Covering the Starr Report: Two Korean newspapers made opposite ethical
choices-how and why?
Covering the excerpts of the Starr report in September 14, 1998, two
Korean newspapers showed remarkably different standpoints. The Joongang
Ilbo translated the salacious details choosing the journalistic value of
truth telling, whereas the Chosun Ilbo altered or omitted the sexually
explicit material considering possible harm to the public as an aftereffect.
Following the Potter Box model of moral reasoning by Dr. Ralph Potter,
the study unveiled that the Joongang Ilbo was a rule deontologist contrary
to act utilitarian choice of the Chosun Ilbo. However, continuing articulation
of loyalties through in-depth interview showed that the two editors felt
harassed into writing certain angles and could not be clearly consistent
in their philosophical principles and loyalties. Finally, the results advise
that the Potter Box can provide the guidelines for journalists to be more
consistent and sophisticated in their ethical quandaries and choices.
Jaeyung Park, MA Student, School of Journalism at University of Missouri-Columbia.
4 Diego Ct. Apt. C, Columbia MO 65203. 1-573-449-0430. c733680@showme.missouri.edu.
Jongmin Park, Ph.D. Student, School of Journalism at University of
Missouri-Columbia. 1817 Highridge Dr. Columbia MO 65203. 1-573-446-3247.
c666465@showme.missouri.edu.
INTRODUCTION
Concerning media coverage of the Starr Report on President Bill Clinton’s
affair with Monica Lewinsky, Insight on the News points out that the American
conversational mainstream faces a whole new chapter. The mainstream,
within which sex acts were more or less ensconced, has been barely exposed
to the explicit encounters by the scandal-driven frankness. In fact, the
U.S. is not the only country that came to have fewer boundaries on discourse
after the coverage of the Starr Report. Korea, which has more conservative
social mores and keeps a more respectful distance from a president, suffers
similar troubles.
As others did, Korean newspapers printed the Starr Report with editors’
notes. However, most Korean newspapers show strikingly different viewpoints
on coverage of the details of the sexual relationship between President
Clinton and Lewinsky. Whereas some of them translated literally word for
word, others eliminated almost all the terms considered obscene and softened
indecent words.
Two Korean newspapers, which show the most contradictory stances,
are the Joongang Ilbo and the Chosun Ilbo. Each is one of the major morning
newspapers in Korea. In the editor’s note, the Joongang Ilbo states that
it decided to translate and print the report word for word on the grounds
that it is a record of an investigation of a historical event and has already
been released to the world through the Internet. On the contrary,
the Chosun Ilbo attached a note that it softened sultry content of the
report because printing the details might shock readers and do harm to
children.
The remarkable contradiction between these two Korean newspapers, which
compete together in the same market, gives an opportunity to make a comparative
study of the Starr Report coverage in journalism ethics. In general, the
media consider journalistic values and then tend to make an ethical choice,
according to Christians et al. In covering the Starr Report, each
Korean newspaper seems to have paid much more attention to the value of
truth-telling or supporting social mores and then reached its own decision.
Yet a decision is not considered morally justified, as Christians et al
argue, without an appeal to an explicit philosophical principle and the
consideration on which parties will be influenced by the decision and which
ones the media feel especially obligated to support. From this viewpoint,
the Potter Box, an ethical decision-making model developed by Harvard theologian
Ralph Potter, makes a strong point in sorting out a host of values and
loyalties inherent to each Korean newspaper’s decision. These values and
loyalties reflect the presuppositions about social life and human nature
in Korea.
The purpose of this study is to examine what values each of the two
Korean newspapers favors, which ethical principle each newspaper’s decision
is based on and where the two newspapers respectively think they have the
most important loyalties.
After describing general critiques on media coverage of the Starr Report,
this study follows four steps of the Potter Box in order to reveal each
Korean newspaper’s ethical reasoning. To understand their contradictory
viewpoints better, this study employs an in-depth interview with each newspaper’s
international news editor. The interview was conducted from October 3 to
October 10, 1998 by fax and telephone. All the statements that the two
editors make in this paper were obtained through the interview.
