Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1St Edition Stephen J A Ward Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1st
Edition Stephen J.A. Ward

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-global-media-ethics-1st-edition-stephen-j
-a-ward/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Ethics And The Media An Introduction 2nd Edition

Stephen J. A. Ward
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ethics-and-the-media-an-
introduction-2nd-edition-stephen-j-a-ward/
The Global Handbook of Media Accountability 1st Edition

Susanne Fengler (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-global-handbook-of-media-
accountability-1st-edition-susanne-fengler-editor/
Global Media Ethics and the Digital Revolution 1st

Edition Noureddine Miladi
https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-media-ethics-and-the-
digital-revolution-1st-edition-noureddine-miladi/
Polis Nation Global Community Ann Ward
https://ebookmeta.com/product/polis-nation-global-community-ann-
ward/
The Labour Ward Handbook Leroy Edozien
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-labour-ward-handbook-leroy-
edozien/
Fossils DK Smithsonian Handbook David J Ward
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fossils-dk-smithsonian-handbook-
david-j-ward/
Fundamentals of Management, Global Edition Stephen P.

Robbins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fundamentals-of-management-global-
edition-stephen-p-robbins/
The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual Ethics David Boonin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-sexual-
ethics-david-boonin/
Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics 1st Edition

Jay Drydyk (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/routledge-handbook-of-development-
ethics-1st-edition-jay-drydyk-editor/
Stephen J. A. Ward Editor
Handbook
of Global
Media Ethics
Handbook of Global Media Ethics
Stephen J. A. Ward
Editor
Handbook of Global Media

Ethics
Editor
Stephen J. A. Ward
UBC Graduate School of Journalism
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
ISBN 978-3-319-32102-8 ISBN 978-3-319-32103-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32103-5
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my family, in memory and gratitude:
Harold and Macrena Ward, Ann, Norma,
and Shirley
Preface
The Handbook of Global Media Ethics is a milestone in the development of a cru-

cial area of media ethics. Several decades ago, global media ethics was only an idea
in the minds of a relatively small cadre of forward-looking scholars and media prac-
titioners. Today, it is a dynamic, contested, and ever-evolving domain for discussing
the role, norms, and practices of communication media, now digital, global, and
powerful.
The book is one of the first texts to provide a comprehensive overview of the field
with original chapters written by leading media scholars, ethicists, and practitioners
around the world. The plurality of topics, issues, and methods, evident across the
book’s seven parts, is testimony to the vitality and relevancy of global media ethics
to a media-mediated world.
Construction of the book has been a mammoth effort across several years, involv-
ing a dedicated team of 7 editors and 77 authors in dozens of countries. All chapters/
submissions have been double blind peer reviewed.
The second half of the project was completed amid a global pandemic which
placed added strain on editors and contributors. Therefore, I am extremely grateful
to the editors and chapter contributors who dedicated themselves to completing the
project.
I thank, especially, the project’s sage-like managing editor, Prof. Clifford
G. Christians, whose energy and deep knowledge of media ethics worldwide was
invaluable. Prof. Christians not only writes about global ethics, he lives it.
Also, I am indebted to the six section editors who expertly developed their chap-
ters and worked with authors: Profs. Katherine M. Bell, Clifford G. Christians,
Wendy Wyatt, Kathleen Bartzen Culver, Ian Richards, and Richard Lance Keeble.
I hope the handbook encourages new inquiries into the state of global media by
students, scholars, practitioners, and citizens in the years to come.
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada Stephen J. A. Ward
vii
Contents
Part I Introduction to Part I: Concepts and Problems

1 What Is Global Media Ethics?�� 5
Stephen J. A. Ward
2 Is Global Media Ethics Utopian?�� 23
Stephen J. A. Ward
3 Political Emotions and Global Ethics�� 41
Stephen J. A. Ward
4 Media Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility,
and Governance�� 59
Robert G. Picard
5 Do Journalists Share Universal Values?�� 71
Folker Hanusch and Sandra Banjac
6 Ignored but Not Forgotten: Global Issues in Ethical Codes�� 91
Ari Heinonen
7 The Role and Purpose of Ombudsmen in a Global Media World �� 107
Esther Enkin
8 A New Perspective on Ethical Reporting About Suicide�� 123
Cliff Lonsdale
9 Beyond the News and Opinion Dichotomy�� 137
François Heinderyckx
10 Digital Religion and Global Media: Flows, Communities,
and Radicalizations�� 157
Ruth Tsuria and Aya Yadlin-Segal
ix
x Contents
Part I Further Reading
Part II Introduction to Part II: Approaches and Methods

11 A Feminist Ethics for Journalism �� 185
Linda Steiner
12 Cosmopolitanism as Ground for Global Media Ethics�� 207
Stephen J. A. Ward
13 Avoiding Imperialism: Merging the Global and the Local�� 231
Abderrahmane Azzi
14 Ethical Relativism, Pluralism, and Global Media Ethics�� 257
Bo Shan and Qiong Ye
15 Moral Psychology in Media�� 277
Patrick Lee Plaisance
16 Algorithms and Media Ethics in the AI Age�� 301
Changfeng Chen and Gaelle A. Chekam
17 Pragmatic Objectivity for Global Ethics �� 329
Stephen J. A. Ward
18 Promoting the Human Good: The Dual Obligation
Wisdom Theory and the Duties of Ethics�� 351
Edward H. Spence
19 Levinas and Media Ethics: Between the Particular
and the Universal �� 367
Amit Pinchevski
20 Anthropological Ethics as the Basis for Global Media Ethics �� 387
Clifford G. Christians
Part II Further Reading
Part III Introduction to Part III: Digital and Social Media

21 The Influence of Digital Media on Accountability
and Social Responsibility�� 429
Fernando Oliveira Paulino and Renata Gomes
22 Ethics of Digital Verification in International Reporting �� 445
Soomin Seo
23 Without Fear or Favor? The Social Reality of Partisan Language �� 459
Leon Barkho
Contents xi
24 Virtual Encounters with Cultural Difference:

Ethically Representing the Cultural “Other”
in VR Journalism �� 479
Lindsay Palmer
25 Solidarity in (Social Media) Journalism: A Framework
for Assessing Journalistic #Commitments �� 499
Anita Varma
26 AI, Ethics, and Design: Revisiting the Trolley Problem �� 513
Molly Wright Steenson
27 Digital Media and Social Movements: Obstacles
to Building a Global Media Ethic �� 535
Deana A. Rohlinger and Caitria DeLucchi
28 Should Machines Write About Death? Questions of Technology,
Humanity, and Ethics in the Automation of Journalism�� 555
Andrea L. Guzman
Part III Further Reading
Part IV Introduction to Part IV: Global Issues for Global Media Introduction
29 Global Media Ethics and Human Rights: Roles,
Responsibilities, and Rehumanizing Journalism�� 581
Rhonda A. W. Breit
30 Global Justice, Factual Reporting and Advocacy Journalism �� 601
Mark Pearson
31 Global Media Ethics: Perspectives from the Global South�� 619
Herman Wasserman
32 Going “Glocal”: Local Journalism and Global Ethics �� 635
Kristy Hess and Ian Richards
33 Compassion, Emotion and Objectivity in Global Reporting �� 655
Stephen Jukes
34 Reporting Disasters and Traumatic Events�� 677
Cait McMahon and Matthew Ricketson
35 Revisiting the Public Interest: Journalism
and the Global Immigration Crisis�� 695
Verica Rupar
36 Science Communication: The “Weight of Evidence”
Approach and Climate Change�� 711
Johan Lidberg
xii Contents
37 Water Rights: Global Media Ethics and Sharing Resources �� 723
Beate Josephi and Jahnnabi Das
38 Literary Journalism and Global Media Ethics �� 743
Matthew Ricketson
39 Reporting Poverty�� 763
Susan L. Stos
40 Truth, Reconciliation and Global Ethics �� 783
Kerry McCallum and Lisa Waller
41 City Life and Social Change: Urban Journalism
and Global Media Ethics �� 803
Susan Forde
42 Global Media Ethics and the Covid-19 Pandemic�� 823
Catriona Bonfiglioli
Part IV Further Reading
Part V Introduction to Part V: Freedom, Security,

War, and Global Reporting
43 Madonna of Divine Intervention: A Critique
of the Reporting of Marie Colvin �� 857
Oliver Boyd-Barrett
44 Publish and Be Damned?: Mainstream Media
and the Challenge of Whistleblowing Sites�� 877
Andrew Fowler
45 Democratically Engaged Journalism and Extremism�� 899
Stephen J. A. Ward
46 Global Patriotism: Is Peace Journalism the Solution? �� 919
Rukhsana Aslam
47 Freedom or Security? Mass Surveillance of Citizens �� 939
Vian Bakir
48 Freedom of the Press: Respecting Traditions
and Taking Offence�� 961
Brian Winston
49 Manufacturing a New Cold War: The National Security State,
“Psychological Warfare,” and the “Russiagate” Deception �� 985
Florian Zollmann
Contents xiii
50 War Journalists, News Subjects, and Audiences

in a Global, Digital World �� 1013
Donald Matheson
51 New Technology, War, and Human Rights Reporting�� 1031
Richard Pendry
52 Peace Journalism: Alternative Perspectives�� 1049
Richard Lance Keeble
Part V Further Reading
Part VI Introduction to Part VI: Global Ethics

and Journalism Practice
53 Teaching Global Media Ethics�� 1071
Tom Cooper with Abigail Moore
54 The Challenges and Successes of Global
Journalism Collaborations�� 1093
Brant Houston
55 Media Ethics and Marginalized Journalists�� 1105
Phyllis Fletcher
56 “No Love”: What Becomes of Post-Racial Figures
in a New Political Era?�� 1123
Manoucheka Celeste
57 News Coverage of Racism, White Supremacy,
and Hate Speech�� 1143
Katherine M. Bell with Andrea Cervantez
58 The Seer and the World: Visual Journalism Ethics
as Seeing Within and Beyond�� 1163
Julianne H. Newton
59 Opposing Rhetorical Visions of the Social Imaginary:
Social Media and the Public Sphere�� 1191
Robert S. Fortner
60 Webs of De-Centered Discourse: The Future of Global
Media Ethics �� 1207
Stephen J. A. Ward
61 Attending to The Reckoning and the Voiceless: Multiple
Truths, Systems Approaches to Journalism�� 1223
Candis Callison and Mary Lynn Young
xiv Contents
62 Representing Queer Communities: News Media

Stylebooks and LGBTQ Visibility�� 1233
Katherine M. Bell and Gr Keer
Part VI Further Reading
Part VII Introduction to Part VII: Global Media Ethics

in a Geographical Framework
63 Law and Ethics in the Asia-Pacific Region�� 1261
Peng Hwa Ang
64 Patterns in Media Accountability: A European Perspective�� 1281
Raluca-Nicoleta Radu
65 Russia’s Social Media Propaganda Warfare �� 1301
Yuriy B. Zaliznyak
66 Ethical Issues Facing South Korean Media �� 1329
John C. Carpenter and Gwanglip Moon
67 Global Media Ethics and Justice�� 1349
Shakuntala Rao
68 Al Jazeera and the Media: Toward Cosmopolitan Ethics�� 1367
Haydar Badawi Sadig and Catalina Petcu
69 Reporting with Aloha: How Hawaiian Values and Practices
Can Improve Journalism�� 1389
Ann E. Auman and Keʻōpūlaulani Reelitz
70 Freedom of Expression Under Conditions of Oppression:
Iqbal’s Framework in the Tradition of Islamic Beliefs�� 1413
Bushra Hameedur Rahman
Part VII Further Reading
Index�� 1433
About the Editors
Stephen J. A. Ward Stephen J. A. Ward, PhD, is an author, historian of ideas, and

media ethicist whose research is on the ethics of global, digital media, the rise of
extreme publics and its impact on democracy. He has written and edited 10 books
on media ethics, including the award-winning Radical Media Ethics and The
Invention of Journalism Ethics. He is professor emeritus and distinguished lecturer
on ethics at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. A former war
reporter, he is founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University
of Wisconsin, co-founder of the UBC School of Journalism in Vancouver, and for-
mer director of the Turnbull Media Center at the University of Oregon in Portland.
Clifford G. Christians Clifford G. Christians, PhD, LittD, DHL, is Research

Professor of Communications, Professor of Media Studies, and Professor of
Journalism Emeritus, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. He is the author/co-author of Good News: Social Ethics and
the Press, Ethics for Public Communication, Normative Theories of the Media,
Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (11 editions), Moral Engagement in
Public Life, Theories for Contemporary Ethics, Communication Ethics and
Universal Values, Key Concepts in Critical Cultural Studies, Communication
Theories in a Multicultural World, The Ethics of Intercultural Communication, and
Media Ethics and Global Justice in the Digital Age.
Kathleen Bartzen Culver Kathleen Bartzen Culver is the James E. Burgess Chair
in Journalism Ethics and Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison School of Journalism & Mass Communication. She is also director of the
Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Long inter-
ested in the implications of digital media on journalism and public interest commu-
nication, Kathleen focuses on the ethical dimensions of social tools, technological
advances, and networked information. She combines these interests with a back-
ground in law and free expression. She also serves as visiting faculty for the Poynter
Institute for Media Studies and was the founding editor of MediaShift’s education
section.
xv
xvi About the Editors
Ian Richards Ian Richards is Adjunct Professor of Journalism Studies at the

University of South Australia in Adelaide. His research interests include journalism
and media ethics. He has published widely in these and related areas. He was editor
of Australian Journalism Review, from 2003 to 2017. Prof. Richards has twice
served as a member of the Australian Research Council’s Humanities and Creative
Arts Research Evaluation Committee set up as part of the Australian Government’s
ERA (Excellence in Research Australia) exercise. He is an executive member of the
World Journalism Education Council. In 2014, he was awarded life membership in
the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia in recognition of
his contribution to Australian journalism research and education.
Richard Lance Keeble Richard Lance Keeble is a Professor of Journalism at the

University of Lincoln and a Honorary Professor at Liverpool Hope University. He
was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship, the highest award for teachers in
higher education in the UK, in 2011. In 2013, he was given a Lifetime Achievement
Award by the Association for Journalism Education. From 2003 to 2019, he was a
Director of the Institute of Communication Ethics and from 2013 to 2020 Chair of
the Orwell Society. He is the writer and editor of 42 books on a wide range of
media-related topics: peace journalism, investigative reporting, literary journalism,
media ethics, the coverage of US/UK militarism and the secret state, George Orwell,
humor and journalism, profile writing, newspaper writing skills, data journalism,
and sex and journalism. He is emeritus editor of Ethical Space: The International
Journal of Communication Ethics, joint editor of George Orwell Studies, and series
editor of Media Skills, Routledge.
Katherine M. Bell Katherine M. Bell is Associate Professor in the Department of

