2014
Hansen, Ejvind
Can the Ethics of the Fourth Estate Persevere in a Global Age? Book Section
In: Wyatt, Wendy (Ed.): The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Cultural and Institutional Influences, pp. 229–244, IB Tauris, London, 2014, ISBN: 9781780766744.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: academic, ethics, publicsphere
@incollection{Hansen2014b,
title = {Can the Ethics of the Fourth Estate Persevere in a Global Age?},
author = { Ejvind Hansen},
editor = {Wendy Wyatt},
url = {http://www.ibtauris.com/en/Books/Economics%20finance%20business%20%20management/Industry%20%20industrial%20studies/Media%20information%20%20communication%20industries/Press%20%20journalism/The%20Ethics%20of%20Journalism%20Individual%20Institutional%20and%20Cultural%20Influence
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/ethics-journalism
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2014/05/13/book-review-the-ethics-of-journalism-individual-institutional-and-cultural-influences-edited-by-wendy-n-wyatt/},
isbn = {9781780766744},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-01-01},
urldate = {2014-01-01},
booktitle = {The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Cultural and Institutional Influences},
pages = {229--244},
publisher = {IB Tauris},
address = {London},
series = {Reuters Challenges},
abstract = {Due to the development of transnational communicative and economic structures, nation states are increasingly unable to be the starting point for journalistic regulation. In this chapter, therefore, I raise the question whether it is possible – and desirable – to have transnational rules for ethically good journalism. I argue that ethical evaluations should focus upon the meeting between normative ideals and factual realities. This meeting is always open because ideals can challenge reality, just as reality can challenge ideals. Ethical questions are thus always raising a fundamental “maybe”. Traditionally the ideals of journalists have been articulated in close affiliation with ideas of the Fourth Estate. However, due to our globalised communicative structure, this articulation is in need of revision. I argue that the ethical requests change because the structure of Internet-based publics changes. Departing from this situation I suggest that journalistic products are ethically urgent insofar as they both bring communities together and give voice to the inarticulate or voiceless. I argue that in order to substantiate this approach it is important to articulate rules, because rules further the possibility of deliberating disagreements. The notion of deliberating disagreement is at the core of ethical discussions. I suggest that Habermas’ discourse ethics account may serve as a starting point for articulating a robust body of journalistic ethics. However, two moderations are important: On one hand, the rules and codes should be articulated against a “globalised we”, rather than against the nation state. On the other hand, it is important to realise that the rules do not robustly prescribe what to do. They should serve as a starting point for articulating and discussing disagreements. The openness of the global “maybe” does not call for global agreement but rather for the possibility of discussing disagreements.},
keywords = {academic, ethics, publicsphere},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
Due to the development of transnational communicative and economic structures, nation states are increasingly unable to be the starting point for journalistic regulation. In this chapter, therefore, I raise the question whether it is possible – and desirable – to have transnational rules for ethically good journalism. I argue that ethical evaluations should focus upon the meeting between normative ideals and factual realities. This meeting is always open because ideals can challenge reality, just as reality can challenge ideals. Ethical questions are thus always raising a fundamental “maybe”. Traditionally the ideals of journalists have been articulated in close affiliation with ideas of the Fourth Estate. However, due to our globalised communicative structure, this articulation is in need of revision. I argue that the ethical requests change because the structure of Internet-based publics changes. Departing from this situation I suggest that journalistic products are ethically urgent insofar as they both bring communities together and give voice to the inarticulate or voiceless. I argue that in order to substantiate this approach it is important to articulate rules, because rules further the possibility of deliberating disagreements. The notion of deliberating disagreement is at the core of ethical discussions. I suggest that Habermas’ discourse ethics account may serve as a starting point for articulating a robust body of journalistic ethics. However, two moderations are important: On one hand, the rules and codes should be articulated against a “globalised we”, rather than against the nation state. On the other hand, it is important to realise that the rules do not robustly prescribe what to do. They should serve as a starting point for articulating and discussing disagreements. The openness of the global “maybe” does not call for global agreement but rather for the possibility of discussing disagreements.