CRITIQUES ON MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE STARR REPORT
One of the most troubling aspects of media coverage of the Starr Report
is the frank way details of intimate sexual behavior have been dragged
into public discourse. Media editors seemed to have thought the details
of sexual encounters were crucial in two aspects. They are not only too
salacious to report, but ironically requisite for understanding that issue.
The contradiction resulted in most U.S. newspapers publishing extra
editions, special sections, and a full text of the report itself with editors’
notes. The Washington Post shows well the delicate nature of the report
on the editor’s note;
“We recognize that the independent counsel’s report contains extensive
sexually explicit material that normally would be unacceptable for publication
in the Post. However, we have decided not to edit the text of the report
because of the unique circumstances of its release … in the midst of a
public controversy over whether the president has committed impeachable
offenses.”
According to Editor & Publisher, most editors believed that the
report was extraordinarily important and historically significant, which
they should give the public to get an idea of what was going on.
Furthermore, editors thought that the public wanted to make their own judgment
and giving them the actual report was the only way to do that.
Media coverage of the report raised a variety of responses in
the U.S. At an MSNBC town meeting, participants agreed on wishing the gory
details were omitted rather than saturating the media to the degree they
had. Even the Clinton supporters said to USA Today that the public
had a real problem with the morality part of the report and that newspapers
printed too much. In particular, media coverage caused American parents
to face an embarrassing situation of explaining the sexual details of the
report to children. Insight on the News points out that children have been
exposed at an early age to topics that parents hoped to deal with much
later. Parents blamed the media because the coverage stole the innocence
of childhood, was a real setback for girls and women and hurt children’s
image of their president as a hero, according to the USA Today. Feeling
the erosion of public morality, Newsweek published an article guiding parents
on how to talk to children about the report.
On the contrary, there has been a positive response to the media
coverage of the report. Some parents contended in an MSNBC’s town meeting
that the president’s adultery offers an opportunity to teach teens, on
many levels, the comprehensive nature of morality, character and responsibility.
Roni Leiderman, director of the Family Center at Nova Southeastern University
in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said to Insight on the News, “Americans have
to turn the president’s mistake around and have a dialogue with our children
so they can grow from this situation.”
The world’s view on the release and the media coverage of the
report was quite different from that of the U.S. According to the Gannett
News Service, several major European newspapers, even though they printed
either the full report unexpurgated or excerpts, said that the U.S. media
coverage of the report was attack journalism and the American journalists
had no class. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, showed the
most cynical stance, describing the mood caused by the media coverage of
the report as “a new McCarthyism, which has replaced the panicky fear of
Communism with the dread of sexuality” in its editorial of “Hell is American.”
Le Figaro, another French newspaper, also said the best American newspapers
debased themselves to the level of the gutter press. According to
the Associated Press, the Hamburg Morgenpost, a German newspaper, expressed
its disgust with coverage of the president’s sexual life by running two
blank pages whose headlines were “We’ve Had Enough,” “Clinton’s porno hearing,
Not with us!” Most Asian media, the New York Times says, offered
unadorned reportage with almost none of the lurid narratives, stemming
from their own press traditions and social mores, that is, sex is not a
matter of public discourse.
Korea suffered a peculiar situation. Most Korean newspapers,
which have even been reluctant to use the term “oral sex” from the beginning
of the scandal, faced an unprecedented dilemma with the treatment of the
report. Some major newspapers printed the details word for word, while
others eliminated almost all details.
The exposure to salacious details of the report shocked the Koreans.
WIN, a Korean monthly magazine, defined the coverage of the report as media
commercialism, contending that the reportage should be ethical even though
it deals with an unethical issue. The Joongang Ilbo translated and
printed the details of the sexual encounters, but it received several written
protests blaming its coverage. A letter to the editor said that the coverage
was meant for the lowbrows by mainly highlighting sexual content.
Readers’ responses received by the newspaper’s on-line edition were much
more cynical. Readers appealed that the general journalistic norms, such
as truth telling, are not enough justification for explicit coverage, pointing
out that Korean culture regards sex as a taboo public topic more than that
of the U.S. A reader suggested the Joongang Ilbo should have paid
more attention to the effect of the coverage and asked the editor “How
can you answer if your children ask you the exact meaning of the details?”
The Chosun Ilbo says in its column “Manmulsang” that printing the details
is considered yellow journalism in Korea.
