Devilish chain reaction
It’s worth noting that ethics is something you have to be able and willing to afford—even in journalism. After all, in that field, a black sheep can trigger an (un)professional herd mentality for competitive reasons.
Column You have to be able and willing to afford ethics - even in journalism. American economists have recently been increasingly concerned with the question of why certain forms of moral failure are spreading in Western societies. Andrei Shleifer from Harvard University, for example, blames the laxer approach to ethical standards not on the greed of individuals, but on the basis of the capitalist economic system itself: competition.Using five examples - child labour, corruption, executive salaries, balance sheet manipulation and the commercialization of universities - he shows how certain patterns of action that were once ostracized or even
were punishable, are becoming increasingly common and popular due to competitive pressure. At least Shleifer assumes that the responsible actors actually appreciate ethically correct behavior. (In his case, these are entrepreneurs or university presidents, but the principle can easily be applied to others.
professional groups and therefore also transferable to media professionals). However, this behavior is "a good like other goods". In other words, it is subject to the same market laws of supply and demand as everything else.
If journalistic competitors do not adhere to the moral standards and rules of their industry and thus reduce their costs, the prices for certain media products on the market will also fall - and with them the revenues that can be generated from competing products. This loss means that ethical behavior also becomes too expensive, i.e. unprofitable, for the "offender's" competitors. The result: less ethics is demanded of media professionals and produced accordingly. The result: as competitive pressure increases, traditional inhibition thresholds fall. According to the laws of self-acceleration, moral standards are spiraling downwards ever faster on this negative spiral.
Shleifer does have one consolation: "When societies become richer, the willingness to pay for ethically sound goods and services also increases - brought about by laws as well as private purchasing decisions. This is why state sanctions are far more effective and fruitful in affluent societies than in poor ones." So is media ethics a luxury good that can only be afforded or is only desirable during periods of prosperity? For those "emerging markets" that are on the verge of new, sustainable prosperity, this could be a glimmer of hope. However, where belts need to be tightened, the opposite dynamic seems to have been set in motion: poor prospects for the ageing European industrialized nations.
companies and their media.
As the fear of losing one's job grows or the compulsion arises to assert oneself as an "outsourced" journalist under miserable conditions on the free content market, the willingness to secure one's existence or the usual income level by reducing one's own effort (keyword PR paraphrases instead of one's own research) or through lucrative additional earnings (PR work in fields that one also works in as a journalist) grows. The (un)ethical logic of competition could thus ensure that "anything goes" continues to take hold in journalism. "First comes the food, then comes the morals": the basic social law that Bert Brecht already formulated in the 1920s.
years ago in the Threepenny Opera, has lost none of its validity, but has gained a great deal in dynamism.
Stephan Russ-Mohl on the ethical behavior of media professionals.
were punishable, are becoming increasingly common and popular due to competitive pressure. At least Shleifer assumes that the responsible actors actually appreciate ethically correct behavior. (In his case, these are entrepreneurs or university presidents, but the principle can easily be applied to others.
professional groups and therefore also transferable to media professionals). However, this behavior is "a good like other goods". In other words, it is subject to the same market laws of supply and demand as everything else.
If journalistic competitors do not adhere to the moral standards and rules of their industry and thus reduce their costs, the prices for certain media products on the market will also fall - and with them the revenues that can be generated from competing products. This loss means that ethical behavior also becomes too expensive, i.e. unprofitable, for the "offender's" competitors. The result: less ethics is demanded of media professionals and produced accordingly. The result: as competitive pressure increases, traditional inhibition thresholds fall. According to the laws of self-acceleration, moral standards are spiraling downwards ever faster on this negative spiral.
Shleifer does have one consolation: "When societies become richer, the willingness to pay for ethically sound goods and services also increases - brought about by laws as well as private purchasing decisions. This is why state sanctions are far more effective and fruitful in affluent societies than in poor ones." So is media ethics a luxury good that can only be afforded or is only desirable during periods of prosperity? For those "emerging markets" that are on the verge of new, sustainable prosperity, this could be a glimmer of hope. However, where belts need to be tightened, the opposite dynamic seems to have been set in motion: poor prospects for the ageing European industrialized nations.
companies and their media.
As the fear of losing one's job grows or the compulsion arises to assert oneself as an "outsourced" journalist under miserable conditions on the free content market, the willingness to secure one's existence or the usual income level by reducing one's own effort (keyword PR paraphrases instead of one's own research) or through lucrative additional earnings (PR work in fields that one also works in as a journalist) grows. The (un)ethical logic of competition could thus ensure that "anything goes" continues to take hold in journalism. "First comes the food, then comes the morals": the basic social law that Bert Brecht already formulated in the 1920s.
years ago in the Threepenny Opera, has lost none of its validity, but has gained a great deal in dynamism.
Stephan Russ-Mohl on the ethical behavior of media professionals.
> Stephan Russ-Mohl is a professor of journalism at the University of Lugano.
