Publisher's Synopsis
In this day and age of media litigation, the lines between what is legal and what is ethical have grown increasingly blurred. Courts are inquiring into media malpractice and hinging their cases on the degree to which the press adheres to or deviates from its self-professed professional standards. Media reliance on traditional First Amendment protections may hold sway at the highest levels of appeals courts, but during discovery, summary judgment, and jury trials--where most of the action is--a different trend seems to be emerging. Journalists and journalism educators are being called upon to explain to the court, litigating attorneys, judges, and lay members of juries, how reporting and editing are done and how they should be done, what standards of care are normally employed, and what constitutes deviance from those standards.
This special issue shows how the field is changing and suggests new ways in which clearheaded and ethically justifiable choices can be made. Each of the four contributors teach media law and ethics and administer academic programs; three of them hold law degrees, and bring that set of insights to the ethical debates. They have all been called to serve as expert witnesses in the past several years and have found the experience to be a challenge to their legal and ethical training. In their articles, the contributors grapple with many issues, including loyalty, self-interest, press freedoms and responsibilities, the role of the court as ethical arbiters, and adherence to personal and professional values.