A review of critiques shows that media coverage of the details
in the report is not only blamed but also supported by the public. And
each medium made a decision by its own free and strong will. Then, the
point of discussion becomes clear: How cautiously does each medium consider
its responsibility and obligation before printing something? The extent
to which each medium contemplated its manner of coverage reveals the ethical
legitimacy or illegitimacy of its decision.
KOREAN NEWSPAPERS’ ETHICAL REASONING ON THE STARR REPORT
The Potter Box model of reasoning
Dr. Ralph Potter of the Harvard Divinity School formulated the model
of moral reasoning being applied in this analysis of two Korean editors’
choices on the Starr report. The Potter Box is a decision-making model
that focuses on a systematic process of moral thinking. When facing
a situation in which different viewpoints on a single issue are themselves
credible, people are likely to make a certain decision and to rationalize
it. However, a decision is not simply justifiable on the account that all
the conflicting viewpoints are worthy. Because a decision involves personal,
professional, moral, and social values and duties, it should be analyzed
and judged in a social context. In this sense, the Potter Box can be helpful.
As shown in Figure 1, the Potter Box introduces four steps of
moral analysis to develop normative ethics. They are (1) understanding
the facts, (2) outlining values (3) applying relevant philosophical principles,
and (4) articulating loyalties.
Figure 1
Facts
Loyalties
Values Principles
The first step of the Potter Box in the case of our study is to identify
the fact: whether or not each Korean newspaper covered salacious content
of the Starr Report, and how much of it was included in the article for
each newspaper. The second step is to reveal journalistic values such as
truth telling and responsibility of supporting social mores upon which
each newspaper’s decision is based. The third step deals with what kind
of ethical principle each newspaper follows. The fourth step reveals for
whom each newspaper really makes a decision.
In addition to considering each step faithfully, the Potter Box must
be seen as a circle, an organic whole, according to Christians et al.
It is not merely a random set of isolated questions, but a linked system.
By conceiving the box as a circle and going one step further, the problems
can be examined in more depth.
Before two Korean editors’ dilemma is circling with these four lines,
familiarity of major premises for this moral modeling leads to separation
of the aberration from the amicable circling. First, if either choice is
immoral, the Potter Box cycle cannot justify such conduct. If there are
situations in which different values are themselves credible, one value
can contend legitimately with another. In our case, both Korean newspapers
make a defensible decision in terms of their journalistic values. The values
can be defended; neither is extravagant.
Second, the decision-making process usually involves numerous people.
Organizations and institutions can in a sense be held accountable for their
decisions and the object of moral approval or disapproval. However, it
is the individual who is the authentic moral agent. Christian et al also
maintain that the individual can be alone praised or blamed. Therefore,
this study employs an interview with each newspaper’s international news
editor who was in charge of covering the Starr Report.
Step One: The facts of the case
The two Korean newspapers covered the Starr Report with editors’ notes
on the edition of September 14, 1998 in approximately the same volume and
on the same page. However, the content of the articles is remarkably different
from each other.
The most obvious distinction is that the Chosun Ilbo’s coverage omits
several descriptions that contain salacious terms, whereas the Joongang
Ilbo covers them word for word. The terms that the Chosun Ilbo eliminated
in the coverage are “breasts,” “pants,” “genital area,” “oral sex,” “phone
sex,” “semen,” “ejaculation,” and so on. Examples of descriptions the Joongang
Ilbo reports but the Chosun Ilbo eliminates are:
“… Once again, he stopped her before he ejaculated. … The President
‘was talking about performing oral sex on me.’ But she stopped him because
she was menstruating. … The President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky’s
vagina, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: ‘It tastes good.’”
After removing such terms as are shown above, the Chosun Ilbo
softened sexual descriptions. Examples are:
“The President’s semen stained near the hip and chest area of Ms. Lewinsky’s
navy blue Gap dress.” (The Joongang Ilbo)
“She noticed stains on the chest of her dress.” (The Chosun Ilbo)
“Ms. Lewinsky without underwear wanted him to touch her genitals with
his genitals and he did so without penetration.” (The Joongang Ilbo)
“Ms. Lewinsky wanted him to have intimate relation with her. He did
so.” (The Chosun Ilbo)
As shown in the editors’ notes, two newspapers’ different coverage is caused by their own journalistic viewpoints on the report. The next question is what the two editors value as journalists, employees and citizens in Korean society.