Communication at California State University, East Bay. Her research focus is on
celebrity power in consumer culture as well as on news media portrayal of minori-
tized communities, including depictions of race, gender, and sexual orientation. She
is a career journalist who worked with The Canadian Press news agency as a
reporter, editor, and news manager, covering the environment, industrial develop-
ment, and indigenous communities. She is currently Director of the Graduate
Program in Communication and Faculty Advisor for The Pioneer student-run
newspaper.
Wendy Wyatt Wendy Wyatt is Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Professor of
Media Ethics at the University of St. Thomas-Minnesota. Her research focuses on
issues of media and democracy, and she has particular interests in journalism ethics,
citizen responsibilities to the media, and media literacy. Wyatt is author or editor of
three books: The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Cultural and Institutional
Influences, The Ethics of Reality TV: A Philosophical Examination, and Critical
Conversations: A Theory of Press Criticism. Her work has also appeared in such
journals as the Journal of Media Ethics, Journalism and Communication
Monographs, and the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, as well as in
several edited volumes
About the Authors
Peng Hwa Ang Ang Peng Hwa is a professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of
Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, teaching
media law and policy. A lawyer by training, his teaching and research interests com-
bine law and communication, touching on internet law and policy, censorship, and
the social impact of media. He was a member of the Working Group on Internet
Governance and a past president of the International Communication Association.
Rukhsana Aslam Rukhsana Aslam, PhD, is a journalist-turned-academic living in

New Zealand. She has her doctorate on the role of media in conflict with a focus on
integrating peace journalism into the journalism curriculum, from the Auckland
University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand. She was the recipient of the Asian
Journalism Fellowship Award from the Asia-New Zealand Foundation in 2011. In
addition to being associated with AUT as a visiting faculty, she conducts indepen-
dent training projects on peace journalism in New Zealand and other countries.
Currently, she is writing a book based on the stories of Pakistani youth 10 years
after they survived suicide bombings in their schools, colleges and universities. She
also engages in community projects related to public welfare and education.
Ann E. Auman Ann Auman, PhD, is a journalism professor at the University of

Hawaiʻi-Mānoa. Her research focuses on cross-cultural media ethics and news lit-
eracy. She is director of the Carol Burnett Fund for Responsible Journalism and
secretary of the East-West Center Association. She has lived in Hawaiʻi for 35 years
and also in China, Canada and Switzerland. She has a master’s degree in Asian
Studies (Hawai’i), an MBA (Toronto), and a PhD in Political Science (Hawai’i).
She has been a professor for 28 years, and was previously a journalist in Canada.
Abderrahmane Azzi Abderrahmane Azzi, PhD, is Professor in the College of

Communication at the University of Sharjah, in the United Arab Emirates, where he
was dean between 2011 and 2016. He has contributed to communication theory and
media ethics through his Value Determinism Theory of Media (VDT) which has
xvii
xviii About the Authors
been highly influential among scholars and students in the Arab Muslim region. He
received the Ben Badis Prestigious Award from the University of Mostaganem
(Algeria), where a chair on ethical communication is dedicated to his name. He has
received an Honorary Award from the universities of Algiers and Laghwat.
Additionally, he has published and co-authored more than twenty books on media
and value systems in Arabic and English.
Vian Bakir Vian Bakir, PhD, is Professor in Political Communication and

Journalism at Bangor University. Her recent research embraces public accountabil-
ity of the security state, and deception and trust in journalism (with many contribu-
tions to the UK Parliament’s Fake News Inquiry, 2017–2019). Her most recent
monograph is Intelligence Elites and Public Accountability in 2018. She has guest-
edited special issues of Critical Sociology (on organized persuasive communica-
tion), Big Data & Society (on surveillance and transparency) and the International
Journal of Press/Politics. Recent grants include: Emotional AI: Comparative
Considerations for UK & Japan; Debating and Assessing Transparency
Arrangements; and several on Intelligence Elites and Public Accountability.
Sandra Banjac Sandra Banjac is a research associate and PhD candidate in the
Department of Communication at the University of Vienna. Her research focuses on
journalistic role conceptions, audience expectations, journalism culture, and the
boundaries of journalism.
Leon Barkho Leon Barkho, PhD, is professor of media and communication sci-
ences at Sweden’s Jönköping University. He holds an MSc in applied linguistics and
a PhD in media and communication science. Previously, he held positions at Reuters
News Agency as bureau chief and at the Associated Press as staff writer. He is the
founder and editor of the Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies. He has
written numerous papers on discourse analysis, language, impartiality, translation
and media and communication studies. Barkho is the author of News from the BBC,
CNN and Aljazeera and editor of From Theory to Practice: How to Assess and
Apply Impartiality in News and Current Affairs and Towards a Praxis-Based Media
and Journalism Research. His most recent book, A Critique of Arab Media
Discourse, was published in Arabic by Arab Scientific Publishers Inc.
Catriona Bonfiglioli Catriona Bonfiglioli is a media studies academic at the

University of Technology Sydney, Australia. Her research focus is the role of media
in health and science, and her work has been published in more than 22 peer-
reviewed journals and books. She wrote Australia’s first resource for journalists on
obesity news, and led a major Australian Research Council Project investigating the
life cycle of obesity and physical activity news. A former medical reporter, she is a
member of the New South Wales Committee of the Public Health Association of
Australia.
About the Authors xix
Oliver Boyd-Barrett Oliver Boyd-Barrett, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Media

and Communications at Bowling Green State University and California State
Polytechnic University, Pomona. His publications (as author and/or editor) include
The International News Agencies, Contra-flow in Global News: International and
Regional News Exchange Mechanisms, The Globalization of News, Media in Global
Context, News Agencies in the Turbulent Era of the Internet, Hollywood and the
CIA: Cinema, Defense, and Subversion, Media Imperialism, Western Mainstream
Media and the Ukraine Crisis, RussiaGate and Propaganda, and Media Imperialism:
Continuity and Change. For Routledge, he is currently researching the competing
narratives that defined the civil war in Syria.
Rhonda A. W. Breit Rhonda Breit, LLB and PhD, is an academic leader, teacher,
and researcher, who specializes in the field of media law, ethics and journalism
education. In 2018, Breit joined the Provost Team at Aga Khan University (AKU)
in Nairobi, where she is leading strategic projects. Currently, she is coordinating the
launch of an Innovation Centre for Media Viability, which aims to accelerate and
incubate projects to strengthen media quality and sustainability across East Africa.
Breit joined AKU in 2014 as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs with the newly
formed Graduate School of Media and Communications. Between 2014 and 2018,
she led the recruitment of faculty and program development, including the accredi-
tation of the University’s new MA in Digital Journalism and Executive Master’s in
Media Leadership and Innovation.
Candis Callison Candis Callison is Associate Professor at the University of British

Columbia, jointly appointed in the School of Journalism, Writing and Media, and
the Institute for Critical Indigenous Studies. She is the author of How Climate
Change Comes to Matter: The Communal Life of Facts and the co-author of
Reckoning: Journalism’s Limits and Possibilities. Candis is Tahltan, a former jour-
nalist, and a regular contributor to the podcast, Media Indigena.
John C. Carpenter John C. Carpenter is a PhD candidate in Mass Communications

at the University of Iowa. He specializes in journalism studies with a focus on East
and Southeast Asia. He holds an MA in journalism from Indiana University in the
United States.
Manoucheka Celeste Manoucheka Celeste, PhD, is Associate Professor in the

Center for Gender, Sexualities, and Women’s Studies Research, and in the African
American Studies Program at the University of Florida. She conducts research on
media representations of race, gender, class, and sexuality, and on identity forma-
tion in the United States and the Caribbean, specifically in Haiti. Her recent work
focuses on citizenship narratives surrounding Blackness, Black womanhood, and
transnational mobility. Her book Race, Gender, and Citizenship in the African
Diaspora: Travelling Blackness received both the National Communication
Association’s Diamond Anniversary Book Award and the association’s Outstanding
Book Award from the African American Communication & Culture Division and
xx About the Authors
Black Caucus. She is committed to critical scholarship on representations of

Blackness, including public scholarship, with her work published in The Seattle
Times, The Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma, and Spark: Elevating Scholarship
on Social Issues.
Gaelle A. Chekam Gaelle A. Chekam is a PhD candidate in the School of

Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University. Currently, her main
research explores the expansion of the Chinese media into the African market and
the reception by local audiences. In addition, she also examines the contemporary
information world order, with a focus on voices emerging from the Global South
and the extent of their influence on the global audience. An initial inquiry on this
topic led her to present a paper at the IAMCR 2019 conference. She is also highly
interested in issues related to the adoption of technologies in journalism, automated
journalism, and media ethics.
Changfeng Chen Changfeng Chen is Professor in Journalism and Media Ethics,

and the Executive Dean of the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua
University. She is a member of the Academic Committee of the State Council, and
vice chair of the National Journalism and Communication Steering Committee. She
was the President of the Chinese Association of Media History, the only national
academic association for journalism and communication studies in China and helped
it to develop during her 5-year term. She has been elected as the founding President
of the Asia-Pacific Communication Alliance, which unites researchers from more
than twenty communication associations from sixteen countries. After receiving her
PhD from Renmin University, she worked at Peking University for 12 years.
Thomas Cooper Thomas Cooper, PhD, of Emerson College was a guest scholar at
Stanford, Berkeley, the East-West Center and the University of Hawaii during his
last sabbatical. Also, he was a guest scholar at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and other
universities during a previous sabbatical. The Association for Responsible
Communication, which he founded, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Prof.
Cooper has taught at Harvard. He was recently an ‘ethics expert’ at a United Nations
project in Vienna and Athens. A former assistant to Marshall McLuhan, he was a
consultant to the Elders Project which involved Nelson Mandela, Kofi Anan and
Jimmy Carter. Prof. Cooper is a playwright, a union musician, a poet with a black
belt, a blogger, and author of eight books and numerous academic and professional
articles and reviews.
Jahnnabi Das Jahnnabi Das, PhD, is a former journalist from Bangladesh, and
holds a PhD in environmental journalism. She is a research associate with the
Climate Justices Research Centre at the University of Technology Sydney, and
teaches environment and media at NYU’s Sydney Campus. Her book, Reporting
Climate Change in the Global North and South: Journalism in Australia and
Bangladesh, will appear soon.
About the Authors xxi
Caitria DeLucchi Caitria DeLucchi is a graduate student at Florida State

University in Tallahassee, Florida. She is currently a second year PhD student in the
sociology program, where she studies the role of digital media within contemporary
social movements. Her master’s thesis is a content analysis of the Red Pill Women
subreddit. It delves into how online forums can become echo chambers for regres-
sive ideals.
Esther Enkin Esther Enkin, now retired, was Ombudsperson for the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation for 6 years. She has served as President of the
Organization of News Ombudsmen, an international forum with members on six
continents. She is also Vice-President of the Canadian Journalism Forum on
Violence and Trauma. In the course of her career, she held senior positions in news
management, including Executive Editor of CBC News. In her role as Executive
Editor of CBC News, she oversaw journalistic standards and practice on a daily
basis. Before becoming Ombudsperson, Esther led a comprehensive update of
CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices including new provisions for digital
publishing and social media.
Phyllis Fletcher Phyllis Fletcher is senior editor at APM Studios at American

Public Media. Her work has been honored with a Sigma Delta Chi medal, a national
Edward R. Murrow Award, two Gracies, and two Salutes to Excellence from the
National Association of Black Journalists. Phyllis has taught audio journalism
across the country in workshops and conferences with NPR’s Next Generation
Radio, and has mentored emerging journalists with AIR Media and the International
Women’s Media Foundation’s Gwen Ifill Mentorship Program. Phyllis has been
named a Friend of Scholastic Journalism by the Journalism Education Association
and was the Public Media Journalists Association’s inaugural Editor of the Year.
Susan Forde Susan Forde is Professor of Journalism at Griffith University,

Brisbane, Australia, and Director of the Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural
Research. She has authored or co-authored three books and more than 50 scholarly
works on media and journalism, including ‘Challenging the News: The Journalism
of Alternative and Community Media’ (2011); and more recently ‘Journalism and
Climate Crisis: Public Engagement, Media Alternatives’ (with Hackett, Gunster and
Foxwell-Norton, 2017). She is Founding Editor with Professor Chris Atton of the
Journal of Alternative and Community Media. In 2018 she was a Visiting Scholar
with the Membership Puzzle Project at NYU, examining issues of public trust,
transparency and the media. She worked as a journalist in both mainstream and
alternative media before joining academia.
Robert S. Fortner Robert Fortner has been actively writing in the field of com-
munication and media ethics for over 20 years. He has written, co-authored, edited
and contributed to over twenty-five books on this subject and others, including cul-
tural history of media, international communication and media theory, over that
time. He has taught at both American and foreign universities, conducting field
xxii About the Authors
research in more than twenty countries and completed work on media issues for the
BBC World Service, DW Radio, the Voice of America, CSIS, and the CIA. He has
learned much from people in the two-thirds world on what is valuable and ethical
and hopes that this shows in his scholarship. He welcomes new challenges and is
currently working on an infodemiology project examining the role of social media
in the COVID=19 pandemic.
Andrew Fowler Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist and

a former reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Foreign
Correspondent and its premier investigative TV documentary program, Four
Corners. Andrew began his journalism career covering the IRA bombing campaign
for the London Evening News. He went on to become chief of staff and acting for-
eign editor of The Australian newspaper. In 2011, Fowler wrote the bestselling
book, The Most Dangerous Man in the World, about Julian Assange. His second
book, The War on Journalism in 2015 was cited by the Australian Financial Review
as one of the best books of 2015 and was a finalist in the Walkley Book Awards.
Andrew’s original ABC program about Assange and WikiLeaks won the New York
Festival Gold Medal.
Renata Gomes Renata de Oliveira Miranda Gomes is a journalist with experience

in international and technological journalism and a political science student at the
University of Brasília. Gomes was a member of the Journalism and Accountability
in Brazil Research Project, at the Communications Department at UnB, and is now
a member of the Public Policy Watchdog Research Group, at the Law Department
at UnB, conducting the research “Digital governance, access to information and
new technologies in the Federal District.”
Andrea L. Guzman Andrea L. Guzman is Assistant Professor of Communication

at Northern Illinois University where her research focuses on Human-Machine
Communication and people’s perceptions of artificial intelligence, including voice-
based assistants and automated news-writing programs. Guzman is the inaugural
chair of the Human-Machine Communication Interest Group of the International
Communication Association. She is editor of Human-Machine Communication:
Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves (2018). Guzman’s research
has been published in numerous journals, including New Media & Society, Digital
Journalism, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Computers in Human
Behavior, and Human-Machine Communication, and has presented at leading inter-
disciplinary and disciplinary conferences worldwide.
Folker Hanusch Dr. Folker Hanusch, PhD, is Professor of Journalism at the

