Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Because journalism ethics draw deeply, and perhaps unreflexively, on liberal political traditions, there is a lot of confusion about what public accountability entails. When interpreted from the standpoint of liberal theory, the perception of the need for public accountability is generally framed by a simplistic opposition between the public's right to know and the individual's right to privacy. Central to the liberal framing of the accountability is a weak notion of ‘publicity’ anchored in notions of representation and revelation. Furthermore, there is also a strong tradition within liberal theory to treat ethics as a matter of private concern, rather than something that can be publicly resolved. For these reasons, the balance of democratic consideration always seems to sit more comfortably with privacy rights than it does with considerations of accountability to the public. This paper explores some of these dilemmas surrounding journalism ethics and public accountability by examining their theoretical underpinnings in liberal political theory and comparing them with a model of public accountability grounded in publicity construed as public participation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bentham

1821, To the Spanish People: Letter 1, www.la.utexas.edu/labyrinth/bsp/bsp.101.html

Bohman

1990, ‘Communication, Ideology and Democratic Theory’, American Political Science Review, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 93–109.

Calhoun

1995, Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference, Oxford University Press, London.

Chadwick

1996, ‘Creating Codes: Journalism Self-regulation’, in Coady

Bloch

(eds), Codes of Ethics and the Professions, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 167–87.

Cohen

, 1997, ‘Rethinking Privacy: Autonomy, Identity and the Abortion Controversy’, in Weintraub

Kumar

(eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 133–65.

Cohen

2002, Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Fraser

1992, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, in Calhun

(ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 109–42.

Fraser

1998, ‘Sex, Lies and the Public Sphere. Reflections on the Confirmation of Clarence Thomas’, in Landes

Joan

(ed.), Feminism: The Public and the Private, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, pp. 314–37.

Gobetti

1997, ‘Humankind as a System: Private and Public Agency at the Origins of Modern Liberalism’, in Weintraub

Kumar

(eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 103–32.

10.

Goffman

1969, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Allen Lane, Penguin Press, London.

11.

Habermas

1970, Towards A Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics, trans. Shapiro

, Beacon Press, Boston.

12.

Habermas

1974 [1964], ‘The Public Sphere: An Encyclopaedia Article’, New German Critique, no. 3, pp. 49–55.

13.

Habermas

1992, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger

Lawrence

, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

14.

Habermas

1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, trans. Rehg

William

, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

15.

Held

1996, Models of Democracy, 2nd edn, Polity Press, Cambridge.

16.

Kymlicka

1989, Liberalism, Community and Culture, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

17.

MacIntyre

1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.

18.

Macpherson

C.B.

1962, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

19.

Mill

J.S.

1971 [1859], Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government, Everyman's Library, Dent, London.

20.

Sandel

Michael

1996, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

21.

Schultz

Julianne

1998, Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

22.

Selznick

1992, The Moral Commonwealth and the Promise of Community, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

23.

Symons

2001, ‘Privacy and the Media Pack: Can They Ever Get On?’ Australian Centre for Independent Journalism National Conference — Public Right to Know, Sydney, http://acij.uts.edu.au/pr2k/2001/symons.html

24.

Turner

Graeme

Bonner

Frances

Marshall

David P.

2000, Fame Games: The Production of Celebrity in Australia, Cambridge University Press, New York.

25.

Waters

2001, ‘Can the Media and Privacy Ever Get On’, paper presented at Australian Centre for Independent Journalism National Conference — Public Right to Know, Sydney.

26.

Weintraub

1997, ‘The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction’, in Weintraub

Kumar

(eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–42.

27.

Winch Samuel

1998, Mapping the Cultural Space of Journalism: How Journalists Distinguish News from Entertainment, Praeger, Westport, CN.

28.

Wolfe

1997, ‘Public and Private in Theory and Practice: Some Implications of an Uncertain Boundary’, in Weintraub

Kumar

(eds), Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 182–203.

29.

Young

Iris Marion

2000, Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Desperately Seeking Democracy: Unreflexive Liberalism and the ‘Privacy Bias’ in Journalism Ethics

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References