Step Two: The values in the case
The term values takes on a more precise meaning in ethics. Patterson
and Wilkins explain the situation when a value, like an idea or a principle,
is clearly substantiated as follows:
“When you value something it means you are willing to give up other
things for it. If, as a journalist, you value truth above all things, then
you must sometimes be willing to give up privacy in favor of it.”
Journalistic values such as truth telling, privacy, the public’s right-to-know
and supporting social mores are lofty ideals that frequently conflict with
one another. The Potter Box model of reasoning helps journalists to be
honest about what they really do value. Patterson and Wilkins contend that
a clear articulation of all the values inherent in any particular ethical
situation enables journalists to see more obviously the choices that they
face and the potential sacrifices they may or may not have to make.
The case in this study embraces a mixture of journalistic values as
well. As mentioned above, the editor’s notes contain the value that each
newspaper considers the highest. In the editor’s note, the Joongang Ilbo
says:
“We had a heated dispute over how to cover the Starr Report since it
contains sexually explicit material beyond the limits of press ethics.
Yet, we decided to translate and print the report literally on the ground
that it is a record of an investigation on a historical event…”
The Joongang Ilbo seems to have considered first that the report was
very newsworthy journalistically because it was a report of a legal investigation.
In as much as even a simple crime accident is reported in detail, it seems
natural that a story about an investigation of an American president should
be covered as it is. In addition, the report can be considered important
regarding the political relationship between the U.S. and Korea. As Namjin
Heo, international news editor of the Joongang Ilbo, argues through the
interview:
“The report may determine the political fate of President Clinton.
The crisis of the U.S. politics, which may lead to impeaching the president,
possibly has a substantial influence on the Korean politics. I think that
telling full report, including salacious details would help the Koreans
recognize the importance of the situation without any misunderstandings.
Otherwise, the Koreans would be at a loss about Korean politics that may
change abruptly, not fully understanding the cause.”
Whereas the Joongang Ilbo focuses on the importance of the report and
chooses the journalistic value of truth telling, the Chosun Ilbo pays more
attention to the aftereffect of the coverage. The editor’s note states:
“The Starr Report causes an enormous political repercussion because
it deals with the possible impeachment of the present U.S. president. However,
if our readers face the report filled with pornographic languages without
any filtering, they may not only be shocked but also have an aversion to
it.”
The aftereffect the Chosun Ilbo concerned is the possible harm to the
public. About the harm, Haeyoung Jung, international news editor of the
Chosun Ilbo, explains:
“A newspaper is different from other types of media because all the
family including children freely access it at home. I think the Chosun
Ilbo is a ‘highly-reputed family newspaper’ and we should feel a sense
of responsibility of protecting social mores. Moreover, I believe our coverage
in no way hinders understanding the issue because a general description
is sufficient for explaining the suspect of the president’s perjury.”
In fact, the media have frequently overridden the desire to discover
and tell the truth, considering little the obligation of supporting social
morality. Paul Johnson points out this phenomenon as “the media’s exploitation
of sex.” He argues that sex-oriented coverage has never before been
so systematically, unscrupulously and shamefully flaunted as a selling
point through the whole media market. In this sense, truth telling
does not seem enough for justifying the coverage of salacious details.
However, morality mirrors a society and it also reflects the changes
of a society. Heo points out this fact as follows:
“The Korean social morality has changed rapidly in recent years. Many
parts of our society have gradually been exposed to explicit sexual graphics
and language. I believe the Koreans have already matured enough to filter
and digest the details of the Starr Report.”
The two newspapers’ decisions seem to be motivated by such professional
values that are competing with one another. They may legitimize the decisions
in terms of their own newsroom values. But values are never pure. Christians
et al contend that people are likely to become defensive about values and
typically rationalize their behavior when they violate them. Particularly,
journalistic values are mixed with a variety of environmental aspects that
are closely related to a power system. Therefore, they often need to be
examined and checked.
Step Three: Application of philosophical principles
Appealing to the philosophical principles that examine the issue is
an important step of the moral reasoning process. However, it is almost
impossible to expect journalists to consider this academic step seriously
in the workplace. The frenetic newsroom does not foster an atmosphere to
contemplate philosophical issue. Christians et al argue that journalists
tend to take an action directly after thinking over their professional
values under restraints such as deadline pressure.