University of Vienna, and Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Media and
Communication at Queensland University of Technology. He is editor-in-chief of
Journalism Studies, as well as co-editor-in-chief of the International Encyclopedia
of Journalism Studies. He is vice-chair of the Worlds of Journalism Study, and
About the Authors xxiii
currently chairs the journalism section of the European Communication Research

and Education Association. His research focuses on comparative journalism studies,
transformations of journalism culture, journalism and everyday life, as well as
indigenous journalism.
François Heinderyckx François Heinderyckx, PhD, is Professor at Université

libre de Bruxelles (ULB). He wrote his chapter while visiting at Columbia University
Graduate School of Journalism. He is a member of Academia Europaea and a
Fellow of the International Communication Association (ICA). He was the Dean of
the Faculty of Letters, Translation and Communication at ULB (2015–2019) and a
Chang-Jiang Scholar Professor at Communication University of China, Beijing
(2013–2018). He was the President of the European Communication Research and
Education Association from its creation in 2005 until 2012. He was also the
2013–2014 President of the International Communication Association. He is a
member of the Advisory or Editorial boards of a dozen international academic
journals.
Ari Heinonen Ari Heinonen, PhD, is Adjunct Professor of Journalism in the

Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences at Tampere
University, Finland. Once a newspaper journalist, in academia he has focused on
exploring the changing nature of professionalism in journalism, concepts and forms
of journalism in the era of digital media, and journalistic ethics.
Kristy Hess Kristy Hess is Associate Professor of Communication at Deakin

University, Australia. She is associate editor of Digital Journalism. She studies jour-
nalism and its relationship to social connection and place-making, with a particular
emphasis on local news. Her work appears in leading international journalism and
media journals. She is the author of two monographs.
Brant Houston Brant Houston is the Knight Chair in Investigative Reporting at

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the co-author of the
Investigative Reporter’s Handbook and author of Computer-Assisted Reporting: A
Practical Guide. He served as executive director of Investigative Reporters and
Editors for more than a decade after 17 years as an investigative journalist at daily
newspapers. He is co-founder of the Global Investigative Journalism Network and
of the Institute for Non-Profit News.
Beate Josephi Beate Josephi is an Honorary Associate in the Department of Media

and Communications at the University of Sydney. Her publications include the
edited volume, Journalism Education in Countries with Limited Media Freedom,
many internationally published articles, notably on journalism and democracy, and
numerous chapters in international handbooks and books on journalism, such as
The Worlds of Journalism in 2019.
xxiv About the Authors
Stephen Jukes Stephen Jukes is Professor of Journalism at Bournemouth

University’s Faculty of Media & Communication. His research focuses on areas of
objectivity and emotion in news with an emphasis on affect, trauma and conflict
journalism. He was previously a foreign correspondent and global head of news at
Reuters. During a series of overseas postings, he covered or oversaw coverage of
stories ranging from the ousting of Margaret Thatcher to the fall of the Berlin Wall,
the two Gulf Wars and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.
Gr Keer Gr Keer is Associate Librarian at California State University, East Bay.

They teach and have published on topics that include information ethics, critical
librarianship, queer cultures, librarian stereotypes, and the social justice implica-
tions of scholarly knowledge creation.
Johan Lidberg Johan Lidberg is Associate Professor and Deputy Head of the
Journalism program and Director of the MA Journalism program at Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia. He teaches journalism, law and ethics and has
published extensively on international media coverage of climate change.
Cliff Lonsdale Cliff Lonsdale is a co-founder and president of The Canadian

Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma, an educational charity. He began his
journalism career as a teenager in Africa and has worked in print, radio and televi-
sion media in many parts of the world. Deported at age 25 from Rhodesia
(Zimbabwe) by Ian Smith’s regime for his reporting, he joined CBC Television
News in Canada where he became chief news editor 5 years later. His subsequent
career included working as a foreign correspondent and making independent docu-
mentaries, filmed around the world and broadcast in 70 countries. His experience
being accepted as equivalent to a doctoral degree, he taught TV journalism and
international reporting for 12 years in the Master of Arts in Journalism program at
Western University in London, Ontario.
Donald Matheson Donald Matheson is Associate Professor of Media and

Communication at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is the author of
two books, Media Discourses in 2005 and Digital War Reporting in 2009, with
Stuart Allan. He is the co-editor of Ethical Space: The International Journal of
Communication Ethics, a past-president of the Australian and New Zealand
Communication Association and co-director of the University of Canterbury Arts
Digital Lab. He writes on journalism practice and culture, public communication in
social media and communication ethics.
Kerry McCallum Kerry McCallum is Professor of Communication and Media

Studies at the University of Canberra, Australia. Her research specializes in the
relationships between changing media and Australian social policy. Kerry is the co-
author of The Dynamics of News and Indigenous Policy in Australia, and is cur-
rently lead investigator on the Australian Research Council-funded project
“Breaking Silences: Media and the Child Abuse Royal Commission.”
About the Authors xxv
Cait McMahon Cait McMahon is a specialist trauma and journalism psychologist

and an internationally renowned speaker on psychological trauma as it relates to
news gathering. Working with media professionals since 1987, when she was first
engaged at Melbourne’s The Age newspaper as a staff counsellor, McMahon com-
pleted one of the world’s first studies on journalists and trauma in 1993 – a pilot
study of print journalists exposed to work related trauma. She completed her doctor-
ate on trauma-exposed Australian media professionals examining posttraumatic
stress and post-traumatic growth. Cait McMahon is the founding managing director
of Dart Centre Asia Pacific, a project of Columbia University’s Graduate School of
Journalism. In 2016 she was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM), one
of Australia’s highest civil acknowledgements for services to journalists’ mental
health and wellbeing.
Gwanglip Moon Gwanglip Moon is pursuing a PhD in English Literature at

Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. He holds a BS in economics from Seoul
National University and an MA in English Literature from Yonsei University. He
worked for English-language news outlets in South Korea for more than 10 years.
Julianne H. Newton Julianne H. Newton, PhD, is Professor of Visual

Communication in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University
of Oregon. Her research and teaching focus is the application of ethics and cognitive
theory to the study of visual behavior, especially visual journalism. She is author of
The Burden of Visual Truth: The Role of Photojournalism in Mediating Reality and
co-author (with Rick Williams) of Visual Communication: Integrating Media, Art
and Science. The book was named one of the top 10 books in visual communication
in 2013 by Designer’s Library and it won the 2009 Marshall McLuhan Award for
Outstanding Book in Media Ecology. Prof. Newton’s many honors include the 2018
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award from the University of Oregon.
Lindsay Palmer Lindsay Palmer is Associate Professor in the School of Journalism

and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has pub-
lished two books on international news reporting. The first one, in 2018, is Becoming
the Story: War Reporters since 9/11. The second book is The Fixers: Local News
Workers and the Underground Labor of International News Reporting in 2019.
Both books draw upon postcolonial studies and global media ethics to better under-
stand the complex labor of international reporting in the 21st century. Palmer’s peer
reviewed articles have also appeared in publications such as Journalism Studies,
Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, the International Journal of Cultural
Studies, and Critical Studies in Media Communication.
Fernando Oliveira Paulino, PhD, is professor at the University of Brasilia, Brazil,

president of the Brazilian Federation of Scientific and Academic Communications
Researchers Association (SOCICOM), and vice president of the Latin American
xxvi About the Authors
Communications Researchers Association (ALAIC). He is also researcher of the

Project “Communication and democracy: media accountability, public service
media, internet access and the right to information in Germany and Brazil,”
supported by the Probral, Brazilian-German academic cooperation program
CAPES/DAAD (Grant 88887.371422/2019-00). E-mail: [email protected].
Mark Pearson Mark Pearson is Professor of Journalism and Social Media at

Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. A journalism and media law academic,
blogger, author and trainer, he has published widely in the fields of media law and
mindful journalism ethical practice. He has written or edited ten books, including
Australia’s leading journalism law text.
Richard Pendry Richard Pendry is a lecturer at the University of Kent who

researches contemporary reporting practices in areas of conflict. He has written
about Bellingcat’s work on the MH17 plane crash in Ukraine and ethnographic
studies of current reporting practices in Syria and Iraq for the journal Ethical Space.
Richard chairs debates at the Frontline Club in London. He was previously a pro-
ducer/director at the specialist conflict agency, Frontline News Television, working
on television documentaries, news and current affairs programs. During this time
Richard worked all over the former Soviet Union including Chechnya, and won an
award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts for Ross Kemp
on Gangs.
Catalina Petcu Catalina Petcu is Research Associate at Qatar University. Her

research experience extends across a variety of topics such as communication tech-
nologies, political economy, and mental health in Qatar. In her research endeavor,
she prepared her Master’s thesis on the economic development of Qatar with a focus
on aviation industry. She published a chapter on the impact of the Gulf crisis on the
aviation industry in Qatar in the edited book The 2017 Gulf Crisis (2020) and three
co-authored chapters on media development and communication in the edited book
“Al Jazeera in the Gulf and in the World: Is It Redefining Global Communication
Ethics?” (2019). She is currently working on a mental health research study in
Qatar, which is part of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative.
Robert G. Picard Prof. Robert G. Picard, PhD, is a senior research fellow at the
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at University of Oxford, a fellow of the
Royal Society of Arts, and a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale
University Law School. He has been a professor for four decades at universities in
Europe and the United States, has taught at both University of Oxford and Harvard
University, and has been editor of the Journal of Media Business Studies and The
Journal of Media Economics. Picard received his PhD from the University of
Missouri, Columbia, and had post-doctoral study and fellowships at University of
Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and University of Oxford.
About the Authors xxvii
Amit Pinchevski Amit Pinchevski is an Associate Professor and Director of the

Smart Family Institute of Communications in the Department of Communication
and Journalism at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests are in
theory, philosophy and ethics of communication and media. He is the author and
editor of four books: By Way of Interruption: Levinas and the Ethics of
Communication (2005), Transmitted Wounds: Media and the Mediation of Trauma
(2019), Media Witnessing: Testimony in the Age of Mass Communication (edited
with P. Frosh, 2009) and Ethics of Media (edited with N. Couldry and
M. Madianou, 2013).
Patrick Lee Plaisance Patrick Lee Plaisance, PhD, is the Don W. Davis Professor
in Ethics for the Bellisario College of Communications at Pennsylvania State
University. He is editor of the Journal of Media Ethics and author of Media Ethics:
Key Principles for Responsible Practice (3rd Ed.), Virtue in Media: The Moral
Psychology of Excellence in News and Public Relations. He also edited the
Handbook of Communication and Media Ethics. He has published more than two
dozen journal articles. His research focuses on application of ethics theory to media
practice, moral psychology in media, and media technology. He worked as a jour-
nalist at various US newspapers for nearly 15 years.
Raluca-Nicoleta Radu Raluca-Nicoleta Radu has a PhD in Communication

Studies. She is Professor and Director of the Journalism Department at the Faculty
of Journalism and Communication Studies, at the University of Bucharest, Romania.
She has been part of several international comparative studies on newsroom digita-
lization, media accountability, digital audiences and journalistic performance. Her
publications include a coordinated volume on public communication ethics, a hand-
book in Romanian with 13 international authors.
Bushra Hameedur Rahman Bushra Hameedur Rahman, PhD, is Professor in the

Institute of Communication Studies, University of the Punjab. Her areas of research
are feminism and Muslim feminism, Muslim women portrayals in the Western
media, Muslim women in religious discourse, the West in the religious discourse of
Pakistan, peace journalism, role of media in public opinion, and ethical values in
communication education and practice. She has authored a number of research arti-
cles published in national and international research journals. Bushra is the found-
ing member of the Association of Media and Communication Academic
Professionals (AMCAP). She has organized international conferences on media
freedom in Pakistan. She is the elected vice-President of the Islam and Media Group
of the International Association of Mass Communication Research (IAMCR) and a
member of AEJMC. She is an Editor of a communication research journal, Journal
of Media Studies.
Shakuntala Rao Shakuntala Rao, PhD, is Professor in the State University of

New York at Plattsburgh, New York, USA. She has published extensively and influ-
entially in communication and interdisciplinary journals. Her areas of teaching and
xxviii About the Authors
research are ethics, global media, South Asian journalism, and popular culture. She
is the editor/co-editor of four books including Media Ethics and Justice in the Age
of Globalization and Indian Journalism in a New Era. Prof. Rao has been a visiting
research professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Central University of
Venezuela in Caracas and Stockholm University in Sweden. She is the recipient of
State University of New York Chancellor’s award for excellence in scholarship.
Ke’ōpūlaulani Reelitz Ke’ōpūlaulani Reelitz, J.D. is a part-Hawaiian communi-

cations professional. After graduating from Kamehameha Schools, she earned her
BA from Loyola University in Chicago and then her J.D. from the University of
Arizona College of Law. She returned home in 2010 and has worked primarily in
communications and media. Reelitz was managing editor and then editor of MANA
Magazine, an award-winning bimonthly publication for and about the Hawaiian
community. She has largely worked in government communications roles since the
magazine closed.
Matthew Ricketson Matthew Ricketson is Professor of Communication at Deakin

University in Melbourne, Australia. He has worked as a journalist at The Age and
The Australian newspapers and Time Australia magazine. He is the author of three
books and editor of two. He is a chief investigator on three Australian Research
Council grants. In 2011 he was appointed by the Australian Government to work
with Ray Finkelstein QC on an Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation which
reported in 2012.
Deana A. Rohlinger Deana A. Rohlinger, PhD, is Professor of Sociology at

Florida State University. She studies mass media, political participation, and
American politics. She is the author of Abortion Politics, Mass Media, and Social
Movements in America, New Media and Society, and dozens of research articles and
book chapters. Rohlinger is the outgoing chair of the American Sociological
Association’s section on Communication, Information Technologies, and Media
Society and is a member of the National Institute for Civil Discourse Research
Network, which was founded by Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011.
Rohlinger’s current research explores disinformation, polarization and deliberation
in partisan news venues.
Verica Rupar Verica Rupar is an Associate Professor and Head of Journalism at

Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand. Her research in journal-
ism studies is focused on journalism as a form of knowledge production in historical
and comparative contexts. Engaging empirically and conceptually with journal-
ism’s contribution to democratic society, she critically questions how journalism
relates to wider social, political and cultural change and investigates journalism’s
potential to contribute to the wellbeing of society. Verica is the Chair of the World
Journalism Education Council, an international coalition representing 32 academic
associations involved in journalism and mass communication at university level.
Before moving to academia she worked as a journalist in Europe.
About the Authors xxix
Haydig Badawi Sadig Haydar Badawi Sadig currently serves as Ambassador in

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sudan. Previously, he taught at various universi-
ties in the United States, including at Ohio University, University of North Carolina-
Charlotte and Medaille College (Buffalo, New York). He also taught at several
universities in the Arab Gulf region, like the United Arab Emirates University,
University of Sharjah, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals and Qatar
University. He authored or co-authored many works on international communica-
tion and global communication/media ethics issues. One of his latest works is an
edited volume entitled Al Jazeera in the Gulf and in the World: Is It Redefining
Global Communication Ethics? (2019).
Soomin Seo Soomin Seo, PhD, is assistant professor in the Department of