2011
Hansen, Ejvind
Den dialog-udfordrende journalist Book Section
In: Buch, Roger (Ed.): Forandringens journalistik. 40 års tilbageblik, pp. 97–117, Forlaget Ajour, Aarhus, 2011, ISBN: 978-87-92816-03-0.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: academic, aporias, critique, dissemination, ethics, journalism, publicsphere
@incollection{Hansen2011a,
title = {Den dialog-udfordrende journalist},
author = { Ejvind Hansen},
editor = {Roger Buch},
url = {http://uploads.ejvindh.net/Philosophy/018DenDialogUdfordrendeJournalist.PDF},
isbn = {978-87-92816-03-0},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
booktitle = {Forandringens journalistik. 40 års tilbageblik},
pages = {97--117},
publisher = {Forlaget Ajour},
address = {Aarhus},
abstract = {Da lovforslaget om “Danmarks Journalisthøjskole og Institut for Presseforskning” blev vedtaget i 1970 og realiseret i 1971, blev journalistikkens rolle i samfundet kodificeret. I de samme år fandt imidlertid også en kommunikationsteknologisk revolution sted, som på sigt kom til at etablere en udfordring i den journalistiske selvforståelse. Betydningen af disse hændelser og opfindelser kunne man ikke forudse i 1971, men fra 40-års perspektivet etablerer dannelsen af Journalisthøjskolen og Internettets fremvækst to hændelser en tydelig dialektik, som i dag udgør en uomgængelig udfordring for journalistikken. Internet teknologierne har på den ene side lettet mange journalistiske processer. På den anden side bliver journalistens “monopol” som vidensformidler og formidler af kontakt mellem magthavere og befolkning også udfordret.Internettet har ofte været anset for at være et muligt værktøj til at effektivisere den journalistiske opgave. Jeg argumenterer imidlertid for, at Internettet radikalt forandrer hele relationen i den offentlige sfære, så den kommunikative udfordring forflytter sig. Snarere end at skulle bøvle med at bringe den rette information frem til modtagerne, bliver udfordringen nu, hvordan man faciliterer en åben og kritisk udfordrende dialog. Til dette formål må vi have nyere argumentative analyseværktøjer som diskursanalyse og dekonstruktion til hjælp. Kun herved kan journalister håbe på at løse den journalistiske udfordring: At udvikle og afgrænse rum for dialog – i forhold til passende grader af uenighed mellem deltagerne.},
keywords = {academic, aporias, critique, dissemination, ethics, journalism, publicsphere},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
Da lovforslaget om “Danmarks Journalisthøjskole og Institut for Presseforskning” blev vedtaget i 1970 og realiseret i 1971, blev journalistikkens rolle i samfundet kodificeret. I de samme år fandt imidlertid også en kommunikationsteknologisk revolution sted, som på sigt kom til at etablere en udfordring i den journalistiske selvforståelse. Betydningen af disse hændelser og opfindelser kunne man ikke forudse i 1971, men fra 40-års perspektivet etablerer dannelsen af Journalisthøjskolen og Internettets fremvækst to hændelser en tydelig dialektik, som i dag udgør en uomgængelig udfordring for journalistikken. Internet teknologierne har på den ene side lettet mange journalistiske processer. På den anden side bliver journalistens “monopol” som vidensformidler og formidler af kontakt mellem magthavere og befolkning også udfordret.Internettet har ofte været anset for at være et muligt værktøj til at effektivisere den journalistiske opgave. Jeg argumenterer imidlertid for, at Internettet radikalt forandrer hele relationen i den offentlige sfære, så den kommunikative udfordring forflytter sig. Snarere end at skulle bøvle med at bringe den rette information frem til modtagerne, bliver udfordringen nu, hvordan man faciliterer en åben og kritisk udfordrende dialog. Til dette formål må vi have nyere argumentative analyseværktøjer som diskursanalyse og dekonstruktion til hjælp. Kun herved kan journalister håbe på at løse den journalistiske udfordring: At udvikle og afgrænse rum for dialog – i forhold til passende grader af uenighed mellem deltagerne.
2005
Hansen, Ejvind
Døden som foruroligende beroligelse Book Section
In: Steen, Brock; Anette, Samsø (Ed.): Mens vi venter på døden. Døden i etisk og kulturfilosofisk belysning, pp. 217–239, Philosophia Press, Aarhus, 2005, ISBN: 87-88663-15-9.
Links | BibTeX | Tags: academic, aporias, ethics
@incollection{Hansen2005e,
title = {Døden som foruroligende beroligelse},
author = { Ejvind Hansen},
editor = {Brock Steen and Samsø Anette},
url = {http://uploads.ejvindh.net/Philosophy/Preprint_DødenSomForuroligendeBeroligelse.pdf},
isbn = {87-88663-15-9},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-01-01},
urldate = {2005-01-01},
booktitle = {Mens vi venter på døden. Døden i etisk og kulturfilosofisk belysning},
pages = {217--239},
publisher = {Philosophia Press},
address = {Aarhus},
keywords = {academic, aporias, ethics},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}