Philosophical principles toward ethical obligation come in two
types: teleology and deontology. Teleology is the theory that measures
the rightness or wrongness of an action in terms of its consequences. It
has two types, ethical egoist and utilitarian. The former makes a decision
on the basis of what result would be best for him or her, and the latter
determines what is right or wrong by considering what would yield the best
consequences for the greatest number. Lambeth, specifically, refers the
distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. To
the act utilitarian, rules and maxims can provide only rough guidance or
outlines of moral experience, whereas the rule utilitarian questions not
what conduct will result in the greatest good but what rule, when followed,
will maximize the good.
Unlike the teleologist, the deontologist believes that the results
should not be the only measure of whether the acts are ethical or unethical.
Deontological theories ground ethical judgment on reason, God’s will, human
decision, the conventions of society and so on. The deontologist is also
divided into two types: an act deontologist who focuses on the nature of
the act, and a rule deontologist who weighs a rule or a set of rules.
According to the results of Step One and Step Two, the Joongang
Ilbo appears to follow one of the most cardinal principles in journalism:
truth telling. As Namjin Heo, international news editor of the Joongang
Ilbo, states:
“I would apply the same principle in case the report dealt with the
present Korean president’s sex scandal. In that case, the report would
be much more important and newsworthy because the Koreans have a more pressing
need to know the full details in order to judge their president. I think
the media would have a responsibility of letting the Koreans draw their
own decisions by reporting the substance of the facts that is closely related
to our nation’s interests. I would put high priority to truth telling and
I believe our readers agree with me.”
The Joongang Ilbo’s rule of truth telling is more definitely revealed
in the paper’s choice to break the Ethical Code for Korean journalists,
which prohibit the reports and edits of obscene and cruel content and keep
the media from causing harmful results to children by such coverage.
He argues against the Code:
“We must accept that this case is not such a simple sex scandal as
is shown generally. The core of the issue is obscenity itself. I don’t
think that it is right not to report a sensational but historical issue
only because it contains obscene content. Isn’t it the job of a journalist
to report an issue that has a historical significance? I, as a journalist,
think truth telling is the most important in any case.”
The Joongang Ilbo’s decision is based on the reasoning of whether an
action is good or bad should be determined not in terms of its consequences,
but in terms of whether or not the decision originates out of rational
will. In this sense, the Joongang Ilbo follows deontological ethics instead
of teleological ethics. It considers truth telling as duty of the media
and its action is taken by means of the duty, not the consequences of its
action. In addition, it believes the good of truth telling is accepted
by at least its readers. As Kant would do, the Joongang Ilbo searches for
its duty in the circumstances and accepted truth telling as an overriding
rule that can be universalized. The Joongang Ilbo is a rule deontologist
not an act deontologist in that it uses a maxim to justify the rule of
truth telling rather than its particular action of covering the details
of the report.
The logical reasoning of the Chosun Ilbo is totally different from
that of the Joongang Ilbo. The Chosun Ilbo, which already added the content
of the Code into its editor’s note, is assumed to follow the viewpoint
of utilitarian. Haeyoung Jung, international news editor of the Chosun
Ilbo, contends:
“I would do the same thing even if the report were about the present
Korean president. My focus on this case is what our coverage results in,
or what is the best coverage to cause the least damage to our readers.
I think the Korean journalists must think over our social mores from the
viewpoints of the Koreans, not the Americans. Moreover, we, the Korean
journalists, have a guideline already. The Code reflect the real morality
of our society. We made the Code voluntarily to be ready for a dilemmatic
situation like this. Who would observe the Code besides us?”
The Chosun Ilbo takes the stance of a teleologist who focuses on the
consequences of the action, and is assumed utilitarian because it is hardly
understood that it took the action for its own sake like an egoist. Jung
bases his action on his expectations and consequences his paper must suffer.
His justification does not stem from a rule or a principle that he experienced
in the past. Because he does not seem to justify his action by means of
the good consequences that result when he follows such a rule or a principle,
he is far from a rule utilitarian. According to Merrill, an act utilitarian
makes a prediction about the “future,” whereas a rule utilitarian focuses
on the “past.” The Chosun Ilbo is closer to an act utilitarian.
