MP Pavlovich and Ewa T.

Texts of my friends from the large Format have late sparked discussions about ethics in the media. In various parts of the net I participated in talks about, for example, whether it was ethical, that Szczygieł exposed Eve T. Or that Wójcik allowed MP Pavlovich to talk freely without informing her that this may someday appear in the “Big Format”. I'm going to address this collectively.

There is no single universal code of media ethics. Different countries have different solutions. I erstwhile considered the British solution based on self-regulation of the manufacture as a model – now I consider it to be evidence of the impossibility of self-regulation.

In Poland, the situation is peculiarly bad due to the fact that the press law is the 1984 Act, which inactive mentions "Polish People's Republic". It does not fit today's reality on many levels, but politicians like not to contact it.

As a result, there are ethical homeless people in the press – each editor can come up with his own ethical code and then he can follow it. Or not.

Komcionauts on the net sometimes endanger to pass a paper to the “Council of Ethics” or “Commission of Ethics” because, like the Internet, they do not know what they are talking about. Yes, there is any advice or committee, but this is simply a private initiative of private individuals. no of her activities in practice are apparent.

This is most likely incorrect with the National Broadcasting Council – a state body that can most surely impose different penalties, including ethical misconduct. But only in radio and television.

From just switching from keyboard to microphone, the writer moves from unregulated to overregulated media. Both of these extremes are wrong, but coming up with a fresh strategy would require consensus over divisions – so it is unlikely.

There is no law that would aid us answer questions like this – does a writer have the right to ruin someone's career? Does he have the right to mislead the person? Does he have the right to print unauthorized statements? Is he allowed to steal?

These questions are important, but incorrect. Of course, if we put them like this, we get a series of smooth clichés next to the subject, like a lesson in media ethics from the show. Liphica.

In the meantime, ethics becomes interesting only erstwhile we have a conflict of 2 values. erstwhile we don't ask whether a writer has the right to ruin a career – only in what situation could another values justify specified a step?

As I wrote, the British model is simply a failure, but as far as the regulatory mechanics is concerned, not ethical principles. These just make sense to me.

The British model says you can walk distant from these rules erstwhile the public interest demands it. This concept is not clearly defined – and rightly, in the event of a dispute it is essential to simply leave it to the courts – but respective elements are listed:

1. The public interest includes, but is not defined to:
(i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious imporriety.
(ii) Protecting public wellness and safety.
(iii) Preventing the public from being missed by an action or message of an individual or organization.
2. There is simply a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

Let us apply this criterion to these matters. Regardless of the suppression of Eve T.'s sentence, a individual with specified a past should not work as a teacher. This is "serious imporriety".

Of course, not everyone has to agree. We can treat the institution of concealing the conviction as a fetish that guarantees that after that period individual becomes a different person.

I respect that individual has that view, although I have another. But without this report, there would be no specified debate. That's why I think it was ethical.

What Members, ministers, judges, prosecutors (etc.) say always remains in the public interest. Even erstwhile they say it privately, due to the fact that they are convinced that they only hear them with their "own". Publishing specified private conversations is an component of "preventing the public from being missed".

If it wasn't for the MP, it was for the singer, the bargist, or the gimmick, I would consider publishing specified conversations ethically reprimanded, due to the fact that there would be no "public interest" (even if the individual were of public interest). I would besides condemn the demolition of Eva T's career if she worked in, let's say, banking.

The decisive criterion seems to me to be the public interest and the public sphere – that is, the legal order, the functioning of the state and its authorities. My colleagues' texts meet this criterion.