Journalism and a member of the Media and Communication Doctoral Program at
Temple University in Philadelphia. She received her PhD in communications at
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and studied public policy at
Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Seo has written
about global journalistic practices, journalism history and media policy. As a media
sociologist, she has conducted fieldwork in newsrooms of New York, London and
Seoul. A former journalist who worked for the Hankyoreh, Korea Times and BBC
Radio and visited North Korea six times from 2000 to 2008, Seo’s work has been
published in publications such as Journalism Studies, Journalism: Theory, Practice
and Criticism, Journalism Practice, New Media & Society, International Journal of
Communication, and Columbia Journalism Review.
Bo Shan Bo Shan, PhD, is Professor and Director of the Center for Studies of
Media Development, at Wuhan University, China. His research focuses on a variety
of topics, including intercultural communication, Chinese philosophy, comparative
journalism, history of communication theory. He is co-editor of The Ethics of
Intercultural Communication. His main publications include The Issues and
Possibilities of Intercultural Communication, The Nine Horizons of the Mind: The
Spiritual Space of Tang Junyi’s Philosophy, and Academic Imagination and
Educational Reflection on Journalism and Communication.
Edward H. Spence Edward H. Spence, PhD, is Honorary Associate in the

Department of Philosophy at the University of Sydney. He is also Research Fellow
at the 4TU Centre for Ethics and Technology, in the Netherlands; and Senior
Lecturer at Charles Sturt University. He is the author of several books including
Media Corruption in the Age of Information, Ethics in a Digital Era, Media Markets
and Morals, Ethics Within Reason: A Neo-Gewirthian Approach, Advertising
Ethics, and Corruption and Anti-Corruption: A Philosophical Approach. He is
founder and producer of the Theatre of Philosophy project that aims to introduce
philosophy to the general public through drama. Several of his philosophy plays
have been performed at Arts and Cultural Festivals throughout Australia and
the USA.
xxx About the Authors
Molly Wright Steenson Molly Wright Steenson, PhD, is Senior Associate Dean
for Research in the College of Fine Arts and the K&L Gates Associate Professor of
Ethics & Computational Technologies and Associate Professor in the School of
Design at Carnegie Mellon University, with a courtesy appointment in the School of
Architecture. She is the author of Architectural Intelligence: How Designers and
Architects Created the Digital Landscape in 2017. It traces the history of AI’s
impact on design and architecture. She is also the co-editor of Bauhaus Futures
published in 2019. Steenson was previously an assistant professor in the School of
Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She
holds a PhD in Architecture from Princeton University.
Linda Steiner Linda Steiner, PhD, is Professor in the College of Journalism at the
University of Maryland and the editor of Journalism and Communication
Monographs. She has published over 100 book chapters and refereed journal arti-
cles, including about ethics and about sexual harassment in journalism. Her recent
co-edited books include Key Concepts in Critical-Cultural Studies, and Race, News,
and the City: Uncovering Baltimore; Journalism, Gender and Power, and Front
Pages, Front Lines: Media and the Fight for Women’s Suffrage. Steiner, a past presi-
dent of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication,
chaired an AEJMC task force on ethics. She worked for a weekly newspaper before
earning her PhD.
Susan L. Stos Susan L. Stos is a graduate of McMaster University, Canada, and

the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. A journalist for several decades,
her career has included reporting for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, pro-
ducing/directing South Africa’s award-winning actuality program Carte Blanche,
and being executive producer/director of Carte Blanche Africa, which is broadcast
across Africa. She has lectured at the universities of Johannesburg and Witwatersrand
in South Africa, presented a MOOC in journalism ethics, and written several book
chapters and journal articles on aspects of journalism ethics. She also devised and
wrote a program and workbook entitled APPLY Ethics™, which teaches businesses,
government employees and students how to make ethical decisions. She regularly
presents lectures, talks and workshops focusing on ethics.
Ruth Tsuria Ruth Tsuria, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the Department for
Communication and the Arts at Seton Hall University. Her work has been awarded
and supported by various bodies, including The Digital Religion Research Award.
Her research is concerned with the intersection between digital technologies, femi-
nism and religion.
Anita Varma Anita Varma, PhD, is Assistant Director of Journalism & Media
Ethics as well as Social Sector Ethics in the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at
Santa Clara University, California. Her research focuses on the role of solidarity in
American journalism. In 2019, she received the inaugural Penn State Davis Ethics
Award for her dissertation titled Solidarity in Action: A Case Study of Journalistic
About the Authors xxxi
Humanizing Techniques in the San Francisco Homeless Project. She received her
PhD in Communication at Stanford University. Varma’s work has been published in
Journalism Studies, Journalism Practice, Journalism, and the refereed volume
Challenging Communication Research.
Lisa Waller Lisa Waller is Professor of Digital Communication in the School of

Media and Communication at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Her
research investigates how the news media shapes society, from Indigenous Affairs,
to its roles in rural and regional communities and the justice system. Lisa is the
author of two recent books: Local Journalism in a Digital World and The Dynamics
of News Media and Indigenous Policy in Australia.
Herman Wasserman Herman Wasserman, PhD, is Professor of Media Studies at

the University of Cape Town, South Africa. His latest book is The Ethics of
Engagement: Media, Conflict and Democracy in Africa. Wasserman is editor-in-
chief of the academic journal African Journalism Studies, editor of the Annals of the
International Communication Association and associate editor of Communication
Theory. His awards include a Fulbright Fellowship, the Georg Foster Research
Prize from the German Humboldt Foundation and the Neva Prize for Journalism
Theory from St Petersburg University. He is an elected member of the Academy of
Science of South Africa and a Fellow of the International Communication
Association.
Brian Winston Brian Winston, PhD, is The Lincoln Professor at the University of
Lincoln. His primary areas of interest are freedom of speech, journalism history,
media technology, and documentary film. Winston was the founding director of the
Glasgow (University) Media Group whose pioneering studies of television news,
Bad News and More Bad News, have been re-issued as classics of media sociology.
His A Right to Offend was recognized with a Special Award for “increasing under-
standing of human rights” by the International Book Award on Human Rights,
Vienna. He has written 16 other books plus many articles and book chapters in mass
communications. Dr. Winston is ex-governor of the British Film Institute and has a
US Prime-Time Emmy for documentary script-writing.
Aya Yadlin-Segal Aya Yadlin-Segal, PhD, is Lecturer in the Department of Politics

and Communication at Hadassah Academic College. Yadlin-Segal’s research criti-
cally explores everyday engagements with internet-based media by studying the
role online media platforms play in processes of identity construction and cultural
negotiations in global contexts.
Qiong Ye Qiong Ye is a doctoral candidate at the School of Journalism and

Communication at Wuhan University, China. Her research interests include inter-
cultural communication and comparative journalism. She actively contributes to
Professor Bo Shan’s intercultural communication research projects. With Bo Shan
in 2019, she published the journal article “Reading Alone Together: Uncertainty and
Possibility of the Network Social Self.”
xxxii About the Authors
Mary Lynn Young Mary Lynn Young, PhD, is Professor and co-founder and board
member of The Conversation Canada, a recently launched national non-profit jour-
nalism organization, and affiliate of The Conversation global network. She has held
a number of academic administrative positions at UBC, including Associate Dean,
Faculty of Arts (2011–2016), Director of the UBC School of Journalism
(2008–2011), and Acting Director (June-December 2007). She is co-author with
Candis Callison of Reckoning: Journalism’s Limits and Possibilities.
Yuriy B. Zaliznyak Yuriy B. Zaliznyak (PhD) is Associate Professor of Journalism

at the Ivan Franko University of Lviv. Since 2001 he was an intern, reporter, editor,
and anchor in local, national and international newsrooms, including BBC Ukrainian
Service (2002–2003) and Radio Deutsche Welle (2004–2006). His dissertation
(2007) was titled “Ethical intellectualism in publicistic writings of Ivan Dziuba and
Vaclav Gavel.” Further scientific interest evolved to new media, social networks,
and information manipulation. In 2018–2019 Zaliznyak was appointed as a Fulbright
Scholar in the USA with a project on the influence of fake news on journalism.
Periodically he trains young journalists on multimedia storytelling.
Florian Zollmann is a Senior Lecturer in Journalism at Newcastle University. He

holds a PhD in journalism studies from the University of Lincoln. Zollmann previ-
ously worked as a Lecturer at the German Sport University Cologne, the University
of Lincoln, and Liverpool Hope University. Zollmann researches the intersections
of society, media, and propaganda. He has been working as a freelance journalist for
the magazine Publik-Forum since 1993. Zollmann’s research has been widely pub-
lished in international academic journals and edited collections. With Richard Lance
Keeble and John Tulloch, he jointly edited Peace Journalism, War and Conflict
Resolution (2010). His latest book is Media, Propaganda and the Politics of
Intervention (2017).
Part I
Introduction to Part I:
Concepts and Problems
Stephen J. A. Ward
The section introduces the field of global media ethics by providing 10 chapters on
basics concepts and practical problems.
In the first chapter, “What is Global Media Ethics?” I paint in broad strokes a
portrait of global media ethics as an evolving discipline—its motivating questions,
its distinct concerns and methods, how the discipline is related to other forms of
ethics, and why we need a global media ethics.
Since our global world is linked by many forms of media, the chapter argues that
we need an accompanying global media ethics that challenges the use of media to
promote racism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and the denial of human rights.
The chapter also describes the types of research and writing that comprise global
media ethics and concludes with an outline of how a global media ethics can be
realized in practice.
Then, in Chaps. 2 and 3, I discuss whether global media ethics is utopian and
whether there are global political emotions.
In Chap. 4, Robert G. Picard, the noted Oxford expert on business ethics in
media, explores the challenge of maintaining morally sound business practices in a
global media sphere. In “Media Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility,
and Governance,” Picard shows how digitalization and globalization increase ethi-
cal issues. The lack of internal accountability leads to loss of reputation and legal
jeopardy.
After discussing the concept of business ethics, Picard argues for the importance
of corporate citizenship and social responsibility. He also examines the extent to
which media firms globally conform to these norms. Picard clearly outlines how the
many issues of business ethics are also encountered in media businesses, including
deceptive advertising, poor sales practices, consumer fraud, data privacy violations,
employee relations, and employment discrimination.
Picard concludes by examining what media educators and companies can do to
promote and protect ethical behavior in media business practices.
2 I Introduction to Part I: Concepts and Problems
In the fifth chapter, “Do Journalists Share Universal Values?” Folker Hanusch
and Sandra Banjac of the University of Vienna confront the contested issue of uni-
versal values in global journalism. They draw upon a wealth of pertinent writings
such as key discussions in scholarship on universal journalism ethics, critical
debates about the desirability of a universal framework, and empirical studies on
ethics across journalism cultures. In particular, they use data from the Worlds of
Journalism Study (WJS), a global survey of more than 25,000 journalists from 67
countries.
The chapter highlights differences and similarities across countries when it
comes to journalists’ ethical orientations and justification of controversial practices.
The authors find that, although there is some consensus on universal ethical princi-
ples, there is also considerable variation across sociogeographical regions, indicat-
ing hybrid journalism cultures. Universal norms are shaped, in large part, by local
conditions.
Ari Heinonen, of Tampere University in Finland, maintains the focus on global
journalism values in Chap. 6, “Ignored but Not Forgotten: Global Issues in Ethical
Codes.” To what extent, he asks, are global values present in the ethical codes of
journalism? But why focus on codes? One reason is the belief that ethical codes
(codes of conduct) portray the self-understanding of the profession, thus defining
ideals and preferable practices for journalists.
Heinonen analyzes 90 ethical codes of journalism to reveal whether issues of
global nature, such as universalism, human rights, and peace, are mentioned or dis-
cussed. He finds that the global dimension is still quite rare in the codes but not
totally non-existent. This suggests that practitioners of journalism have not regarded
external obligations as part of their professional identity, at least on the level of ethi-
cal codes.
If codes generally lack a strong global dimension, what other mechanisms might
support responsible journalism in an era of fake news and unreliable sources? There
is the use of ombudsmen in newsrooms to ensure observance of ethical standards.
Esther Enkin, a former ombudsman for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
assesses the role and future of ombudsmen in Chap. 7, “The Role and Purpose of
Ombudsmen in a Global Media World.” Based on the experience of working practi-
tioners, Enkin examines the ombudsman’s dual function of acting as a representa-
tive of news consumers and acting as an upholder of journalistic standards. She
discusses how the role has changed in a world of social media and Twitter cam-
paigns and how ombudsmen might evolve to be more effective in this new context.
Enkin argues that journalists can help restore public trust in news media by having
an effective ombudsman in the newsroom.
In Chap. 8, another highly respected Canadian journalist discusses how a jour-
nalism forum based in Ontario is helping to improve reporting on mental illness and
suicide. In “A New Perspective on Ethical Reporting about Suicide,” Cliff Lonsdale,
president of the Canadian Journalism Forum on Violence and Trauma, describes
how his forum has led the development of revised recommendations for news
reporting about suicide, published in the Canada’s widely accepted journalist-to-
journalist guide, Mindset: Reporting on Mental Health, and its French counterpart.
I Introduction to Part I: Concepts and Problems 3
The new perspective takes into account a trend toward deeper reporting, focused on
social, policy, and systemic issues rather than reporting individual deaths. The new
perspective also places suicide contagion theory—which has dominated most guid-
ance for decades—into broader context, examining its appropriateness to in-depth
work advancing the public interest. The chapter tracks concerted efforts by the
forum to gain the understanding and acceptance of the Canadian suicide prevention
community for this work of improving reporting practices.
In the section’s remaining two chapters, three scholars return to the discussion of
broad trends and conceptual issues in global news media.
In Chap. 9, “Beyond the News and Opinion Dichotomy,” Belgian media scholar
François Heinderyckx develops an alternate conception of the traditional, and ques-
tionable, dualism in media ethics between fact and opinion. He argues that the news
and opinion dichotomy is misleading news producers and audiences in their under-
standing of the different types of content found in news media.
Instead, Heinderyckx says journalists (and scholars) should distinguish five cat-
egories of content grouped in three distinct aspirations: to report (the news based on
material facts and knowledge), to explain (interpretation based on analyses and edu-
cated guesses), and to comment (opinions tinged with inclinations, faith and ideol-
ogy, and values). This approach requires editors to enforce strictly the differences
between, on the one hand, the material and the epistemic (facts and knowledge) and,
on the other hand, the interpretation and opinions they may inspire.
Finally, in Chap. 10, Ruth Tsuria and Aya Yadlin-Segal, experts in the study of
religion and media, look at how digital media has led to diverse forms of digital
religion, in their “Digital Religion and Global Media: Flows, Communities, and
Radicalizations.” They recommend that scholars distinguish between organized
global religious communities, diasporic religious communities, and grassroots reli-
gious communities. The chapter highlights the importance of religion and digital
media in contemporary life, and the benefits of interdisciplinarity in the study
of both.
Chapter 1
What Is Global Media Ethics?
Stephen J. A. Ward
Abstract This chapter provide an introductory portrait of global media ethics as an

evolving discipline in broad strokes—its motivating questions, its distinct concerns
and methods, how the discipline is related to other forms of ethics, and why we need
a global media ethics. Since our global world is linked by many forms of media, the
chapter argues that we need an accompanying global media ethics that challenges
the use of media to promote racism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and the
denial of human rights. The chapter explores the types of research and writing that
comprise global media ethics and concludes with an outline of how a global media
ethics can be realized in practice.
Keywords Ethics · Media ethics · Journalism ethics · Journalism · Global ethics ·

