Differences and similarities in ethical reasoning between Norwegian and Ethiopian journalism students
The growth in comparative journalism studies has resulted in an increased focus on research on professional reasoning across borders. Along this line, the current paper is part of an ongoing project where journalism students in the South and North are compared. The particular focus of the paper is differences and similarities in ethical reasoning pertaining to professional dilemmas between students in journalism programmes in Ethiopia versus Norway.
The study was conducted in two steps, whereby the first step took place in the students’ own home environment where they were given ethical cases to be discussed in a cultural homogeneous group setting. The groups were asked to write down a conclusion for each ethical case with an explanation. In the second step, the two constituencies (Ethiopian and Norwegian students) met physically to discuss the same cases in culturally mixed groups. The cases that they discussed were of two kinds: firstly, ethical dilemmas covering classic topics in journalism ethics such as hidden identity; conflict of interests; coverage of suicide; attitudes to freebies; human compassion; privacy; protection of children; reporter–source relationship; and right of reply; and secondly, principal ethical issues pertaining to questions of objectivity, religion, truth, national interest, political involvement, ethical universality, loyalty, and fact vs. opinion.
The study found a tendency to differences between the two constituencies when it comes to role perceptions and privacy issues. The Ethiopian students were more likely to support the idea that journalism should foster social development and care for national security. The Norwegian students, on the other hand, highlighted individual concerns, not least the protection of minors. Additionally, the Norwegian respondents were more prone to favour universal ethical standards. Nevertheless, in the overall assessment, the study did not find substantial support for the argument that ethical preferences are primarily determined by the local culture but rather identified a high degree of commonality between the two constituencies in professional ethics.
The study was conducted in two steps, whereby the first step took place in the students’ own home environment where they were given ethical cases to be discussed in a cultural homogeneous group setting. The groups were asked to write down a conclusion for each ethical case with an explanation. In the second step, the two constituencies (Ethiopian and Norwegian students) met physically to discuss the same cases in culturally mixed groups. The cases that they discussed were of two kinds: firstly, ethical dilemmas covering classic topics in journalism ethics such as hidden identity; conflict of interests; coverage of suicide; attitudes to freebies; human compassion; privacy; protection of children; reporter–source relationship; and right of reply; and secondly, principal ethical issues pertaining to questions of objectivity, religion, truth, national interest, political involvement, ethical universality, loyalty, and fact vs. opinion.
The study found a tendency to differences between the two constituencies when it comes to role perceptions and privacy issues. The Ethiopian students were more likely to support the idea that journalism should foster social development and care for national security. The Norwegian students, on the other hand, highlighted individual concerns, not least the protection of minors. Additionally, the Norwegian respondents were more prone to favour universal ethical standards. Nevertheless, in the overall assessment, the study did not find substantial support for the argument that ethical preferences are primarily determined by the local culture but rather identified a high degree of commonality between the two constituencies in professional ethics.
Publisert i Norsk medieforskarlags 17. nasjonale konferanse, Bergen, 2016
Les artikkelen her