Application of philosophical principle shows that each Korean
newspaper has its own obvious background of journalism ethics. The newspapers
made different choices based on two different ethical theories that seem
relevant. None the less, a newspaper seeking an ethically sound conclusion
cannot merely appeal to a professional value and argue for an ethical theory
that corresponds to that value, according to Christians et al. In
this case, there is doubt whether the Chosun Ilbo took the action to support
social mores or to seek their own comfort by escaping readers’ outrage
from reporting lurid obscenities. Similarly, the Joongang Ilbo can be asked
whether it made the decision in order to tell the truth or to attract more
readers with a sex-oriented content. These questions cannot be resolved
unless a further step is taken. Therefore, as Patterson and Wilkins contend,
most ethical decisions finally come down to the question: To whom is the
moral duty owed.
Step Four: Articulation of loyalties
According to Andrew Oldenquist, loyalty is neither egoism nor impersonal
morality. He states:
“It is not self-interested, because people can sacrifice, in the name
of loyalty, their happiness and even their lives, and it probably is this
element of potential self-sacrifice that makes most people classify motives
of loyalty as moral motives…. But neither is loyalty impersonal morality,
since an obligation of loyalty depends on viewing a thing as one’s own.
In terms of the logic of the reasons they provide, loyalties are a third
category of the normative, distinct from both self-interest and impersonal
morality.”
Thus, loyalty is a range within a continuum not a fixed point. Patterson
and Wilkins explain that loyalty exists between the two extreme poles:
“don’t betray me” and “be with me.” Regarding journalism ethics,
they maintain that loyalties come from shared humanity, professional practice,
employment, and the media’s role in public life. Christians et al
also view loyalties as moral duties or obligations that are owed to journalists
themselves, subscribers, their organizations, professional colleagues,
and society.
It is obvious that the decision-making process is finally explained
in the social context. The loyalty component, which is related to a variety
of social parts, functions as a backbone to link them. As Nel Noddings
argues, simply appealing to principle in the process of resolving an ethical
dilemma is likely to cause much wrong unless the people involved are the
focus. In this sense, application of loyalties is the highlight in
the examination of moral reasoning.
About the loyalty to personal conscience, Namjin Heo, international
news editor of the Joongang Ilbo, says:
“As a journalist, I think I am a historical describer and my responsibility
comes from that definition. In case of the Starr Report, I felt a strong
motivation to report it, and also had a firm belief in the public’s need
to know.”
However, it was not the public but he who determined whether or not
the public needed to know the report. After the coverage, some readers
blamed the Joongang Ilbo through letters to the editor as mentioned above.
His loyalty to the public was found to have a different motivation, as
he states:
“I could not completely ignore the sensational attraction the report
has. I think the U.S. major newspapers felt it as well. But it is to be
considered ‘positive sensationalism.’ Many Korean political leaders have
also been entangled in shameful sex scandals but few has been reported.
I guess my newspaper’s coverage may help the public restrain from having
disorderly sexual lives. And also it will make Korean politicians aware
that their dissipated sex activities can’t remain as a sanctuary.”
The salacious details of the Starr Report were indeed regarded as an
interesting story by the media. French Le Monde published sixteen pages
of extra edition to cover the report, but after that, it received a bunch
of complaints from readers. According to the Chosun Ilbo, the publisher
of Le Monde confessed that the coverage was a success in terms of media
economics with 20.8% increase of its circulation. Admitting the sensational
aspect of the coverage, Heo said in the end of interview, “I regret I did
not print a warning notice for children and younger readers in the front
page.”
Like the Joongang Ilbo, the Chosun Ilbo feels a strong loyalty
to the public, but the reasoning is quite different. Haeyoung Jung, international
news editor of the Chosun Ilbo, says:
“I focused on oriental morality in the treatment of the report. Supporting
the morality is in accordance with not only my conscience but also my newspaper’s
dignity. I received a lot of encouraging calls from readers. In the long
term, our coverage will help increase credibility and readership.”