Globalization · Codes of ethics · Objectivity · Moral reasoning · Universals
1.1 Introduction
The Handbook for Global Media Ethics is evidence of an emerging discipline in the
field of media ethics. The discipline is called “global media ethics,” a creative adap-
tation of ethical reasoning to the globalization of digital media. The very format for
the Handbook, a digital reference work by globally dispersed scholars, reflects the
digital media revolution.
The focus of this handbook is global ethics, not economics, technology, or other
aspects of global media. Also, it will focus on journalism ethics, and those areas of
media ethics, e.g., the use of social media, which affect journalism and its ethics. In
fact, I will often use “media,” “news media,” and “journalism” interchangeably for
stylistic variation. The handbook will not focus on professional media practices
such as public relations, advertising, or marketing. The technology and economics
of media will be of interest insofar as it raises issues for responsible journalism and
the public use of informational media, globally.
S. J. A. Ward (*)
UBC Graduate School of Journalism, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 5

S. J. A. Ward (ed.), Handbook of Global Media Ethics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32103-5_1
6 S. J. A. Ward
To grasp the idea of global media ethics, one can peruse the topics examined in
this handbook. But this approach is not entirely satisfactory as an introduction to the
field. Reviewing the handbook’s varied content, we may feel more bemused than
enlightened. What, we may ask, binds together these diverse inquiries under the
rubric of global media ethics?
This chapter, and this introductory section, assists readers by providing a portrait
of this evolving discipline in broad strokes—its motivating questions, its distinct
concerns and methods, how the discipline is related to other forms of ethics, and
why we need a global media ethics.
The fundamental questions for global media ethics are: Why “go global” in
media ethics, and what does that mean? Later, I argue in some detail why media
ethics should go global. For now, I simply state the guiding motivation: Given our
global, media-linked world, one of the greatest tasks of moral theory is to transform
itself into a clear and influential global ethics that challenges the use of media to
promote racism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, and the denial of human rights.
Since our global world is linked by many forms of media, we need an accompany-
ing global media ethics.
1.2 Preliminary Definitions
Defining global media ethics begins by explaining the notions of ethics and media
ethics that undergird the discipline.
1.2.1 What Is Ethics?
Ethics is inherently practical. It is the analysis, evaluation, and promotion of correct

conduct and virtuous character in light of the best available principles. Ethics asks
how we should live in goodness and in right relation with each other, a task that may
require us to forego personal benefits, to carry out duties, or to endure persecution.
This stress on the practical assures us that “the problems we have followed into the
clouds are, even intellectually, genuine not spurious.”1
Ethics is typically divided into a theoretical and an applied part, although in real-
ity both parts are involved in ethical thinking. Theoretical ethics refers to philo-
sophical meta-theories such as realism, anti-realism, relativism, emotivism, and
contractualism.2 The theories ask about the meaning of “good” and “right,” and they
debate the epistemic status of ethical statements. Are ethical statements objective?
How do we justify ethical claims? One ethical view, called realism, thinks ethical
1
Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, 4.
2
Ward, Ethics and the Media, 16–51.
1 What Is Global Media Ethics? 7
principles describe external ethical facts that can be objectively known, the way that
true scientific statements describe the facts of nature.3 Whether ethical beliefs are
true or false is primary. Another view—the view that I endorse—is pragmatism. It
thinks ethical principles are practical proposals on how to act.4 Whether ethical
beliefs are socially fair and useful is primary. Ethics is about the rules we should
agree to follow so as to promote fair social cooperation. Ethical reasoning evaluates
proposals.
Whether we subscribe to realism, pragmatism, or some other theoretical view,
there is still the everyday task of applied ethics, of deciding what is best in concrete
situations. Applied ethics is less concerned about the meaning of good, right, and
virtue. It wants to know what things are good, right, or virtuous, and what ethical
principles should guide our actions. How do we promote these goods, rights, and
virtues in concrete situations where there is uncertainty over the best course of
action? Applied ethics debates the constantly evolving issues of life and society,
from abortion to ending the life of a terminally ill patient. In the field of media, for
example, practitioners constantly reinterpret and balance principles so as to respond
to new technology and new social conditions. Even the boundaries of applied ethics
change. In our time, ethics has come to include such issues as animal cruelty, vio-
lence against women, the environment, and the rights of gay and transgendered
individuals. Ethical reflection is normative, involving what ought to be. But it is
more than that. It is ever-evolving normative reason in social practice.
Ethics is not simply a set of rules, or static principles, perhaps imposed on us by
social pressure or religious tradition. It is something we, as autonomous individuals
and groups, “do.” Ethics is a reflective activity whereby we subject existing norms
to the scrutiny of evidence and logic. We can think of ethical rules as a revisable
outcome of something more primary—ethics as an activity, a dialogue prompted by
the need for common ground among different interests. By engaging in ethics, we
create a zone of normative discourse about what should be, a zone where norms are
fallible and evolving. In media ethics, ethics is a multidimensional activity for prac-
titioner and scholar. They question principles; revise and invent norms for new prac-
tices; debate the application of traditional principles to concrete situations; and
differ over the role of media in society. Ethicists and philosophically minded jour-
nalists reflect on how ethical and political thought—e.g., notions of justice, liberal
democracy, or utilitarian thinking—intersects with the values of journalism ethics.
3
See Shafer-Landau, Moral Realism.
4
See Putnam, Pragmatism.
8 S. J. A. Ward
1.2.2 Media Ethics
Applied ethics includes the study of social practices, such as the principles of cor-
porate governance, the ethics of scientific research, and the responsibilities of pro-
fessional practice. The latter is called “professional ethics,”5 and it ranges from
business to medical ethics.
Media ethics, historically, has been a form of professional, applied ethics. Media
ethics is the responsible use of the freedom to publish. Media ethics seeks to say
what “responsible” means in general for professional media practice and what it
entails in concrete situations. Today, however, media ethics is being stretched to
include the practice of both professional practitioners and nonprofessional citizens
who create media content. Therefore, we need to revise and broaden our definition
of media ethics: Media ethics refers to the norms that should govern the responsible
use—by anyone—of media that provides information, analysis, discussion, or advo-
cacy about issues of public importance. Media ethics now applies to the use of
whatever communication technology is available, from the printing press to the
smart phone and social media.
Journalism ethics is applied ethics, a branch of media ethics. It is the study and
application of ethical norms that guide the social practice of journalism, in its many
technological and organizational forms. Put simply, journalism ethics asks what
journalists and news organizations should do, ethically, given their role in society.
Journalists have ethical duties to perform and norms to honor because, as human
beings, they fall under general ethical principles such as to tell the truth and to mini-
mize harm and because they have social power to frame the political agenda and
influence public opinion. With power comes responsibility.
Part of the study of journalism ethics is the study of frameworks of principles
which constitute the codes of journalism ethics, worldwide.6 The principles of jour-
nalism have included such familiar notions as impartiality (or objectivity), truth-
telling, minimizing harm, promise-keeping, accuracy, verifying information, and
serving a democratic public. Under these principles fall a large number of specific
norms and protocols for dealing with recurring situations, such as the use of decep-
tive techniques to obtain information. Applying the frameworks to evaluate specific
practices is a complex and holistic affair. Journalists have to balance principles that
conflict in a situation, e.g., the freedom to publish versus minimizing harm to
vulnerable sources. Reasoning in journalism ethics challenges journalists to reach a
“reflective equilibrium” among their intuitions and principles.7
The ethical issues for media and journalism can be large or “macro” dealing with
the media system as a whole. For example, we can ask how well media systems
inform the public, who owns the media, and how the news media cover minorities
5
See Dimock & Tucker, Applied Ethics & LaFollette, Ethics in Practice.
6
A collection of codes of journalism ethics is at: http://ethicnet.uta.fi/sweden/code_of_ethics_for_
the_press_radio_and_television
7
Rawls, Political Liberalism, 8.
or global issues. Are journalists helping citizens be an informed, self-governing

public? The questions can be “micro” dealing with what individual journalists
should do in particular situations. For example, should journalists publish the name
of this victim of sexual assault? Is it ethical to invade the privacy of a much-admired
politician to investigate alleged misconduct?
Traditionally, the problem areas have been:
• Accuracy and verification: How much verification and context are required to
publish a story? How much editing and “gate-keeping” is necessary?
• Independence and allegiances: How can journalists be independent but maintain
ethical relations with their employers, editors, advertisers, sources, police, and
the public? When is a journalist too close to a source or in a conflict of interest?
• Deception and fabrication: Should journalists misrepresent themselves or use
recording technology, such as hidden cameras, to get a story? Should literary
journalists invent dialogue or create composite “characters”?
• Graphic images and image manipulation: When should journalists publish
graphic or gruesome images? When do published images constitute sensational-
ism or exploitation? When and how should images be altered?
• Sources and confidentiality: Should journalists promise confidentiality to
sources? How far does that protection extend? Should journalists go “off the
record”?
• Special situations: How should journalists report hostage-takings, major break-
ing news, suicide attempts, and other events where coverage could exacerbate
the problem? When should journalists violate privacy?
Today, this list is incomplete. Media ethics is challenged to articulate norms that
guide the use of new media and which allow practitioners to address new problems.
Therefore, a question about journalism is an ethical question, as opposed to a
question of prudence, custom, or law, if it evaluates conduct in light of the funda-
mental public purposes and social responsibilities of journalism. A story that sensa-
tionalizes the personal life of a public figure may be legal—it may be legally “safe”
to publish—but it may be unethical because it is inaccurate and unfair. What jour-
nalists regard as responsible journalism varies. Among media cultures globally, the
aims and principles of responsible practice overlap and vary. Some principles are
shared, such as truth-seeking, and others are not, such as objectivity. Some cultures
value an aggressive watchdog journalism to expose official wrongdoing; other cul-
tures stress the role of media in maintaining social solidarity.
1.3 Global Media Ethics
Given these definitions, we can describe global media ethics as the study and appli-
cation of the norms that should guide the responsible use of informational, public
media that is now global in content, reach, and impact. Its aim is to define
10 S. J. A. Ward
responsible use of the freedom to publish for media in a global world. Global media
ethics is not the empirical study of globalization as a complex phenomenon affect-
ing culture, economics, and communication. It is the analysis of the normative
implications of globalization on a news media whose original norms were created
for a non-global, non-digital news media.
Among global media ethics’ main tasks is the proposal of aims, principles, and
norms for global media practice, especially where media have global impact or deal
with global issues such as climate change, immigration, and terrorism. Typically,
the problems in view are global issues—issues that require the cooperation of many
nations, such as immigration, climate change, or famine. The primary content of
global ethics are global principles concerning such things as human rights, human
development, and global social justice. Yet, as noted, even these principles—as
important as they are—should not be regarded as fixed but as the outcome of past
inquiry and whose interpretations are open to revision and improvement. They are
the current basis for dialogue.
“Global media ethics” does not refer to something clear, singular, or established.
It does not refer to an established science with a consensus on methods, problems,
and aims. Neither is the content of global media ethics—its purported principles and
norms—a settled affair. There is no one, internationally accepted, code of global
media ethics.8 Global media ethics refers to studies and activities motivated by the
common conviction, mentioned earlier, that journalism and media ethics must “go
global” even if there is no wide consensus yet as to what the shape of such an ethic
should be. Journalists and other media practitioners need to undergo a global revo-
lution in their self-consciousness and in the way they practice their craft. A second
unifying feature of global media ethics is agreement on a set of basic questions that
define inquiry: (1) How should the aims and roles of journalism be redefined given
a global media? (2) What are the global principles for journalism? (3) How would
global aims and principles change practice, especially the coverage of global issues?
(4) By what methods would such an ethic be constructed and then endorsed by
many journalists?
Proponents of global media ethics typically do not regard their global principles
as simply an addition to existing principles found in codes of conduct. The impact
of global media ethics is thought to be more radical: the idea is that the global values
and principles will become the fundamental ethical basis for all other journalism-
norms. Specific rules and values in journalism will be ultimately justified and
understood by reference to global principles. Global media ethicists should show
how existing values such as informing citizens, serving the public, freedom of the
press, and the acting as watchdog on government are not only compatible with, but
promote, global values. For example, in my own globalism, I make the aim of jour-
nalism the affirmation of humanity through the promotion of human flourishing.
8
Individuals and organizations have begun to propose global media guidelines. I proposed a global
media ethics code in my Radical Media Ethics, at http://mediamorals.org/introducing-the-
ward-code-for-global-integrated-ethics/
Human flourishing is defined as the development and exercise of our central capaci-
ties, regarded as basic human rights.9
Another way to understand global media ethics is to think of it as a project. It is
a work in progress, an aspiration that prompts different forms of thinking. Global
media ethics is an example of emergent ethics, where established ethical systems
are challenged by new values and practices. Global media ethics is a contested zone
where globalists advance rival ideas, while skeptics dismiss global ethics as a phi-
losopher’s dream that can never be realized.
1.3.1 The Starting Point
Where does the project start from? What is the overall context for global thinking?
It starts from the digital media revolution that is transforming media, society, and
the public sphere. The revolution consists of three large factors: (1) the rise of digi-
tal media allowing citizens to publish and practice journalism, far from the profes-
sional newsrooms where journalism ethics began; (2) the rise of extreme populism
and intolerant groups empowered by technologies that spread misinformation, pol-
luting the public sphere; and (3) a global public sphere. All three factors create tur-
moil in media ethics.
First, accessible digital media means new forms of journalism and new practitio-
ners with varied values and aims. Citizens have access to publishing technology that
can “do” journalism in two ways: Citizens can regularly or randomly commit “acts
of journalism” by posting information on events or commenting on issues. Or, they
can use the techniques of journalism, e.g., dramatic narratives and images, to pro-
mote whatever cause they support. Many of these media workers lack knowledge of
media ethics; or care little for ethics; or assert that they work according to their own,
and different, values.
Today, there is barely a principle or aim that goes unquestioned. New forms of
journalism can be emotive and perspectival and openly partisan. Traditional con-
cepts, such as news objectivity and neutrality, are rejected. New areas of practice
call for new ethical norms, such as norms for participatory journalism—where citi-
zens are part of the news process. When the aims of journalism are raised, a plurality
of kinds of journalist are up for discussion. In addition to objective reporters, there
are online opinion journalists, fiercely partisan journalists, civic-minded engaged
journalists, citizen-inclusive “participatory” journalists, and social media journal-
ists. All have different aims. The newspaper editor, the blogger, the social media
convener, the broadcast journalist, the web site manager, the activist writer, and the
online partisan journalist all endorse and prioritize different sets of values and dif-
ferent aims for the practice of journalism. At times, practitioners struggle with the
ethical questions because they work with the concepts of professional journalism
9
Ward, Global Journalism Ethics.
12 S. J. A. Ward
ethics, an ethics constructed over a century ago for a different media era. To make
matters worse, this disagreement occurs at the worst possible time—when journal-
ists seek agreement on norms for new tools, from the ethics of social media to the
responsible use of technologies such as crowdsourcing, drones, and virtual reality.
The field of media and journalism ethics has never been more active, more
debated, and more fragmented. We lack a common framework for evaluating media
practice, which opens up space for dubious forms of practice to thrive. Journalism
ethics, in particular, is so fragmented that it resembles an archipelago of separate
islands of value, where journalists hold different and incommensurable interpreta-
tions of what journalism ought to be.
Second, responsible journalists now work in a toxic (and global) public sphere of
partisan media content, misinformation, hackers and trolls, political networks,
extreme populists, and far-right “journalism.” To counter these worldwide forces, it
is not sufficient that journalists define themselves in traditional terms, e.g., reporting
events and alleged facts in a neutral and balanced manner. A fundamental rethinking
of journalism’s primary aims is required.
Third, the globalization of news media questions the historically dominant view
that journalists are, first and foremost, patriotic to their nation. The duties of journal-
ism ethics are parochial—to the citizens of a nation. But in a global media world,
should journalism ethics stop at one’s border? If stories with serious impact cross
borders, what are the ethical norms for evaluating their publication? What are the
larger and different duties of global news media?
These powerful trends define the subject matter for global media ethics. They
create the problems (and opportunities) that motivate scholars and others to study
global media ethics. We witness the end of a tidy, pre-digital media ethics for pro-
fessionals, established a century ago, and the birth of an untidy digital media ethics
for professional and citizen.
The overall task for fragmented media ethics, if it is not to sink into oblivion or
irrelevance, is to reinvent itself and create a new common basis for evaluation and
understanding that cuts across borders, cultures, and forms of journalism. The task
breaks down into two daunting projects: the creation of a digital ethics that inte-
grates professional and citizen journalism and the creation of a global ethics that
crosses borders.
1.3.2 Four Types of Inquiry
Global media ethics, as an evolving project, leaves plenty of room for different
approaches to inquiry.
Types of inquiry into global media and its ethics can be divided roughly into four
kinds, depending on the degree of normative and philosophical emphasis in the
studies: (1) empirical, (2) empirical-normative, (3) applied, and (4) meta-ethical, or
philosophical.
The empirical category includes comparative studies of media cultures and sur-
veys of the attitudes, working conditions, and practices of journalists and other
media practitioners in different countries.10 Empirical-normative studies include
surveys and cross-culture comparisons from an ethical perspective, such as the nor-
mative similarities and differences among media practitioners.11
The third form of inquiry belongs explicitly to applied ethics. Media workers and
ethicists propose new values and practices for the daily operations of global news
media. Global media ethics means the construction of new principles, the critique of
existing principles, and the reinterpretation of norms for the guidance of global
media. For example, in journalism, are the parochial values of nationalism and
patriotism relevant to a global ethical perspective? What other principles are neces-
sary, and how might they be applied to the new problems of global media? How
should media cover global issues such as terrorism, far-right populists, racist and
hate speech, and so on?12
The fourth type of inquiry works at the meta-ethical (or philosophical) level.
Inquirers examine the theoretical foundations of global media ethics. Foundational
topics include global media ethics’ goals and basic principles, the existence of
media universals across cultures, and the challenge of ethical relativism. For
instance, Clifford G. Christians has argued that relativism is a major obstacle to the
construction of global ethics.13
1.4 Why a Global Media Ethics?
1.4.1 Radical Rethinking
A presupposition of this handbook is that global media ethics requires a deep

