 In the previous part of our MOOC communication ethics, we talked about the ethical issues for communication professionals in the field of entertainment communication. In this part of our course, we would like to talk with you about the ethical issues for professionals working in political communication and in journalism. This field covers all interactions between political actors, journalists and the public. Of course, the aims of the various actors in this process are all quite different. Politicians want to get their message across, while journalists are well advised to take an independent and critical standpoint, rather than simply rapidly using the message like a cock in the machine. Of course, politicians and their spokespersons can face ethical dilemmas, because what is good for their party or for themselves is not necessarily the same as what is good for society. As examples, we will discuss the application of several ethical frameworks we covered in the previous part of this course. From a strictly Keynesian perspective, for instance, lying would never be acceptable. As we have learned before, this even extends through situations with clearly bad outcomes, like telling a murderer the location of their victim. One such dilemma is the question of providing information about the work of intelligence agencies. On the one hand, this is necessary for democratic control of their work. On the other hand, it may counter the very purpose of these agencies. Here, two societal goals, parliamentary scrutiny and security, are in direct conflict. But also on the personal level or the party level, absolute adherence to a rule may well result in damage to the party or the politician personally, giving rise to a dilemma. Political parties can be seen as organizations which we will cover in more detail next week. In the remainder of this clip, however, we will be focusing on the ethical dilemmas journalists can face. Journalists have codes of conduct, which we will cover later in this course. These codes can help them in their decision making, but of course, there is no comprehensive manual with the ready-made solution for each and every dilemma. We will now explore some dilemmas and how they can be approached. Take the case of a major data leak. There are several examples from recent years, such as WikiLeaks or the Panama Papers. As a journalist, you have a strong incentive to publish the material immediately. After all, this would be a major scoop for your news organization and it might also boost your career. On the other hand, you are aware of the severe consequences of publishing. People might lose their job or even be killed. Or in the most extreme case, diplomatic problems arise that ultimately cause a war. Let us consider three possible ways to approach this problem. You could use a deontological approach. This means that you focus on the motives for your action. It also means that you are bound to rules that apply universally. In practice, you might feel that it is a duty for journalists to publish material that is of societal relevance. The consequences of fulfilling this duty do not matter. You could also use a teleological approach. This implies that you evaluate the outcomes of your behavior. In particular, if you follow utilitarian reasoning, you basically make a simple calculation. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? It is important that everyone that is affected by your decision is included in this calculation. The soldier that has an increased risk of dying because of their tactings becoming known, as well as the benefits of a population that profit from the possibility of a war ending sooner. To illustrate, for a utilitarian, the answer to the trolley problem, a famous ethical problem that asks whether it is permissible to, in effect, kill one person if it saves five other lives, is clear. Kill the person. Therefore, in the case of your league, the decision to publish would only depend on the expected outcome of your calculations of benefits and costs. Of course, in practice, the decision might not be so black or white. For example, often, some names are blacked out before publication to mitigate the risks. Think back to our earlier clip in which we talked about virtue ethics. In that clip, we showed that in their socialization as journalists, journalists acquire certain virtues and learn to accept the rules of their profession, which in the end are meant to serve a common good. Another example of a dilemma a journalist can face could be the question of if and when to use undercover methods. On the one hand, some of the biggest scandals have only been discovered because of undercover journalists. On the other hand, this involves misleading others, breaching confidentiality and possibly also breaking the law. Let's conclude with some food for thought. Several countries have laws that protect sources of journalists. For example, in many countries, journalists do not have to tell the police or court of law who their sources were. However, countries differ in how absolute this protection is. Do you think it should be absolute or do you think there should be some limitation to it? How might a utilitarian argue and how might a deontologist argue? In our next clip, we'll deal with ethical issues that professions in corporate communication could face.