However, the Chosun Ilbo does not appear consist in its attitude. Weekly
Chosun, one of its sister magazines, published full text of sexual encounters
between President Clinton and Lewinsky with the headline that says, “The
White House is a Love Hotel.” Jung’s response to this is:
“I have no idea of how the decision was drawn. Simply I think the Chosun
Ilbo is treated differently from the Weekly Chosun in my company. The Chosun
Ilbo is the face of my company. But I think I might cover sexual descriptions
more specifically and directly, if the Chosun Ilbo has a pull-out section.
Because a pull-out section can be laid aside from children at home ”
It is somewhat unclear how strongly the Chosun Ilbo feels its duty in
supporting Korean morality. Jung’s statement makes it possible to presume
that he might also be interested in the sensational characteristics of
the report, which may attract readers. Although the reason he did not cover
salacious details of the report seems clearly based on the sense of responsibility
not to damage social mores, it is difficult to say that he is a complete
utilitarian who seeks the best decision for the greatest number.
With the media’s role in public discourse, Heo says that he does
not agree with the idea that the media almost always should report a variety
of facts and opinions as they are. And he even contends facts and opinions
can be excluded from coverage, if they are considered harmful to a society.
This gives rise to a doubt about whether or not he, as a deontologist,
follows the rule of truth telling. If his rule of truth telling varies
according to situations, he is considered not a rule deontologist, but
an act deontologist who believes no two circumstances are alike. Then,
his answers contradict each other. As mentioned above, he says he will
apply the same principle to Korean President’s scandal as he did to the
Starr Report. There seems no clear consistency in his journalistic ethics.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we have attempted to reveal how and why two Korean newspapers came to make different decisions on covering a single issue, the salacious details of the Starr Report. The study found that each newspaper has taken a fairly reasonable stance on its decision-making process. Whereas the Joongang Ilbo views salacious facts as truth that must be told, as deontologist would do, the Chosun Ilbo, as teleologist, pays more attention to the responsibility of supporting social morality. As shown in Figure 2, the two values are both important and yet, conflicting with each other; Which one journalists should follow can hardly be said.
Figure 2
FACTS
LOYALTIES
-
Starr Report: sexually explicit
Joongang Ilbo: the public (right-
material
to-know), readership
Joongang Ilbo: reported details
Chosun Ilbo: the public (support
Chosun Ilbo: eliminated or
social mores), children (educa-
paraphrased details
tion), newspaper’s dignity
VALUES
PRINCIPLES
Joongang Ilbo: truth telling-
professional value
Joongang Ilbo: deontologist
Chosun Ilbo: media’s responsibility
Chosun Ilbo: utilitarian
and honor the Code-
ethical value
By the way, each newspaper’s viewpoint that first appeared stable changes,
showing some inconsistency in the final process of the Potter Box. The
Joongang Ilbo regrets that it did not do its best to reduce the bad impact
of its coverage, and the Chosun Ilbo does not completely ignore the sensational
element of the issue. Thus, these two philosophical principles that seemed
the basis of the newspapers’ decisions both have weak points. In case of
the Joongang Ilbo, we may assume that it at least indirectly considered
the results of its coverage. On the contrary, the Chosun Ilbo raises a
question from whose viewpoint the decision was made. As Lambeth points
out it, the fatal weakness of utilitarianism is who knows that a particular
decision will result in the greatest good for all involved. If the
Chosun Ilbo’s decision could vary according to situations such as having
pull-out section, that means it is the Chosun Ilbo itself who determine
the coverage may result in the greatest good.
In fact, values and loyalties inherent in a decision cannot be
clearly consistent with one another because they reflect the whole environment
that surrounds a decision-maker. In addition, job routines constraint journalists,
so that they have little time to think over an issue deeply and seriously.
Even so, the Potter Box moral reasoning has a meaning, as Patterson and
Wilkins contend that a systematic application of philosophical principles
and an honest consideration of loyalties will result in better and more
rational ethical choices. In this sense, the Potter Box must be seen
as a circle that has a feedback effect. Christians et al suggest that the
Potter Box can be used to adopt guidelines that will govern future behavior
in similar circumstances.
This study focuses on the coverage of the Starr Report only.
This study has a limitation that the result is not rich enough to make
a clear comparison between the two Korean newspapers’ ethical stances.