rethinking and reformulation of journalism and media ethics. Media ethics needs
radical conceptual reform—alternate conceptions of the role of journalism and fresh
principles to evaluate media practices. These new ideas need to be brought together
into a comprehensive perspective that explains what responsible journalism means
in a digital, media world. Long-established ways of thinking, which have come
down to us from the history of journalism, need to be disrupted and replaced by bet-
ter ways of thinking. Strict adherence to traditional perspectives discourages bolder
thinking and the development of new models.14
10
See, for example, Weaver, The Global Journalist.
11
For research on the values of media cultures globally, see the Worlds of Journalism project which
engages scholars from around the world, at http://www.worldsofjournalism.org/
12
An example of an organization that is developing guidelines for global news media is the London-
based Ethical Journalism Network at https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/
13
Christians, “Global Ethics and the Problem of Relativism.”
14
On how to disrupt journalism ethics, and why, see my Disrupting Journalism Ethics.
14 S. J. A. Ward
The ethical problems cannot be properly addressed by minor reformulation of

existing precepts. No doubt, after reform, some major principles will remain, such
as truth-telling and verification; but even those that remain will have to be reinter-
preted and reapplied to current issues. Reform will fail if it occurs in a piecemeal,
ad hoc manner, modifying a norm here and responding to a problem there. We need
to dig deep, intellectually. The future of media ethics depends on creative thinkers
who overcome entrenched ways of thinking through critique and new proposals. We
need to throw off the weight of journalistic tradition. It is time to be philosophically
radical, to rethink journalism ethics from the ground up.
1.4.2 Adopting Moral Globalism
The argument for global media ethics can be summarized in one short sentence:
Global power entails global responsibilities. It is therefore appropriate—some
would say urgent—to ask about the ethics of global media and to what extent it dif-
fers from the previous ethics of a non-global media rooted in individual nations and
regions of the world. The need for a global ethics is due not only to technological
innovation and new ownership patterns; it is due to changes in the world that jour-
nalism inhabits. Of primary importance is the fact that our media-connected world
brings together a plurality of different religions, traditions, ethnic groups, values,
and organizations with varying political agendas, social ideals, and conceptions of
the good. Media content deemed offensive by certain groups can spark not just
domestic unrest but global tension. As happened with the publication of the car-
toons of Mohammed by a Danish newspaper, news media (and other media) can
spark cultural tensions and violence that ripples across borders. In such a climate,
the role of media, and its ethics, must be re-examined.
A globally minded media is of great value because a biased and parochial media
can wreak havoc in a tightly linked global world. Unless reported properly, North
American readers may fail to understand the causes of violence in the Middle East
or of a drought in Africa. Jingoistic reports can portray the inhabitants of other
regions of the world as a threat. Reports may incite ethnic groups to attack each
other. In times of insecurity, a narrow-minded, patriotic news media can amplify the
views of leaders who stampede populations into war or the removal of civil rights
for minorities. We need a cosmopolitan media that reports issues in a way that
reflects this global plurality of views and helps groups understand each other better.
We need globally responsible media to help citizens understand the daunting
global problems of poverty, environmental degradation, and political instability.
However, one may ask: Why not apply existing principles of media ethics to the
problems raised by a globalization of media? The answer is: traditional media ethics
is insufficient because traditional media ethics was, and is, parochial, not global. For
traditional media ethics, the media owed responsibilities to a public within the bor-
ders of a nation. For traditional media ethics, journalists were first and foremost citi-
zens of specific countries who should be patriotic in serving their country’s national
interest, not global citizens seeking to create global understandings or global jus-
tice. Therefore, we must reconceive media ethics as dealing with issues surrounding
transnational publics and global problems.15
1.4.3 What Would Change?
What would change if media practitioners adopted moral globalism, i.e., made
global values their primary commitments, and took a global perspective on what
they do?16
This shift in ethical perspective would begin a cascade of reinterpretations of
primary ethical concepts and revisions of media codes of ethics while encouraging
better practices. First, globalism would give journalism a global goal such as sup-
porting human flourishing and human rights across borders and the opportunity to
develop basic human capacities. Media ethics would be grounded in a global thesis:
that the primary duty of a journalist is to support and promote the flourishing of the
global public, or humanity at large.
The second change would be in the self-consciousness of responsible journalists.
They would see themselves as citizens of the world, as agents of a global public
sphere. The goal of their collective actions is a well-informed, diverse, and tolerant
global “info-sphere” that challenges the distortions of tyrants, the abuse of human
rights, and the manipulation of information by special interests. The cosmopolitan
journalist is a transnational public communicator who seeks the trust and credence
of a global audience.
Also, practical principles would be reinterpreted. The ideal of objectivity in news
coverage takes on an international sense. Traditionally, news objectivity asks jour-
nalists to avoid bias toward groups within one’s own country. Global objectivity
would discourage allowing bias toward one’s country as a whole to distort reports
on international issues. The norms of accuracy and balance become enlarged to
include reports with international sources and cross-cultural perspectives. Global
media ethics also affects the principle of minimizing harm. It asks journalists to be
more conscious of how they frame major stories, how they set the international
news agenda, and how they can spark violence in tense societies.
Global media ethics would require practitioners to act so that principles of human
rights and social justice take precedence over personal interests and national inter-
ests, when they conflict. When my country embarks on an unjust war against another
country, I, as a journalist (or citizen), should say so. If I am a Canadian journalist
and I learn that Canada is engaged in trading practices that condemn citizens of an
15
For my detailed arguments on why we need a global media ethics, see Global Journalism Ethics,
Radical Media Ethics and Disrupting Journalism Ethics.
16
On moral globalism, see my “The Moral Priority of Globalism in a Digital World.”
16 S. J. A. Ward
African country to continuing, abject, poverty, I should not hesitate to report the
injustice.
A globally minded media would alter how journalists approach covering interna-
tional events such as a conference on climate change or a refugee crisis. With regard
to the climate conference, parochial journalists would tend to ask: What is in it for
our country? A global attitude would require that journalists take on the wider per-
spective of the global public good. What is the global problem concerning climate
change and how should all countries cooperative to reach a fair and effective agree-
ment? Globally minded journalists from the West would report the legitimate com-
plaints that developing nations have against the environmental policy of their own
country.
Finally, a global media ethics rethinks the value and role of patriotism. In a
global world, patriotism should play a decreasing role in ethical reasoning about
media issues. At best, nation-based forms of patriotism remain ethically permissible
if they do not conflict with the demands of a global ethical flourishing. Global jour-
nalism ethics requires that journalists commit themselves only to a moderate patrio-
tism, subjecting the easily inflamed emotion of love of country to rational and
ethical restraint. Therefore, a global ethics limits parochial attachments in journal-
ism by drawing a ring of broader ethical principles around them. When there is no
conflict with human rights or other global principles, journalists can report in ways
that support local and national communities. They can practice their craft parochially.
1.4.4 How to Realize?
Section 7 of the handbook will feature writings on whether and to what degree the
ambitious goal of global media ethics can be realized in practice and in theory,
including the teaching of media and journalism.
Skeptics will note the obvious gulf between the ideal and the real: a gulf between
the news media that citizens require to be properly informed and the news media
that actually exist and a gulf between theorizing about a global ethic and imple-
menting the ethic in practice. The world seems more complex, and its problems are
more intractable, than in the heady days of my youth in the 1960s and 1970s, with
our over-positive interpretation of McLuhan’s “global village.”17 A similar naïve
enthusiasm greeted the rise of digital media at the turn of this century. It was her-
alded as a “democratization” of media. The more the world connected, the more we
would live in harmony. What could go wrong? At present, the ubiquity of deep
disagreement among peoples, and the use of media to deceive the public and recruit
extremists, seems to define life in a global world. Yet some understanding across
differences is crucial, and some globally minded media is needed, lest we devolve
into a global Hobbesian state of nature.
17
See McLuhan, Understanding Media.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
building up her navy. Had the colonies been thirteen islands, the sea
power of England would quickly have settled the question; but
instead of such a physical barrier they were separated only by local
jealousies which a common danger sufficiently overcame. To enter
deliberately on such a contest, to try to hold by force so extensive a
territory, with a large hostile population, so far from home, was to
renew the Seven Years’ War with France and Spain, and with the
Americans, against, instead of for, England. The Seven Years’ War
had been so heavy a burden that a wise government would have
known that the added weight could not be borne, and have seen it
was necessary to conciliate the colonists. The government of the day
was not wise, and a large element of England’s sea power was
sacrificed; but by mistake, not willfully; through arrogance, not
through weakness.
This steady keeping to a general line of policy was doubtless made
specially easy for successive English governments by the clear
indications of the country’s conditions. Singleness of purpose was to
some extent imposed. The firm maintenance of her sea power, the
haughty determination to make it felt, the wise state of preparation
in which its military element was kept, were yet more due to that
feature of her political institutions which practically gave the
government, during the period in question, into the hands of a class,
—a landed aristocracy. Such a class, whatever its defects otherwise,
readily takes up and carries on a sound political tradition, is
naturally proud of its country’s glory, and comparatively insensible
to the sufferings of the community by which that glory is maintained.
It readily lays on the pecuniary burden necessary for preparation and
for endurance of war. Being as a body rich, it feels those burdens
less. Not being commercial, the sources of its own wealth are not so
immediately endangered, and it does not share that political timidity
which characterizes those whose property is exposed and business
threatened,—the proverbial timidity of capital. Yet in England this
class was not insensible to anything that touched her trade for good
or ill. Both houses of Parliament vied in careful watchfulness, over its
extension and protection, and to the frequency of their inquiries a
naval historian attributes the increased efficiency of the executive
power in its management of the navy. Such a class also naturally
imbibes and keeps up a spirit of military honor, which is of the first
importance in ages when military institutions have not yet provided
the sufficient substitute in what is called esprit-de-corps. But
although full of class feeling and class prejudice, which made
themselves felt in the navy as well as elsewhere, their practical sense
left open the way of promotion to its highest honors to the more
humbly born; and every age saw admirals who had sprung from the
lowest of the people. In this the temper of the English upper class
differed markedly from that of the French. As late as 1789, at the
outbreak of the Revolution, the French Navy List still bore the name
of an official whose duty was to verify the proofs of noble birth on the
part of those intending to enter the naval school.
Since 1815, and especially in our own day, the government of
England has passed very much more into the hands of the people at
large. Whether her sea power will suffer therefrom remains to be
seen. Its broad basis still remains in a great trade, large mechanical
industries, and an extensive colonial system. Whether a democratic
government will have the foresight, the keen sensitiveness to
national position and credit, the willingness to ensure its prosperity
by adequate outpouring of money in times of peace, all of which are
necessary for military preparation, is yet an open question. Popular
governments are not generally favorable to military expenditure,
however necessary, and there are signs that England tends to drop
behind.
17. Results of the Seven Years’ War[44]
Nevertheless, the gains of England were very great, not only in

