Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Ethics of Birdwatching


Birdwatching. A lesser-known hobby that does not seem to raise many ethical issues.  Turns out, organizations even have a code of ethics for the hobby! Take the Brookline Bird Club. They take their hobby, and implications that we may not have realized existed for it, very seriously.

The Brookline Bird Club points out the dangers of disturbing birds in their natural habitat, and lays out guidelines for how to best avoid harming them. They even account for the changes in season, and the difference in behavior of different species. They also care for keeping the environment healthy, including a recommendation to stay on designated paths in parks and woods, so as to not trample anything growing there. Also interestingly, they specifically tell their members to behave politely around others to not create a bad name for the group. While many organizations have similar codes, it’s interesting to see that a hobby like bird watching could have something like this too!

The American Birding Association code has similar ethical requirements - to ensure the welfare of birds in their own environments. It also gives details on what to do if you want to attract birds to other environments. If you set up a simple bird feeder, it’s important to also keep in mind a few things. You don’t want the food and water to be contaminated so make sure to keep it clean. You also don’t want to lure birds to predators, so keep the cat away!

However, they also have the specification of helping new members in their own groups. This code has many more specific examples of scenarios, and also recommends being willing to teach others. They claim that the knowledge and experience you gain should be freely shared among the group. Who would have thought people would get so dedicated about something like finding rare birds?

There is plenty more information where that came from, and it can all be found in the links provided. More interesting ethical codes exist on the Ethics Codes Collection website, so feel free to look around!

The Ethics Code Collection is managed by the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. Look forward to a new and improved website come September!

Written by Alice Amell and Tabitha Anderson

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Should Journalists be Impartial?

Recently, Lewis Wallace was fired for republishing a blog article that he was ordered to take down. Lewis is a radio journalist for the National Public Radio show Marketplace, and also writes a blog on Medium. On his blog, he declared “neutrality is impossible for me, and you should admit that it is for you, too.” Marketplace’s ethics code requires impartiality, or remaining neutral and not interjecting your own opinion on a subject. They are required to avoid being political, not only in their pieces but also in their lives; they cannot go to rallies, donate to candidates or publicly support a candidate. This is designed to take away their partiality, or at least, the appearance of partiality. Few, I suspect, would argue that they don’t have opinions. Is Lewis right and is it impossible for these opinions not to spill over in some way?

The traditional view of impartial journalism is globally influential. The Media Ethics Charter from the Journalists Trade Union in Poland’s requires journalists to report on different viewpoints and to report independent of one’s own views. Similarly, the Media Alliance Code of Ethics from Australia disallows personal beliefs to influence the journalists reporting.

How much does impartiality matter? It affects more than just a particular newscaster or author; it affects the entire institution and the public’s perception of them. The New York Times’ code on Ethical Journalism states as its first introductory point that news must be covered “as impartially as possible.” It’s overarching goal is to protect the reputation of the New York Times. Thus the appearance of impartiality matters as it serves to protect an institution’s reputation. However, despite the widespread dedication to impartiality in journalism, many people will look at any given news source and say they are “liberal” or “conservative.” Different takes on this could include: news sources are not being impartial enough, there is an inherent limit on our ability to be impartial, or people's perception of these sources as partial is wrong.

Can impartiality even truly exist? A different way of presenting news is to embrace partiality and to acknowledge it. Journalism can still seek the truth and make clear distinctions between fact and opinion while also having opinions. The Journalists’ Ethics Codes from the National Association of Hungarian Journalists declares that journalists can both have and express their opinions; they can be openly partial. However, it makes clear that these opinions should not discolor the facts of the news such that the audience misinterprets them.

Is this modality of news presentation better? Should we acknowledge our biases and openly admit them, or should we strive to remain neutral and present both (or more!) sides of any given case? And on the point of different sides, must an exact opposite view be found for a larger issue and given credit, even if it is only held by an extreme minority? (Such as the 3% of scientists who deny climate change, and often have clear personal motive towards promoting oil industries.)

Feel free to add your own comments and peruse for more sources on journalistic ethics. There are many more interesting ethical codes on the Ethics Codes Collection website.

The Ethics Code Collection is managed by the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. Look forward to a new and improved website come September!

Written by Alice Amell and Tabitha Anderson

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Ethical Representation in Media

Many of us have experienced the annoyance when that “type” of character pops up again: the dumb blonde, the bumbling husband, the trophy wife, the emotionally-repressed action hero, and so on. We may think of them as mere harmless caricatures or traditional stereotypes, but the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) see it as potentially harmful. To them, there is risk not only in the way people are portrayed, but who is (or is not) portrayed at all. The CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code from 2008 elaborates on how radio and television ought to portray people in a harmless way.


The CAB’s concern with equitable portrayal is partially influenced by the Task Force for Cultural Diversity on Television, which conducted research looking specifically at the portrayal of ethnocultural and Aboriginal groups. They found three areas of concern: stereotyping groups, portraying groups of people inaccurately, and portraying groups of people people in an unbalanced way. The CAB Persons with Disability report had similar concerns regarding the portrayal of persons with disability.


We just don’t see certain groups represented enough, and when we do, that representation can color our view of them because it is the only exposure we might have of a certain type of person. Conversely, some groups are overrepresented, but portrayed in a negative or stereotypical way. In the 1990 Sex Role Portrayal Code for Radio and Television, they comment that “Canadian broadcasters recognize the cumulative effect of negative and inequitable sex role portrayal. . .” In other words, these pervasive cliches can negatively affect us. It is not always the result of one movie or commercial, but the overall context of movies or commercials that paint broad strokes and stereotypes can affect. If we saw just as many smart blondes as dumb blondes, and just as many bumbling husbands as effectual ones, would the negative effects of these stereotypes be diminished?


To give another real-world example: many people critiqued the American Oscars for being inequitable regarding its representation of races. This code appears to be unique to Canada and not many others adopt a similar stance on the issue. In light of the Oscars, America might also benefit from being held to an ethical standard like this.


So how does the CAB’s Equitable Portrayal Code combat these issues? Avoid portraying stereotypes, avoid negatively portraying people based on their status (race, sex, religion, disability, etc), and avoid using sexist language. What effect do you think something like this could feasibly have on negative stereotypes against various groups of people? There might be much debate over these topics, but these are important questions to be asking. Check out the rest of the code for yourself to see what you think!


There is plenty more information where that came from, and it can all be found in the links provided. More interesting ethical codes exist on the Ethics Codes Collection website, so feel free to look around!


The Ethics Code Collection is managed by the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. Look forward to a new and improved website come September!

Written by Alice Amell and Tabitha Anderson