and prudent caution. In the race to be first, newsrooms can sometimes prioritize speed over accuracy, making them more susceptible to errors or the spread of unverified information. The constant demand for fresh content in the 24/7 news cycle, fueled by internet platforms, creates an environment where quick publication can take precedence over meticulous verification.

Adding to these internal pressures, external forces also contribute to the blurring of lines. Critics often point to the increasing influence of media conglomerates, promotional partnering, and cross-ownership as factors that compromise journalistic integrity. When a handful of large corporations own diverse media outlets—from newspapers and television stations to film studios and digital platforms—there’s a concern that editorial independence can be compromised to serve corporate interests. Similarly, “promotional partnering” can see news outlets featuring content that is essentially paid advertising disguised as editorial, further blurring the line between independent reporting and commercial messaging. This interconnectedness can make it difficult for the public to discern unbiased news from content driven by financial or corporate agendas, thereby contributing to the widespread skepticism about the truthfulness of media output.

But how does telling the truth apply to advertising? The principle of truth in advertising is a cornerstone of ethical marketing, fundamentally asking: how important is it for advertising claims to be genuinely valid? While an advertiser’s ultimate goal is to persuade, there’s a delicate balance between persuasive communication and misleading consumers. The level of scrutiny applied to advertising claims often varies depending on the product category, reflecting the potential for harm or significant consumer impact.

Specifically, factual claims about prescription drugs and food are held to a significantly higher standard due to their direct impact on public health and safety. Advertisers of pharmaceuticals, for instance, must provide scientific evidence to substantiate claims about a drug’s efficacy, side effects, and approved uses. Similarly, food labeling, including nutritional claims, organic certifications, or health benefits, is subject to strict regulations to prevent consumers from making ill-informed decisions that could affect their well-being. Furthermore, subjective claims such as being “the best” or “most effective” often require robust documentation, compelling advertisers to provide consumer surveys, market share data, or independent testing results to back up such pronouncements.

However, the line between permissible persuasion and outright deception can be blurry. Deceptive advertising, while aiming to mislead, is not always illegal because it doesn’t always result in actual consumer harm or a provable misrepresentation of a material fact. For instance, consider a commercial for a cold beverage that uses fake ice cubes (often made of acrylic) instead of real ones. While technically not “true” to reality, this visual deception is generally considered acceptable because it enhances the visual appeal without misrepresenting the product’s core function or benefits, nor does it cause any harm to the consumer. The regulatory bodies, primarily the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, are tasked with enforcing regulations regarding deceptive advertising, aiming to protect consumers from practices that are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

This regulatory environment also recognizes a specific type of advertising language known as puffery. Puffery involves making extravagant and unrealistic claims without stating anything concrete or provable. It’s often considered a defense to false advertising claims in cases where no reasonable consumer would take the claim literally. Puffery operates in an ethical and legal gray area, relying on the understanding that consumers expect a certain level of hyperbole in advertising.

Historically, puffery has been used in various contexts. Consider the early 20th-century advertising for Coca-Cola, which was famously marketed as providing “delicious and refreshing” qualities, alongside claims of it being a “brain tonic” and a cure for ailments. While the “brain tonic” claim might edge into deceptive territory given the product’s actual composition, “delicious and refreshing” is clear puffery. Another example comes from P.T. Barnum’s circus advertising, where his shows were promoted as “The Greatest Show on Earth.” No one expected his circus to be the single most outstanding performance in the history of the planet; it was an extravagant claim designed to excite and attract. In the mid-20th century, Sunkist Growers used the slogan “Sunkist Oranges are the best,” a subjective and unverifiable claim about overall quality. Similarly, Miller High Life Beer has long touted itself as “The Champagne of Bottled Beer.” While it aims for a high-class association, it’s a celebratory, non-literal comparison, not a factual claim about its brewing process or ingredients being equivalent to champagne. Lastly, think of classic automobile advertisements from the mid to late 20th century, where a car might be described as offering “the ultimate driving experience” or “unrivaled luxury.” These phrases, while aiming to create an aspirational image, are subjective assessments that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, falling squarely into the realm of puffery.

In all these instances, the claims are designed to create a positive impression and evoke emotion. Still, they lack specific, testable facts, distinguishing them from potentially deceptive advertising that asserts false objective claims..