territorial increase, nor yet in maritime preponderance, but in the
prestige and position achieved in the eyes of the nations, now fully
opened to her great resources and mighty power. To these results,
won by the sea, the issue of the continental war offered a singular
and suggestive contrast. France had already withdrawn, along with
England, from all share in that strife, and peace between the other
parties to it was signed five days after the Peace of Paris. The terms
of the peace was simply the status quo ante bellum. By the estimate
of the King of Prussia, one hundred and eighty thousand of his
soldiers had fallen or died in this war, out of a kingdom of five
million souls, while the losses of Russia, Austria, and France
aggregated four hundred and sixty thousand men. The result was
simply that things remained as they were.[45] To attribute this only to
a difference between the possibilities of land and sea war is of course
absurd. The genius of Frederick, backed by the money of England,
had proved an equal match for the mismanaged and not always
hearty efforts of a coalition numerically overwhelming.
What does seem a fair conclusion is, that States having a good
seaboard, or even ready access to the ocean by one or two outlets,
will find it to their advantage to seek prosperity and extension by the
way of the sea and of commerce, rather than in attempts to unsettle
and modify existing political arrangements in countries where a
more or less long possession of power has conferred acknowledged
rights, and created national allegiance or political ties. Since the
Treaty of Paris in 1763, the waste places of the world have been
rapidly filled; witness our own continent, Australia, and even South
America. A nominal and more or less clearly defined political
possession now generally exists in the most forsaken regions, though
to this statement there are some marked exceptions; but in many
places this political possession is little more than nominal, and in
others of a character so feeble that it cannot rely upon itself alone for
support or protection. The familiar and notorious example of the
Turkish Empire, kept erect only by the forces pressing upon it from
opposing sides, by the mutual jealousies of powers that have no
sympathy with it, is an instance of such weak political tenure; and
though the question is wholly European, all know enough of it to be
aware that the interest and control of the sea powers is among the
chief, if not the first, of the elements that now fix the situation; and
that they, if intelligently used, will direct the future inevitable
changes. Upon the western continents the political condition of the
Central American and tropical South American States is so unstable
as to cause constant anxiety about the maintenance of internal order,
and seriously to interfere with commerce and with the peaceful
development of their resources. So long as—to use a familiar
expression—they hurt no one but themselves, this may go on; but for
a long time the citizens of more stable governments have been
seeking to exploit their resources, and have borne the losses arising
from their distracted condition. North America and Australia still
offer large openings to immigration and enterprise; but they are
filling up rapidly, and as the opportunities there diminish, the
demand must arise for a more settled government in those
disordered States, for security to life and for reasonable stability of
institutions enabling merchants and others to count upon the future.
There is certainly no present hope that such a demand can be
fulfilled from the existing native materials; if the same be true when
the demand arises, no theoretical positions, like the Monroe
Doctrine, will prevent interested nations from attempting to remedy
the evil by some measure, which, whatever it may be called, will be a
political interference. Such interferences must produce collisions,
which may be at times settled by arbitration, but can scarcely fail at
other times to cause war. Even for a peaceful solution, that nation
will have the strongest arguments which has the strongest organized
force.
It need scarcely be said that the successful piercing of the Central
American Isthmus at any point may precipitate the moment that is
sure to come sooner or later. The profound modification of
commercial routes expected from this enterprise, the political
importance to the United States of such a channel of communication
between her Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, are not, however, the
whole nor even the principal part of the question. As far as can be
seen, the time will come when stable governments for the American
tropical States must be assured by the now existing powerful and
stable States of America or Europe. The geographical position of
those States, the climatic conditions, make it plain at once that sea
power will there, even more than in the case of Turkey, determine
what foreign State shall predominate,—if not by actual possession, by
its influence over the native governments. The geographical position
of the United States and her intrinsic power give her an undeniable
advantage; but that advantage will not avail if there is a great
inferiority of organized brute-force, which still remains the last
argument of republics as of kings.
Herein lies to us the great and still living interest of the Seven
Years’ War. In it we have seen and followed England, with an army
small as compared with other States, as is still her case to-day, first
successfully defending her own shores, then carrying her arms in
every direction, spreading her rule and influence over remote
regions, and not only binding them to her obedience, but making
them tributary to her wealth, her strength, and her reputation. As
she loosens the grasp and neutralizes the influence of France and
Spain in regions beyond the sea, there is perhaps seen the prophecy
of some other great nation in days yet to come, that will incline the
balance of power in some future sea war, whose scope will be
recognized afterward, if not by contemporaries, to have been the
political future and the economical development of regions before
lost to civilization; but that nation will not be the United States if the
moment find her indifferent, as now, to the empire of the seas.
The direction then given to England’s efforts, by the instinct of the
nation and the fiery genius of Pitt, continued after the war, and has
profoundly influenced her subsequent policy. Mistress now of North
America, lording it in India, through the company whose territorial
conquests had been ratified by native princes, over twenty millions of
inhabitants,—a population larger than that of Great Britain and
having a revenue respectable alongside of that of the home
government,—England, with yet other rich possessions scattered far
and wide over the globe, had ever before her eyes, as a salutary
lesson, the severe chastisement which the weakness of Spain had
allowed her to inflict upon that huge disjointed empire. The words of
the English naval historian of that war, speaking about Spain, apply
with slight modifications to England in our own day.
“Spain is precisely that power against which England can always
contend with the fairest prospect of advantage and honor. That
extensive monarchy is exhausted at heart, her resources lie at a great
distance, and whatever power commands the sea, may command the
wealth and commerce of Spain. The dominions from which she
draws her resources, lying at an immense distance from the capital
and from one another, make it more necessary for her than for any
other State to temporize, until she can inspire with activity all parts
of her enormous but disjointed empire.”[46]
It would be untrue to say that England is exhausted at heart; but
her dependence upon the outside world is such as to give a certain
suggestiveness to the phrase.
This analogy of positions was not overlooked by England. From
that time forward up to our own day, the possessions won for her by
her sea power have combined with that sea power itself to control
her policy. The road to India—in the days of Clive a distant and
perilous voyage on which she had not a stopping-place of her own—
was reinforced as opportunity offered by the acquisition of St.
Helena, of the Cape of Good Hope, of the Mauritius. When steam
made the Red Sea and Mediterranean route practicable, she acquired
Aden, and yet later has established herself at Socotra. Malta had
already fallen into her hands during the wars of the French
Revolution; and her commanding position, as the corner-stone upon
which the coalitions against Napoleon rested, enabled her to claim it
at the Peace of 1815. Being but a short thousand miles from
Gibraltar, the circles of military command exercised by these two
places intersect. The present day has seen the stretch from Malta to
the Isthmus of Suez, formerly without a station, guarded by the
cession to her of Cyprus. Egypt, despite the jealousy of France, has
passed under English control. The importance of that position to
India, understood by Napoleon and Nelson, led the latter at once to
send an officer overland to Bombay with the news of the battle of the
Nile and the downfall of Bonaparte’s hopes. Even now, the jealousy
with which England views the advance of Russia in Central Asia is
the result of those days in which her sea power and resources
triumphed over the weakness of D’Aché and the genius of Suffren,
and wrenched the peninsula of India from the ambition of the
French.
“For the first time since the Middle Ages,” says M. Martin,
speaking of the Seven Years’ War, “England had conquered France
single-handed almost without allies, France having powerful
auxiliaries. She had conquered solely by the superiority of her
government.”
Yes! but by the superiority of her government using the
tremendous weapon of her sea power. This made her rich and in turn
protected the trade by which she had her wealth. With her money she
upheld her few auxiliaries, mainly Prussia and Hanover, in their
desperate strife. Her power was everywhere that her ships could
reach, and there was none to dispute the sea to her. Where she would
she went, and with her went her guns and her troops. By this
mobility her forces were multiplied, those of her enemies distracted.
Ruler of the seas, she everywhere obstructed its highways. The
enemies’ fleets could not join; no great fleet could get out, or if it did,
it was only to meet at once, with uninured officers and crews, those
who were veterans in gales and warfare. Save in the case of Minorca,
she carefully held her own sea bases and eagerly seized those of the
enemy. What a lion in the path was Gibraltar to the French
squadrons of Toulon and Brest! What hope for French succor to
Canada, when the English fleet had Louisburg under its lee?
The one nation that gained in this war was that which used the sea
in peace to earn its wealth, and ruled it in war by the extent of its
navy, by the number of its subjects who lived on the sea or by the sea,
and by its numerous bases of operations scattered over the globe. Yet
it must be observed that these bases themselves would have lost their
value if their communications remained obstructed. Therefore the
French lost Louisburg, Martinique, Pondicherry; so England herself
lost Minorca. The service between the bases and the mobile force,
between the ports and the fleets, is mutual.[47] In this respect the
navy is essentially a light corps; it keeps open the communications
between its own ports, it obstructs those of the enemy; but it sweeps
the sea for the service of the land, it controls the desert that man may
live and thrive on the habitable globe.
18. Eighteenth Century Formalism in Naval
Tactics[48]
Tourville,[49] though a brilliant seaman, thus not only typified an era

of transition, with which he was contemporary, but fore-shadowed
the period of merely formal naval warfare, precise, methodical, and
unenterprising, emasculated of military virility, although not of mere
animal courage. He left to his successors the legacy of a great name,
but also unfortunately that of a defective professional tradition. The
splendid days of the French Navy under Louis XIV passed away with
him,—he died in 1701; but during the long period of naval lethargy
on the part of the state, which followed, the French naval officers, as
a class, never wholly lost sight of professional ideals. They proved
themselves, on the rare occasions that offered, before 1715 and
during the wars of Hawke and Rodney, not only gallant seamen after
the pattern of Tourville, but also exceedingly capable tacticians, upon
a system good as far as it went, but defective on Tourville’s express
lines, in aiming rather at exact dispositions and defensive security
than at the thorough-going initiative and persistence which
confounds and destroys the enemy. “War,” to use Napoleon’s phrase,
“was to be waged without running risks.” The sword was drawn, but
the scabbard was kept ever open for its retreat.
The English, in the period of reaction which succeeded the Dutch
wars, produced their own caricature of systematized tactics. Even
under its influence, up to 1715, it is only just to say they did not
construe naval skill to mean anxious care to keep one’s own ships
intact. Rooke, off Malaga, in 1704, illustrated professional
fearlessness of consequences as conspicuously as he had shown
personal daring in the boat attack at La Hogue; but his plans of battle
exemplified the particularly British form of inefficient naval action.
There was no great difference in aggregate force between the French
fleet and that of the combined Anglo-Dutch under his orders. The
former, drawing up in the accustomed line of battle, ship following
ship in a single column, awaited attack. Rooke, having the advantage
of the wind, and therefore the power of engaging at will, formed his
command in a similar and parallel line a few miles off, and thus all
stood down together, the ships maintaining their line parallel to that
of the enemy, and coming into action at practically the same
moment, van to van, center to center, rear to rear. This ignored
wholly the essential maxim of all intelligent warfare, which is so to
engage as markedly to outnumber the enemy at a point of main
collision. If he be broken there, before the remainder of his force
come up, the chances all are that a decisive superiority will be
established by this alone, not to mention the moral effect of partial
defeat and disorder. Instead of this, the impact at Malaga was so
distributed as to produce a substantial equality from one end to the
other of the opposing fronts. The French, indeed, by strengthening
their center relatively to the van and rear, to some extent modified
this condition in the particular instance; but the fact does not seem
to have induced any alteration in Rooke’s dispositions. Barring mere
accident, nothing conclusive can issue from such arrangements. The
result accordingly was a drawn battle, although Rooke says that the
fight, which was maintained on both sides “with great fury for three
hours, ... was the sharpest day’s service that I ever saw;” and he had
seen much,—Beachy Head, La Hogue, Vigo Bay, not to mention his
own great achievement in the capture of Gibraltar.
This method of attack remained the ideal—if such a word is not
misnomer in such a case—of the British Navy, not merely as a matter
of irreflective professional acceptance, but laid down in the official
“Fighting Instructions.”[50] It cannot be said that these err on the side
of lucidity; but their meaning to contemporaries in this particular
respect is ascertained, not only by fair inference from their contents,
but by the practical commentary of numerous actions under
commonplace commanders-in-chief. It further received authoritative
formulation in the specific finding of the Court-Martial upon
Admiral Byng, which was signed by thirteen experienced-officers.
“Admiral Byng should have caused his ships to tack together, and
should immediately have borne down upon the enemy; his van
steering for the enemy’s van, his rear for its rear, each ship making
for the one opposite to her in the enemy’s line, under such sail as
would have enabled the worst sailer to preserve her station in the
line of battle.”[51] Each phrase of this opinion is a reflection of an
article in the Instructions. The line of battle was the naval fetish of
the day; and, be it remarked, it was the more dangerous because in
itself an admirable and necessary instrument, constructed on
principles essentially accurate. A standard wholly false may have its
error demonstrated with comparative ease; but no servitude is more
hopeless than that of unintelligent submission to an idea formally
correct, yet incomplete. It has all the vicious misleading of a half-
truth unqualified by appreciation of modifying conditions; and so
seamen who disdained theories, and hugged the belief in themselves
as “practical,” became doctrinaires in the worst sense.
19. The New Tactics[52]
Rodney and De Guichen, April 17, 1780
Despite his brilliant personal courage and professional skill, which in

the matter of tactics was far in advance of his contemporaries in
England, Rodney, as a commander-in-chief, belongs rather to the
wary, cautious school of the French tacticians than to the impetuous,
unbounded eagerness of Nelson. As in Tourville we have seen the
desperate fighting of the seventeenth century, unwilling to leave its
enemy, merging into the formal, artificial—we may almost say
trifling—parade tactics of the eighteenth, so in Rodney we shall see
the transition from those ceremonious duels to an action which,
while skillful in conception, aimed at serious results. For it would be
unjust to Rodney to press the comparison to the French admirals of
his day. With a skill that De Guichen recognized as soon as they
crossed swords, Rodney meant mischief, not idle flourishes.
Whatever incidental favors fortune might bestow by the way, the
objective from which his eye never wandered was the French fleet,—
the organized military force of the enemy on the sea. And on the day
when Fortune forsook the opponent who had neglected her offers,
when the conqueror of Cornwallis failed to strike while he had
Rodney at a disadvantage, the latter won a victory[53] which
redeemed England from the depths of anxiety, and restored to her by
one blow all those islands which the cautious tactics of the allies had
for a moment gained, save only Tobago.
De Guichen and Rodney met for the first time on the 17th of April,
1780, three weeks after the arrival of the latter. The French fleet was
beating to windward in the channel between Martinique and
Dominica, when the enemy was made in the south-east. A day was
spent in maneuvering for the weather-gage, which Rodney got. The
two fleets being now well to leeward of the islands (see Plate), both
on the starboard tack heading to the northward and the French on
the lee bow of the English, Rodney, who was carrying a press of sail,
signalled to his fleet that he meant to attack the enemy’s rear and
center with his whole force; and when he had reached the position he
thought suitable, ordered them to keep away eight points (90°)
together (A, A, A). De Guichen, seeing the danger of the rear, wore
his fleet all together and stood down to succor it. Rodney, finding
himself foiled, hauled up again on the same tack as the enemy, both
fleets now heading to the southward and eastward.[54] Later, he again
made signal for battle, followed an hour after, just at noon, by the
order (quoting his own despatch), “for every ship to bear down and
steer for her opposite in the enemy’s line.” This, which sounds like
the old story of ship to ship, Rodney explains to have meant her
opposite at the moment, not her opposite in numerical order. His
own words are: “In a slanting position, that my leading ships might
attack the van ships of the enemy’s center division, and the whole
British fleet be opposed to only two thirds of the enemy” (B, B). The
difficulty and misunderstanding which followed seem to have sprung
mainly from the defective character of the signal book. Instead of
doing as the admiral wished, the leading ships (a) carried sail so as to
reach their supposed station abreast their numerical opposite in the
order. Rodney stated afterward that when he bore down the second
time, the French fleet was in a very extended line of battle; and that,
had his orders been obeyed, the center and rear must have been
disabled before the van could have joined.
There seems every reason to believe that Rodney’s intentions
throughout were to double on the French, as asserted. The failure
sprang from the signal book and tactical inefficiency of the fleet; for
which he, having lately joined, was not answerable. But the ugliness
of his fence was so apparent to De Guichen, that he exclaimed, when
the English fleet kept away the first time, that six or seven of his
ships were gone; and sent word to Rodney that if his signals had
been obeyed he would have had him for his prisoner.[55] A more
convincing proof that he recognized the dangerousness of his enemy
is to be found in the fact that he took care not to have the lee-gage in
their subsequent encounters. Rodney’s careful plans being upset, he
showed that with them he carried all the stubborn courage of the
most downright fighter; taking his own ship close to the enemy and
ceasing only when the latter hauled off, her foremast and mainyard
gone, and her hull so damaged that she could hardly be kept afloat.
20. Sea Power in the American Revolution[56]
Graves and De Grasse off the Chesapeake
[Preliminary to the events narrated, the general naval situation was

