According to Neher and Sandin,
dialogical ethics is “a system in which ethics can be judged by the attitudes
and behaviors demonstrated by each participant in a communication transaction.”
With dialogical ethics, journalism is not conveyed based on a personal agenda,
rather a neutral point of view, straight up reporting that creates an open
dialogue that accepts views of other people without any judgments. Dialogical
ethics comes from the roots of ancient Greece and it is important in the world
of journalism. It is a natural inclusion in any type of discussion of ethics
because dialogue is inherently ethical. Dialogue is deemed ethical because it
engages in a give and take discussion of relational issues with the opportunity
for all interested parties to have their say. Moreover, people who are involved
in ethical dialogs typically have an open mind to hearing the views of other
people.
An unbiased opinion is key in journalistic dialogue.
Journalists
communicate up to date news and current events every day and it is important
for news and information to be reported and shared with an unbiased opinion in
order for readers and viewers to form their own opinions and judgments. This dialogical ethic maintains fair
communication and serves as revealing information. Dialogues that people have in conversation conversely create
relationships. This type of
dialogue naturally creates biases. In journalism, dialogical ethics are necessary to provide viewers and
readers with factual news with a neutral delivery. This makes the style of the
writing more appealing to read as well. Regardless of the opinion of the
journalist, each and every communication must be conveyed with dialogical
ethics or the journalist risks inconsistencies with the story they are
reporting on which could impact viewership or readership.
Today’s news stories are surrounded by ethics on a daily
basis, including a story about smart meters in homes.
On
WUSA 9.com, journalist Kristin Fisher discussed the matter regarding the state
of Maryland passing a bill that would allow power companies to install Smart Meters in homes. Those opposed to this bill are asking the
representatives in Annapolis to consider their concerns of wireless radiation
and how it can cause poor health and that there could be risk if the wireless
reporting is being shared with the wrong people. Opponents suggested that
the Bill is about freedom of choice and the Maryland citizens should be able to
exercise that right by not paying for something they do not want. If the
bill is approved, it would allow Pepco and BG&E customers to keep
opting-out of the program at no cost, and those companies would be fined if
they release any of the data they collect to third party advertisers. Kristin
Fisher upheld dialogical ethics while conveying both sides of the Smart Meter
issue throughout the story. She highlighted the issue and both points of
view while conveying the viewers the facts of this developing House Bill in the
state of Maryland. The facts were simply stated about the issue and both
sides of the concern were clearly defined, which is an aspect of dialogical
ethics. In addition, throughout the story, there was not any indication of
personal opinion when reporting the two sides, also supporting the act of dialogical
ethics. Kristen clearly researched the Smart Meter issue in depth, and shared
both sides of the implications of the pending Bill. This reflection of
dialogical ethics showcased how this journalist offered her viewers a clear and
concise viewpoint on the issue with an unbiased opinion.
Dialogical ethics is not only important just for journalists.
In
school, as a student, socially, athletically and on the job, dialogical
positioning is important for effective communicating. In all of those aspects
of life, dialog ignites opinion and plentiful conversion. When it comes to
journalism however, it is extremely necessary that news and storytelling be
presented in a way in which viewers and readers conclude their own observations
and opinions. Kristen, in the news story above, did a good job of allowing the readers to make their own assumptions and opinions of the situation. It is imperative for journalists to have no agenda while
reporting or writing so they can present their information with an open mind. I
believe ethical consideration is important for anyone when it comes to
dialogues.
I really liked Jamie’s blog post because it was very clear and concise. She goes into great depth on what dialogical ethics really means and presents an excellent example of how dialogical ethics is used by journalists, today. Although I believe that dialogical ethics is really important among journalists and in the world of news and broadcasting, I don’t think all news companies do a good job of creating this open environment to all sides of the issue. For example, Fox News receives a lot of controversy for it’s supposedly “right-winged,” or conservative presentation of the news. I think it’s especially important for news companies and journalists to incorporate dialogical ethics in every aspect of the job. The WUSA9.com example was a great case of one journalist using dialogical ethics by telling both the opponents and proponents view of the smart meters. While Jamie makes excellent sense of why everyone should incorporate dialogical ethics in their conversation skills, many people are going to say what they want or believe based on their opinions, regardless. I agree with Jamie that it’s most important that journalists use it so that the audience gets a clear source of information that they can make their own opinions on.
ReplyDelete