Essay #1- Topic 3

Professor: Dean Proessel

Philosophy 2730G
Ashlee Dixon
251171969
February 16, 2024

Introduction
 A fundamental component of press freedom is the public’s “right to know,” which per-

mits journalists to share information for the sole reason of accountability and openness. The right

to know emphasizes people’s ability to hold authorities and other parties responsible while al-

lowing them to engage in decisions that impact them in an educated manner. This privilege,

meanwhile is not universal and frequently conflicts with moral obligations about possible harm

from journalistic work. Meyers and Ward examine the boundaries of the public’s right to know

and how it relates to the harm principle in their texts, “Justifying Journalistic Harms: Right to

Know vs Interest in Knowing” and “Media Harm and Offence”. To evaluate the constraints that

the damage principle should impose on press freedom, I will be critically analyzing the argu-

ments put forth by Meyers and Ward and contrasting their points of view throughout this essay.

When comparing and contrasting their positions, my goal throughout this paper is to argue that

the harm principle must frequently lead journalists in exercising their freedom responsibly, mak-

ing certain that neither the welfare of society nor individual rights are jeopardized in the search

for the truth.

Summary of Texts: Meyers and Ward

Meyers addresses the moral conundrums that journalists frequently encounter while at-

tempting to defend the harms that their reporting causes in the context of serving the public good

(Meyers, 1993). Meyers emphasizes the significance of taking into account the general public's

curiosity as well as the possible effects that knowledge may have on people individually and as a

society (Meyers, 1993). He talks about how the disclosure of sensitive material sparked concerns

about how to strike an agreement between openness and national security (Meyers, 1993).

Ward, on the other hand, goes deeper into the idea of media offence and harm, highlight-

ing the necessity for journalists to think about the moral ramifications of their work (Ward,
2011). He challenges the conventional understanding of the public's right to know, contending

that it frequently results in intrusive, sensationalist reporting that may be harmful to both persons

and communities (Ward, 2011). He argues for three principles of restraint for media: “(1) avoid-

ing unjustified harm to others; (2) avoiding unjustified “profound offence”; and (3) minimizing

harm where harm is justified” (Ward, p.161). In light of the possible harm that media informa-

tion may cause, Ward is an advocate for a change in reporting practices toward one that is more

responsible (Ward, 2011). If a change were to come from reporting practices in the media, jour-

nalists would be participating in the concept of beneficence; the duty to not harm others (Ward,

2011).

Limitations of the Public’s Right to Know

Meyers argues that the public's right to know must be balanced against the potential risks

connected to journalistic pursuits (Meyers, 1993). He contends that journalists have a moral obli-

gation to consider the ramifications of their reporting when addressing delicate or private topics

(Meyers, 1993). This expresses how it is the morally right thing to think of how their actions and

journaling can affect others. A limitation to this is that what they may feel causes minimal harm

to themselves, actually causes drastic harm to those around them. So, Meyers promotes a more

moral approach to journalism, stressing the value of openness and responsibility while reducing

harm to people and communities (Meyers, 1993).

Furthermore, Meyers also explores the moral problems that reporters have when covering

delicate subjects. He contends that although the public has a right to know, journalists should use

caution to prevent doing needless harm (Meyers, 1993). This necessitates giving serious thought

to the possible fallout from their reporting, including how it can affect people's safety, privacy,

and general well-being. According to Meyers, journalists should take a harm-reduction stance,
making an effort to lessen the unfavourable effects of their reporting while still carrying out their

obligation to enlighten the public (Meyers, 1993).

However, Ward explores the concept of media outrage and harm in greater detail, high-

lighting how journalistic methods can inadvertently cause harm to individuals and the commu-

nity as a whole (Ward, 2011). He states how “the power of news media can be abused. Abuse

leads to misinformation, erroneous judgments, and harmful consequences for individuals,

groups, and countries” (Ward, p.161). As a result, such ethics encourages the media to utilize its

power and freedom responsibly. Restricting the freedom to publish while taking into account the

potential harm that tales and images may cause is known as responsible use (Ward, 2011). This

is where Ward states individuals must look at whether or not it is ethically right to cause harm to

prevent greater harm (Ward, 2011). He uses the example of outing a priest to the community that

is abusing young boys to represent the mindset of attempting to choose a lesser evil (Ward,