as follows: The main British and French fleets, under Rodney and De
Grasse, respectively, were in the West Indies, while a small British
division was under Graves at New York, and a French squadron
under De Barras was based on Newport, R. I. The squadrons on the
American coast had met in a desultory action off the Virginia capes
on March 16, 1781, after which the French commander had returned
to Newport and left the British in control.—Editor.]
The way of the sea being thus open and held in force, two thousand
more English troops sailing from New York reached Virginia on the
26th of March, and the subsequent arrival of Cornwallis in May
raised the number to seven thousand. The operations of the
contending forces during the spring and summer months, in which
Lafayette commanded the Americans, do not concern our subject.
Early in August, Cornwallis, acting under orders from Clinton,
withdrew his troops into the peninsula between the York and James
rivers, and occupied Yorktown.
Washington and Rochambeau had met on the 21st of May, and
decided that the situation demanded that the effort of the French
West Indian fleet, when it came, should be directed against either
New York or the Chesapeake. This was the tenor of the despatch
found by De Grasse at Cap Français,[57] and meantime the allied
generals drew their troops toward New York, where they would be on
hand for the furtherance of one object, and nearer the second if they
had to make for it.
In either case the result, in the opinion both of Washington and of
the French government, depended upon superior sea power; but
Rochambeau had privately notified the admiral that his own
preference was for the Chesapeake as the scene of the intended
operations, and moreover the French government had declined to
furnish the means for a formal siege of New York.[58] The enterprise
therefore assumed the form of an extensive military combination,
dependent upon ease and rapidity of movement, and upon blinding
the eyes of the enemy to the real objective,—purposes to which the
peculiar qualities of a navy admirably lent themselves. The shorter
distance to be traversed, the greater depth of water and easier
pilotage of the Chesapeake, were further reasons which would
commend the scheme to the judgment of a seaman; and De Grasse
readily accepted it, without making difficulties or demanding
modifications which would have involved discussion and delay.
Having made his decision, the French admiral acted with great
good judgment, promptitude, and vigor. The same frigate that
brought despatches from Washington was sent back, so that by
August 15 the allied generals knew of the intended coming of the
fleet. Thirty-five hundred soldiers were spared by the governor of
Cap Français, upon the condition of a Spanish squadron anchoring at
the place, which De Grasse procured. He also raised from the
governor of Havana the money urgently needed by the Americans;
and finally, instead of weakening his force by sending convoys to
France, as the court had wished, he took every available ship to the
Chesapeake. To conceal his coming as long as possible, he passed
through the Bahama Channel, as a less frequented route, and on the
30th of August anchored in Lynnhaven Bay, just within the capes of
the Chesapeake, with twenty-eight ships-of-the-line. Three days
before, August 27, the French squadron at Newport, eight ships-of-
the-line with four frigates and eighteen transports under M. de
Barras, sailed for the rendezvous; making, however, a wide circuit
out to sea to avoid the English. This course was the more necessary
as the French siege-artillery was with it. The troops under
Washington and Rochambeau[59] had crossed the Hudson on the
24th of August, moving toward the head of Chesapeake Bay. Thus
the different armed forces, both land and sea, were converging
toward their objective, Cornwallis.
The English were unfortunate in all directions. Rodney, learning of
De Grasse’s departure, sent fourteen ships-of-the-line under Admiral
Hood to North America, and himself sailed for England in August, on
account of ill health. Hood, going by the direct route, reached the
Chesapeake three days before De Grasse, looked into the bay, and
finding it empty went on to New York. There he met five ships-of-
the-line under Admiral Graves, who, being senior officer, took
command of the whole force and sailed on the 31st of August for the
Chesapeake, hoping to intercept De Barras before he could join De
Grasse. It was not till two days later that Sir Henry Clinton was
persuaded that the allied armies had gone against Cornwallis, and
had too far the start to be overtaken.
Admiral Graves was painfully surprised, on making the

Chesapeake, to find anchored there a fleet which from its numbers
could only be an enemy’s. Nevertheless, he stood in to meet it, and as
De Grasse got under way, allowing his ships to be counted, the sense
of numerical inferiority—nineteen to twenty-four—did not deter the
English admiral from attacking. The clumsiness of his method,
however, betrayed his gallantry; many of his ships were roughly
handled, without any advantage being gained.[60] De Grasse,
expecting De Barras, remained outside five days, keeping the English
fleet in play without coming to action; then returning to port he
found De Barras safely at anchor. Graves went back to New York,
and with him disappeared the last hope of succor that was to gladden
Cornwallis’s eyes. The siege was steadily endured, but the control of
the sea made only one issue possible, and the English forces were
surrendered October 19, 1781. With this disaster the hope of
subduing the colonies died in England. The conflict flickered through
a year longer, but no serious operations were undertaken.
... The defeat of Graves and subsequent surrender of Cornwallis
did not end the naval operations in the western hemisphere. On the
contrary, one of the most interesting tactical feats and the most
brilliant victory of the whole war were yet to grace the English flag in
the West Indies; but with the events at Yorktown the patriotic
interest for Americans closes. Before quitting that struggle for
independence, it must again be affirmed that its successful ending, at
least at so early a date, was due to the control of the sea,—to sea
power in the hands of the French, and its improper distribution by
the English authorities. This assertion may be safely rested on the
authority of the one man who, above all others, thoroughly knew the
resources of the country, the temper of the people, the difficulties of
the struggle, and whose name is still the highest warrant for sound,
quiet, unfluttered good sense and patriotism.
The keynote to all Washington’s utterances is set in the
“Memorandum for concerting a plan of operations with the French
army,” dated July 15, 1780, and sent by the hands of Lafayette:
“The Marquis de Lafayette will be pleased to communicate the
following general ideas to Count de Rochambeau and the Chevalier
de Ternay, as the sentiments of the underwritten:
“I. In any operation, and under all circumstances, a decisive
naval superiority is to be considered as a fundamental principle,
and the basis upon which every hope of success must ultimately
depend.”
This, however, though the most formal and decisive expression of
Washington’s views, is but one among many others equally distinct.
21. The French Navy Demoralized by the
Revolution[61]
... The seamen and the navy of France were swept away by the
same current of thought and feeling which was carrying before it the
whole nation; and the government, tossed to and fro by every wave of
popular emotion, was at once too, weak and too ignorant of the
needs of the service to repress principles and to amend defects which
were fatal to its healthy life.
It is particularly instructive to dwell upon this phase of the
revolutionary convulsions of France, because the result in this
comparatively small, but still most important, part of the body politic
was so different from that which was found elsewhere. Whatever the
mistakes, the violence, the excesses of every kind, into which this
popular rising was betrayed, they were symptomatic of strength, not
of weakness,—deplorable accompaniments of a movement which,
with all its drawbacks, was marked by overwhelming force.
It was the inability to realize the might in this outburst of popular
feeling, long pent up, that caused the mistaken forecasts of many
statesmen of the day; who judged of the power and reach of the
movement by indications—such as the finances, the condition of the
army, the quality of the known leaders—ordinarily fairly accurate
tests of a country’s endurance, but which utterly misled those who
looked to them only and did not take into account the mighty
impulse of a whole nation stirred to its depths. Why, then, was the
result so different in the navy? Why was it so weak, not merely nor
chiefly in quantity, but in quality? and that, too, in days so nearly
succeeding the prosperous naval era of Louis XVI. Why should the
same throe which brought forth the magnificent armies of Napoleon
have caused the utter weakness of the sister service, not only amid
the disorders of the Republic, but also under the powerful
organization of the Empire?
The immediate reason was that, to a service of a very special
character, involving special exigencies, calling for special aptitudes,
and consequently demanding special knowledge of its requirements
in order to deal wisely with it, were applied the theories of men
wholly ignorant of those requirements,—men who did not even
believe that they existed. Entirely without experimental knowledge,
or any other kind of knowledge, of the conditions of sea life, they
were unable to realize the obstacles to those processes by which they
would build up their navy, and according to which they proposed to
handle it. This was true not only of the wild experiments of the early
days of the Republic; the reproach may fairly be addressed to the
great emperor himself, that he had scarcely any appreciation of the
factors conditioning efficiency at sea; nor did he seemingly ever
reach any such sense of them as would enable him to understand
why the French navy failed. “Disdaining,” says Jean Bon Saint-
André, the Revolutionary commissioner whose influence on naval
organization was unbounded, “disdaining, through calculation and
reflection, skillful evolutions, perhaps our seamen will think it more
fitting and useful to try those boarding actions in which the
Frenchman was always conqueror, and thus astonish Europe by new
prodigies of valor.”[62] “Courage and audacity,” says Captain
Chevalier, “had become in his eyes the only qualities necessary to our
officers.” “The English,” said Napoleon, “will become very small
when France shall have two or three admirals willing to die.”[63] So
commented, with pathetic yet submissive irony, the ill-fated admiral,
Villeneuve, upon whom fell the weight of the emperor’s discontent
with his navy: “Since his Majesty thinks that nothing but audacity
and resolve are needed to succeed in the naval officer’s calling, I shall
leave nothing to be desired.”[64]
... In truth men’s understandings, as well as their morale and
beliefs, were in a chaotic state. In the navy, as in society, the morale
suffered first. Insubordination and mutiny, insult and murder,
preceded the blundering measures which in the end destroyed the
fine personnel that the monarchy bequeathed to the French republic.
This insubordination broke out very soon after the affairs of the
Bastille and the forcing of the palace at Versailles; that is, very soon
after the powerlessness of the executive was felt. Singularly, yet
appropriately, the first victim was the most distinguished flag-officer
of the French navy.[65]
During the latter half of 1789 disturbances occurred in all the
seaport towns; in Havre, in Cherbourg, in Brest, in Rochefort, in
Toulon. Everywhere the town authorities meddled with the concerns
of the navy yards and of the fleet, discontented seamen and soldiers,
idle or punished, rushed to the town halls with complaints against
their officers. The latter, receiving no support from Paris, yielded
continually, and things naturally went from bad to worse.

Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1St Edition Stephen J A Ward Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1St Edition Stephen J A Ward Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1St Edition Stephen J A Ward Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Global Media Ethics 1st

Edition Stephen J.A. Ward

Ethics And The Media An Introduction 2nd Edition

The Global Handbook of Media Accountability 1st Edition

Global Media Ethics and the Digital Revolution 1st

Polis Nation Global Community Ann Ward

Fossils DK Smithsonian Handbook David J Ward

Fundamentals of Management, Global Edition Stephen P.

The Palgrave Handbook of Sexual Ethics David Boonin

Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics 1st Edition

Handbook of Global Media

ISBN 978-3-319-32102-8 ISBN 978-3-319-32103-5 (eBook)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

The Handbook of Global Media Ethics is a milestone in the development of a cru-

Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada Stephen J. A. Ward

Part I Introduction to Part I: Concepts and Problems

Part I Further Reading

Part II Introduction to Part II: Approaches and Methods

Part II Further Reading

Part III Introduction to Part III: Digital and Social Media

24 Virtual Encounters with Cultural Difference:

Part III Further Reading

Part IV Further Reading

Part V Introduction to Part V: Freedom, Security,

50 War Journalists, News Subjects, and Audiences

Part V Further Reading

Part VI Introduction to Part VI: Global Ethics

62 Representing Queer Communities: News Media

Part VI Further Reading

Part VII Introduction to Part VII: Global Media Ethics

Part VII Further Reading

Stephen J. A. Ward Stephen J. A. Ward, PhD, is an author, historian of ideas, and

Clifford G. Christians Clifford G. Christians, PhD, LittD, DHL, is Research

Ian Richards Ian Richards is Adjunct Professor of Journalism Studies at the

Richard Lance Keeble Richard Lance Keeble is a Professor of Journalism at the

Katherine M. Bell Katherine M. Bell is Associate Professor in the Department of

Rukhsana Aslam Rukhsana Aslam, PhD, is a journalist-turned-academic living in

Ann E. Auman Ann Auman, PhD, is a journalism professor at the University of

Abderrahmane Azzi Abderrahmane Azzi, PhD, is Professor in the College of

Vian Bakir Vian Bakir, PhD, is Professor in Political Communication and

Catriona Bonfiglioli Catriona Bonfiglioli is a media studies academic at the

Oliver Boyd-Barrett Oliver Boyd-Barrett, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Media

Candis Callison Candis Callison is Associate Professor at the University of British

John C. Carpenter John C. Carpenter is a PhD candidate in Mass Communications

Manoucheka Celeste Manoucheka Celeste, PhD, is Associate Professor in the

Black Caucus. She is committed to critical scholarship on representations of

Gaelle A. Chekam Gaelle A. Chekam is a PhD candidate in the School of

Changfeng Chen Changfeng Chen is Professor in Journalism and Media Ethics,

Caitria DeLucchi Caitria DeLucchi is a graduate student at Florida State

Phyllis Fletcher Phyllis Fletcher is senior editor at APM Studios at American

Susan Forde Susan Forde is Professor of Journalism at Griffith University,

Andrew Fowler Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist and

Renata Gomes Renata de Oliveira Miranda Gomes is a journalist with experience

Andrea L. Guzman Andrea L. Guzman is Assistant Professor of Communication

Folker Hanusch Dr. Folker Hanusch, PhD, is Professor of Journalism at the

currently chairs the journalism section of the European Communication Research

François Heinderyckx François Heinderyckx, PhD, is Professor at Université

Ari Heinonen Ari Heinonen, PhD, is Adjunct Professor of Journalism in the

Kristy Hess Kristy Hess is Associate Professor of Communication at Deakin

Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada Stephen J. A. Ward

Part I Introduction to Part I: Concepts and Problems

Part II Introduction to Part II: Approaches and Methods

24 Virtual Encounters with Cultural Difference:

Part V Introduction to Part V: Freedom, Security,

50 War Journalists, News Subjects, and Audiences

Part VI Introduction to Part VI: Global Ethics

62 Representing Queer Communities: News Media

Part VII Introduction to Part VII: Global Media Ethics

1.2 Preliminary Definitions

1.2.1 What Is Ethics?

1.2.2 Media Ethics

1.3 Global Media Ethics

1.3.1 The Starting Point

1.3.2 Four Types of Inquiry

1.4 Why a Global Media Ethics?

1.4.1 Radical Rethinking

1.4.2 Adopting Moral Globalism

1.4.3 What Would Change?

1.4.4 How to Realize?