The history and detail of dialogical ethics
Dialogical ethics is “a system in which ethics can be judged
by the attitudes and behaviors demonstrated by each participant in a
communication transaction” as stated by Neher and Sadin. In simpler terms,
dialogical ethics means being open minded towards opinions other than your own.
As a journalist, one has to be accepting of all other views on an issue and
cannot be biased towards their own personal viewpoints. Now, this does not mean
that as a journalist you have to become a mindless, opinion less person. It
just means that just because someone doesn’t have the same opinion as you, you can’t
shut them out and say they’re wrong. You have to acknowledge that everyone has
a right to their own opinion and that needs to reflect in your article, blog
post, or comment.
An example of dialogical ethics involving the Boy Scouts of
America and their current ban on admitting openly gay members
In a recent story, CNN journalists, Ed Payne and Devon
Sayers discussed the issue of homosexuality within the Boy Scouts of America
(BSA). Currently, there is a policy in place that prevents openly gay members
from participating in the Boy Scouts of America. This ban isn’t being vote on
until May 2013. Though this ban isn’t set be voted on until later this year,
the Boy Scouts of America have begun the process of gathering current members’
and parents’ opinions on matters related to openly gay members’ participation in the BSA. This issue is very much so an emotional one. It can be extremely
hard to keep personal opinions out of your analysis of the Boy Scouts of
America’s actions. However, CNN journalists, Payne and Sayers, do an excellent
job of maintaining dialogical ethics throughout their article. This is done by
purely focusing on the facts of the situation and presenting these facts
strictly as they are. There is virtually no presence of personal opinion when
discussing the survey that the BSA sent out to members and parents and when
discussing the Supreme Court Case, ruled in 1999, that gave the BSA the right
to deny gays membership in this institution. What the journalists also did
throughout the article was investigate and explain both sides of this
situation. That is another key part to dialogical ethics. The journalist must
not only refrain from letting their opinion color their article, but also they
must review both sides of the story within their article. The point of doing
this is so that the audience, the readers, can obtain a full perspective on the
issue and form an unbiased opinion.
The importance of dialogical ethics and its connection to
relationships
The dialogues we have with people are the basis of our relationships
with them. It’s similar to meeting someone for the first time. If you come up
with your opinions of that person before you even meet them and get to know
them, then your opinion will be skewed. You have to be open-minded when you meet
someone for the first time. The same goes for journal pieces. The first time
most people hear about a major event is when they see it covered on the news or
in an article. If the journalist presents the event with emphasis on their personal
opinion, the audience won’t be able to form their own opinions on what
happened. Or, even worse, the audience might not get the full story; important
details may be left out. This is why dialogical ethics is so important. The
same goes for companies when they enter the realm of social media. Instead of strictly
promoting their product, aiming only to make a profit, companies need to take
consumers’ reviews into serious account. It will only hurt a company in the
long run if they continue to astroturf their audience and control the dialogue pertaining
to their product or service.
The main reason why I
chose to write about this specific ethic
I feel that it is important for a journalist to present the
facts of the situation to their audience with as little bias as possible.
Everybody has the right to their own opinion, but if you color the facts with
your opinion, the views that the audience forms aren’t really their own. The
opinion the audience forms just becomes an extension of the journalist’s
opinion. How is that fair? How does that allow for differences in society? How
does that allow for healthy debate about worldly affairs? The answer is it doesn't.
The formatting of this post is it’s strongest aspect. The post is clean with appropriately sized pictures, clear headlines, and excellent embedded links. The title is explanatory but should ideally be shorter and cleaner. I appreciated that you expanded on the dictionary definition that you initially gave to make the term friendlier to your audience. Your expansion on the definition was good and you explained your perspective clearly and thoughtfully. The Boy Scouts example was topical and appropriate, and your analysis of CNN’s coverage was enlightening.
ReplyDeleteThis post would have definitely benefited from some proofreading. There are several sloppy sentences and grammatical errors that could have been avoided. An example of this is “This ban isn’t being vote on…” The subheads would have been more engaging if they flowed into the paragraph more. Instead of writing “The main reason why I chose to write about this specific ethic” you could have simply used the following sentence, which would have given a scanner more information. Additionally your conclusion would have benefited from more information or further expansion of your argument as opposed to the rehashing of previously stated ideas.
This post does a great job defining dialogical ethics to the reader which initiates a great idea for one to keep in the back of their mind when reading further. Bias are very often the catalyst to negative human confrontations. Thus they are a negative variable to utilize in journalism. That saying it is not such a bad thing to lean a certain way and give reasons as to why you lean that way, but you should never disregard the opposing view. Sometimes you have to put yourself in the shoes of an opposing viewpoint in order to better understand a certain topic. Such is mentioned in sociology when discussing ideas amongst differing cultures. Some people are so consumed by their own opinions that they fail to identify the reasoning behind an opposing claim. In journalism when you fail to portray both sides of an argument equally, you run the risk of not letting your audience fully understand the issue at hand. This of course can also be the motivation behind certain bias journalism companies. Companies that move to sway the minds of their audience are in my eyes stealing the freedom of thought and right of people to think for themselves. Much like writing a good persuasive English paper, one most discuss both sides of an argument before implementing their own viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteThis post definitely does a good job explaining dialogical ethics. It really does a good job breaking down a term that is not one that is easily understood. I like the explanation of how it is importantly connected to relationships. People have always been quick to judge others, which is just human nature. It is hard to not have opinions of someone before you meet them, just as it is hard for journalists to not have opinions about a story before investigating them. This made me think of the role blogs have now, and how important they have become. Blogs are a great place for people to express opinions, and for others to see differing opinions. I actually think that the presence of blogs has made it easier for journalists like Payne and Sayers who wrote the Boy Scout article to practice good dialogical ethics. It is easier than ever for one to express personal opinions in public on the Internet, and journalists can use this to their advantage in a few ways I believe. First, if they feel the need to express opinion, they can without doing so in a professional article. Also, seeing the public’s opinion from both sides of a story could make it easier to write an article from a down-the-middle perspective.
ReplyDeleteThis post written by Jessica is very well put together and provides a clear vision of dialogical ethics. The form of the article is excellent with first providing background on the issue giving me a clear vision of unbiased journalist communication. The Boy Scout Article was very current and relevant to your argument which is a positive however I would have liked to see another example of may be an author or writer who had used bias opinions and had gone against this ethical idea presented. Expanding on Jessica's blog viewpoint I agree with her opinion however I also feel it is important for the reader to understand and have some background of the writers view point when forming your own opinion. Bias articles present strong opinions, not necessarily always swaying the minds of the reader.
ReplyDelete