2011). Proving how still harm will be caused by their actions but, that it is the morally correct ac-

tion to prevent greater evil (Ward, 2011). The inadvertent implications of journalistic ap-

proaches, such as sensationalism, bias, or breach of privacy, can be brought to light by highlight-

ing the effects of those actions. Journalists may also weaken neighbourhood social cohesiveness

and decrease faith in the media, which can become another limitation that they must face (Ward,

2011). Ultimately, Ward's analysis highlights the significance of ethical and responsible journal-

ism in promoting a well-informed and healthy society, as well as the wider effects of media prac-

tices beyond the news articles' immediate subjects (Ward, 2011).

Between Press Freedom and the Harm Principle

Meyers and Ward agree that it can be difficult to strike a balance between press freedom,

moral obligation and the harm principle. While press freedom is necessary for democracy, they
contend that it must be balanced with respect for individual rights and the welfare of society.

Meyers advises journalists to use caution while covering delicate subjects because there may be

harm to both individuals and communities (Meyers, 1993). In a similar vein, Ward stresses the

necessity for journalists to do the least amount of harm possible while carrying out their social

duty to share what they know with their audiences (Ward, 2011).

Ward further explores the relationship between press freedom and the harm principle,

highlighting the ethical dilemmas faced by journalists when reporting on contentious issues. He

argues that while journalists have a duty to inform the public, they must also consider the poten-

tial consequences of their reporting on vulnerable individuals and marginalized communities

(Ward, 2011). Ultimately, as a responsible citizen, “if it is wrong for me to discredit someone by

spreading lies behind people's backs, then it must also be unethical for the media to use the print-

ing press or the Internet to deliberately damage someone's reputation” (Ward, p.165). In being a

responsible citizen and avoiding causing damage to another individual Ward advocated for a

more nuanced understanding of media harm, one that takes into account the broader societal im-

plications of journalistic practices (Ward, 2011).

The Role of the Harm Principle in Guiding Press Freedom

Given the reasons put out by Meyers and Ward, it is clear that journalistic methods ought

to be guided primarily by the harm principle. This principle makes sure that the search for infor-

mation does not come at the cost of social well-being or individual dignity by requiring journal-

ists to balance the possibility of harm against the public interest. In the end, the damage principle

upholds journalists' ethical obligations and protects the public interest, even though it may place

restrictions on press freedom. It ultimately is for the greater good.

 The harm principle also offers a framework for navigating the tricky ethical landscape of

reporting for journalists. Journalists can make well-informed decisions that strike a balance be-

tween minimizing harm and the public's right to know by taking into account the possible out-

comes of their activities. They can find a healthy balance between sharing important stories and

necessitating careful consideration of the moral ramifications of journalistic activities all while

having a dedication to maintaining moral principles while they are seeking the truth.

Limitations I believe That The Harm Principle Should Place on The Liberty of The Press:

To guarantee moral and accountable journalism, the harm principle ought to impose some

restrictions on press freedom. Press freedom must be weighed against the possible harm that

could result from careless reporting, even if democracy must function. With that being said, I be-

lieve that the best way to do so would be for there to be criteria in place that journalists must

complete before they can post something to the media. Additionally, journalists should always

strive to limit harm and give ethical issues top priority in their work. Even if that means holding

off on disclosing information that would subject someone to unjustified pain or injury. Lastly,

journalists should also take responsibility for the results of their reporting and be open and hon-

est about their techniques and goals. In doing so, journalists can protect their profession's ethics

and further the public interest by following these guidelines.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Meyers and Ward provide valuable perspectives on the interplay between

the public's right to know, press freedom, and the harm principle. The harm principle serves as a

guiding framework for journalists, requiring them to weigh the potential consequences of their

reporting against the public interest. By adhering to ethical principles and exercising discretion,

journalists can fulfill their societal role responsibly while upholding the public's right to know
supporting my claim that the harm principle should inform the limitations placed on the liberty

of the press.

Word Count: 1578

Work Cited

Christopher Meyers (1993) Justifying Journalistic Harms: Right to Know vs. Interest in Know-

ing, Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 8:3, 133-146, DOI: 10.1207/s15327728jmme0803_1

Ward SJA. Ethics and the Media: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press; 2011.