So far we have covered some important historical perspectives on the development of journalism ethics; now it is time to turn our attention to some of the key philosophical principles and arguments in the field today. In this chapter we examine the core ideas that frame journalism ethics and critique two major ideological frameworks that are used in discussions of journalism and the news industry. The first is the ‘free-market’ model which overlays a neo-classical economics discourse over the exchange and flow of information; the second is the political equivalent, the ‘fourth estate’ model of journalism’s public interest role. These taken-for-granted ideas help to structure the social field of journalism. They are what Pierre Bourdieu (1998, p. 1) calls the ‘hidden constraints’ on journalism practice today. The first task is to define the contemporary relationship between philosophy, ideology

and world-view. We do not see a huge difference in meaning between these words and certainly our use of Orwell’s phrase ‘emotional attitude’ indicates the close relationship between the three terms. If anything, philosophy is a more formal word that has implications of something grand and on a huge scale. Certainly this is the case when talking about ‘capital P’ Philosophy. At one end, philosophy is the study of many of life’s big questions – the point of existence and so on. But today, we also have the word science, which covers much of the same ground and, as our historical survey showed, science began to encroach on the realm of philosophy during the Middle Ages. Ideology is a much more modern word, but its meaning is close to philosophy at one level: ‘the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature’. It is also, according to the same dictionary, ‘a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy’ (Oxford Dictionary). It is in this sense that we talk of a ‘professional ideology’ of journalism today. A world-view is something close to both philosophy and ideology; it is the ideas (or, if you like, emotional attitudes) that we carry around in our heads and use to operationalize our belief system into everyday actions. One dictionary defines world-view in such a way that distinguishing it from either philosophy or ideology is difficult: ‘a comprehensive view of the world and human life’ (The Free Dictionary). We can make sense of the similarities and differences between the concepts of philoso-

phy, ideology and world-view in the following way. A philosophy is a system of beliefs that is defined primarily by a set of clearly-defined principles; it is a coherent body of thought based on key central ideas (for example, Stoicism, Confucianism and Marxism are terms commonly used to define systems of philosophical thinking). An ideology is a set of

beliefs common to a particular social group (for example, a class or caste) or social system, but not necessarily based on a set of clearly-defined philosophical principles; we can talk about the ideology of socialism, or capitalism, or perhaps even an ideology of ideas like sexism or racism. An ideology often contains within it associated social practices that embody its ideas. A world-view is a more individual form of ideology and it is the outlook that we might have on life that distinguishes us from our peers or those whom we see as being different from ourselves. A world-view can often be a mix of philosophical principles and ideological ideas or practices. For example, if you adhere to a Christian philosophy, it may lead you to have a shared ideology with fellow believers, while allowing for differences in world-view around particular issues, such as abortion, gay rights, etc. Journalists, therefore, may adopt a variety of world-views in relation to particular issues, but we would argue that most would hold to a shared ideology based on an understanding of what it means to be ‘professional’ and to behave ethically. In turn, we could suggest, this professional ideology is based on values of normative philosophy (pragmatism, for example) with deep roots in the principles and traditions of Western thought since the Enlightenment (Hartley 1996; R. Johnson 2012; Kant 1996; Lucy and Mickler 2006; MEAA 1997; Pilger 1998; Schultz 1998; Simkin 1997; Stockwell 1999). This world-view is normalised and operationalized in journalism through both the

marketplace of ideas (Horne 1994) and the fourth estate discourse. True to its bourgeois origins, industrial journalism makes news that does not upset the ruling class and a narrative that does not challenge the core structures or ideas of capitalism itself (Bourdieu 1998, pp. 44-5). Public broadcasting organisations are not immune from these pressures; in fact, their close links to the apparatus of government make the problems all the more acute.