{"id":1026,"date":"2020-10-05T10:00:15","date_gmt":"2020-10-05T09:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1026"},"modified":"2020-10-02T15:16:04","modified_gmt":"2020-10-02T14:16:04","slug":"responsibilities-of-the-media-are-journalists-responsible-for-publishing-the-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/responsibilities-of-the-media-are-journalists-responsible-for-publishing-the-truth\/","title":{"rendered":"Responsibilities of the Media: Are Journalists Responsible for Publishing the Truth?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2016, a Daily Mail journalist who broke the scandalous story that David Cameron had placed his private parts in the mouth of a dead pig (aka \u2018Piggate\u2019),<\/strong> made the shocking revelation that she lacked any evidence for the sensationalist claim. By this time, the story had been reported by dozens of newspapers and shared by millions via social media. In her defence, the journalist claimed \u2018We merely reported the account that the source gave us…we don\u2019t say whether we believe it to be true\u201d and \u201cIt\u2019s up to other people to decide whether they give it any credibility or not.\u201d (Oakeshott in Viner, 2016).<\/p>\n

Remarking on this story, The Guardian<\/em> Editor in Chief, Katherine Viner, notes that this revelation was not the first time that unsupported and outlandish claims have been published in the media. This raises the question as to whether journalists should be accountable for playing a kind of epistemic gatekeeping function, viz., of refraining from publishing a story when they lack evidence for its truth, or whether instead, the epistemic labour of assessing a story for truth should fall entirely on the consumer of the news – the reader.<\/p>\n

To help address this important and pressing question, media policymakers and stakeholders can helpfully draw from the epistemology of testimony<\/em> to better understand how epistemic labour should be distributed across journalists and media consumers[1]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The question that arises then, is whether journalists have a responsibility to publish the truth, or if they should be neutral to the truth which in turn implies an additional level of responsibility and epistemic labour on the reader[2]<\/sup><\/a> . The practice of neutrality in the media is sometimes referred to as \u2018procedural objectivity\u2019, which is the practice of allowing the audience to make up their own mind on a story, promoting fairness and nonpartisanship as opposed to delivering the truth whenever these goals come apart (Simion 2017). However, the difference between this form of neutrality and the form of neutrality and the type proposed by the Daily Mail journalist, is that journalistic objectivity still promotes the publishing of the truth or facts, but remains objective as to what the journalist\u2019s opinion is on said facts. Our concern, however, is whether journalists are responsible<\/em> for publishing truths, or does the responsibility of sorting truth from falsehood lie principally with the reader?[3]<\/sup><\/a>.\u00a0 An example where this question may arise concerns the recent rumour circulating social media of Kim Jong Un\u2019s alleged death. With North Koreas’ extreme restricted media, reporters are unable to accurately report whether the claim is true or not, with some reports claiming he made a recent appearance at a public event[4]<\/sup><\/a>. Journalists would then report his death as \u2018neutral\u2019\u2014viz., it may or may not be the case, there is conflicting evidence on both sides. Therefore, it is on the consumer to take responsibility for their belief.<\/p>\n

As mentioned, the literature on epistemic responsibility, specifically the responsibility of testimony, can help to bring this debate into sharper focus and arguably answer why we may wish to reject this neutrality approach to journalism.<\/p>\n

In the epistemology of testimony, there is a dynamic between a testifier and a hearer which can be compared to the relationship between a journalist, the testifier, and the consumer of the media, the hearer. There have been various discussions to date on this distinction, such as the role that both the testifier and hearer play with regards to knowledge and how to best evaluate the beliefs gained via testimony (Coady 1992, Lackey 2008, Goldberg 2010).\u00a0 Specifically, we can focus here on the role that the testifier plays when they are an expert testifier and contrastingly the hearer is not, in order to assess the various responsibilities that the testifier versus hearer holds.<\/p>\n

Firstly, we can argue that a journalist as an expert, compared to the consumer \u2013 a non-expert, has greater responsibilities to inform the reader of the truth purely by being an expert on the matter. Take, for example, a Doctor, who is an expert testifier informing their patient of a medical condition they believe them to possess. It seems fair to state that the Doctor has a responsibility to diagnose the patient and inform them of this diagnosis, as opposed to the patient having to take on responsibility for their belief and put in any epistemic work to figure out whether the diagnosis is true or not. Because of the Doctor’s position as a medical expert they have a greater responsibility to convey knowledge. Likening this to the debate between journalists and consumers, the journalists, qua expert, has a greater responsibility to inform the reader of the truth than the reader does to do the epistemic labour themselves.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the relationship between an expert and non-expert creates a case where the non-expert is epistemically dependent in some sense on the expert for their knowledge. Referring back to the Doctor example, the patient, who has little or no medical knowledge, is reliant on the Doctor to inform them of their diagnosis, as they have limited (if any) other ways to access the information if not from the expert. Similarly, this applies to journalists as experts. The consumer has little to no other way to access the knowledge they seek, and the journalist, as an expert,\u00a0 is in a better position to know and inform the consumer of the truth, and in turn, the consumer who is in a less privileged position to access the truth is dependent on the journalist for their knowledge. The epistemic dependence on experts in these scenarios demonstrates further how they have a greater responsibility to inform than the consumer does.<\/p>\n

In summary, by examining the relationship between testifiers and hearers, it can be argued that journalists have a greater responsibility to publish the truth as experts in the domain, meaning they have a responsibility to inform when they can do so. Additionally, because consumers of the media are in some sense epistemically dependent on the journalists for their beliefs, journalists have greater responsibilities to convey knowledge.\u00a0 In these above contexts, the testifier has certain responsibilities, particularly for their consumers\u2019 beliefs. I have demonstrated how this can also be mirrored in journalism, and how, epistemically, journalists have a greater responsibility to publish the truth than the consumers do to take responsibility for their own knowledge.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References:<\/u><\/p>\n

Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study<\/em>. Oxford: Clarendon Press<\/p>\n

Goldberg, S. 2010. Relying on Others: An Essay in Epistemology. <\/em>New York: Oxford University Press<\/p>\n

Goldberg, S. 2005. \u2018Testimonial Knowledge Through Unsafe Testimony\u2019. Analysis,<\/em> 65, pp. 302-311.<\/p>\n

Goldberg, S. 2001. \u2018Testimonially Based Knowledge From False Testimony\u2019. The Philosophical Quarterly,<\/em> 51, pp. 512-526.<\/p>\n

Graham, P. J., 2000. \u2018The Reliability of Testimony\u2019, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,<\/em> 61, pp. 695-709.<\/p>\n

Lackey, J. 2008. Learning from Words \u2013 Testimony as a Source of Knowledge.<\/em> New York: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Madden, M. 2020. \u2018Kim Jong-un and the brutal North Korea rumour mill\u2019. BBC News <\/em>[online] <https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-asia-52511812<\/a>> [Accessed 3rd May 2020].<\/p>\n

Simion, M. 2017. \u2018Epistemic Norms and \u2018He Said\/She Said\u2019 Reporting\u2019. Episteme, <\/em>14(4), pp. 413-422.<\/p>\n

Viner, K. 2016. \u2018How technology disrupted the truth\u2019. The Guardian <\/em>[online] <https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2016\/jul\/12\/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth<\/a>> [Accessed 2nd<\/sup> April 2020].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes:<\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> See Lackey 2008, Goldberg 2001, 2005 and Graham 2000.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 I will only be assessing responsibilities concerning factual reporting as opposed to opinion pieces. Examples being the case of \u2018Piggate\u2019 or more importantly, claims which have greater ethical consequences if found to be false (e.g various articles which direct hate towards minorities).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> See Mona Simion\u2019s 2017 claim that balanced reporting or \u2018he said\/she said\u2019 journalism violates general norms of informative speech acts and is only permissible if it is under urgent conditions.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> \u2018Kim Jong-Un and the brutal North Korea Rumour Mill\u2019 https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-asia-52511812<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Photo: Chernobyl, Obw\u00f3d kijowski, Ukraina by Michal Lis on Unsplash<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In 2016, a Daily Mail journalist who broke the scandalous story that David Cameron had placed his private parts in the mouth of a dead pig (aka \u2018Piggate\u2019), made the […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1029,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A new post by Danielle Meehan \"Responsibilities of the Media: Are Journalists Responsible for Publishing the Truth?\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[65,259,260,66],"custom_author":[258],"class_list":["post-1026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-fake-news","tag-journalism","tag-news","tag-truth","custom_author-meehan-daniella"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-gy","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":207,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-vices-of-truthlessness\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":0},"title":"The Vices of Truthlessness","author":"Charlie Crerar","date":"August 28, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"From \u2018post-truth\u2019, to \u2018fake news\u2019, to \u2018alternative facts\u2019, truthlessness is everywhere at the moment. These phenomena present us with a huge array of questions. How do we separate fact from fiction? How can we tell which sources of information are credible? Is there even such a thing as objective truth?\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":531,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/bullshit-you-can-believe-in\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":1},"title":"Bullshit You Can Believe In","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 5, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. So begins Harry Frankfurt\u2019s rightly celebrated essay On Bullshit, raising the important questions of precisely what bullshit is and why there is so much of it around. That sentence is particularly poignant now, three\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/11\/140521-F-LR006-054.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/11\/140521-F-LR006-054.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/11\/140521-F-LR006-054.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/11\/140521-F-LR006-054.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2070,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/friendship-and-understanding\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":2},"title":"Friendship and Understanding","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In Nicole Holofcener\u2019s recent film You Hurt My Feelings, an author, Beth, overhears her partner confess to a friend that he thinks her latest book is no good. This revelation comes as a shock to Beth, as Don had previously indicated he liked the book, and a rift opens up\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/08\/Screenshot-2024-05-14-at-18.00.12.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":432,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/poisonous-words-arrogance-bullshit-and-accusations-of-lying-in-public-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":3},"title":"Poisonous Words: Arrogance, Bullshit and Accusations of Lying in Public Discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 23, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"As is common with international incidents today, the Skripal case, in which a Russian double agent and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury, England, has generated an abundance of fake news, conspiracy theories, deceptions, misleading, bullshit and lying. There have been many accusations of lying and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1625,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/truth-and-the-facebookians\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":4},"title":"Truth and the Facebookians","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Imagine a community\u2014call them the \u201cFacebookians\u201d\u2014whose politics is deeply polarized. Their political discourse reflects this divisiveness, but to a very unusual extent. For in making political claims, Facebookians are guided by just one rule: only say (or post) what is liked by your friends and which you are willing defend\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Neon sign with zero \"likes\"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/trust-and-trump-investigating-sincerity-and-accuracy-in-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1026,"position":5},"title":"TRUST and Trump: investigating sincerity and accuracy in discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"When exploring discursive untruthfulness, modern American politics is an obvious example. Donald Trump\u2019s presidency has been continuously criticised for his use of falsity, with the aim of promoting his own biased views. However, untruthfulness is irrefutably underpinned by the notion of \u2018lying\u2019, an act that is near impossible to identify:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/michal-lis-1mazop8Y1ss-unsplash.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1026"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1026\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1031,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1026\/revisions\/1031"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1026"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}