Each newspaper has printed as many as a thousand articles related to the
sex scandal. The coverage may provide a more substantial data for further
research. Also pointed out is that this study covers only the fore part
of the relationship between media content and its influence on the public
discourse. The Koreans have a somewhat particular experience in that they
were exposed to totally different coverage on a single issue at the same
time. This situation raises various questions such as what is the response
of the people who read both coverage and how pertinent is the general notion:
The more people are exposed to unseemly material, the more hardened they
become to it.
APPENDIX
A. The editor’s note of the Joongang Ilbo’s article whose headline
is “Three years of
President Clinton’s dissipation with
Ms. Lewinsky”
“This story offers a substantial portion of the report issued to the
Congress by the Office of the Independent Counsel. We had to have a heated
discussion over how to cover the report since it contains sexually explicit
material beyond the limits of the press ethics.
Yet, we decided to translate and print the report literally on the
ground that it is a record of an investigation on a historical event and
it is already released to the world through the Internet. We also want
readers to perceive the fact that most media in the world including the
New York Times and the Washington Post have not altered and paraphrased
any of the material in the Starr Report.”
B. The editor’s note of the Chosun Ilbo’s article whose headline
is “Clinton’s coldness
caused Lewinsky’s testimony”
“The Starr Report causes an enormous political repercussion because
it deals with the impeachment of the present U.S. president. However, if
readers face the report filled with pornographic language without any filtering,
they may be not only shocked but also have an aversion to it. Hence, we
could not help being troubled about whether or not to cover it.
Whereas most American and European newspapers published full text or
excerpts of the report on extra editions, Asian newspapers including Japan
and China downgraded the newsworthiness of the report or did not cover
it. Only several Japanese newspapers covered excerpts of the report on
their on-line newspaper editions. They also added editor’s notes that say
the content of the sexual encounters had been altered or paraphrased by
their own decisions.
The Ethical Code of Korean Newspapers Association prohibit ‘reports
and edits
of obscene and cruel content,’ and keep the media from
providing a ‘harmful
environment to children.’ Following the Code, we soften
sultry content of the report
within the limits of preserving the important value of
the report as a historical
records.”
C. Two Korean newspapers’ coverage of the Starr report
Date
Joongang Ilbo
Chosun Ilbo
November 17, 1995 While talking on the telephone, President Clinton
unzipped his pants and she performed oral sex.
Omission
December 31,
1995 They were kissing in the study and he lifted her sweater and was
fondling her breasts with his hands and mouth. She performed oral sex.
Once again, he stopped her before he ejaculated.
Omission
January 7,
1996 President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky went into the back study and
they were intimate in the bathroom. They kissed, and he touched her bare
breasts with his hands and mouth. The President wanted to perform oral
sex on her. But she stopped him because she was menstruating. Ms. Lewinsky
did perform oral sex on him.
Omission
February 4,
1996 President Clinton unbuttoned her dress. He was looking at her
and telling her how beautiful she was. He touched her breasts with his
hands and his mouth, and touched her genitals, first through underwear
and then directly. She performed oral sex on him.
Omission
March 31, 1996 He kissed her breasts and fondled her genitals.
He inserted a cigar into Lewinsky's vagina, then put the cigar in his mouth
and said: "It tastes good."
Omission
August 16,
1997
Omission Ms. Lewinsky touched President Clinton's ‘special part’ of the
body through his pants and moved to perform the relationship, but the President
rebuffed her.
D. Two Korean newspapers’ coverage of the Starr report
Date
Joongang Ilbo
Chosun Ilbo
November 15, 1995 She raised her jacket in the back and showed him
the straps of her thong underwear, which extended above her pants.
After she unbuttoned her jacket, he lifted her bra up and touched her
breasts with his hands and mouth. He put his hand down her pants and stimulated
her manually in the genital area. While President Clinton continued talking
on the phone with a Member of Congress or a Senator, she performed oral
sex on him. Ms. Lewinsky told him that I wanted to complete that. And he
said that he needed to wait until he trusted me more. She raised her jacket
and showed him her underwear.
Ms. Lewinsky and President Clinton had sexual contact by using parts
of their bodies. They did not stop it even though he continued talking
on the phone with a Member of Congress or a Senator.
April-December 1996 After they had phone sex, President Clinton
said, "Good morning! What a way to start a day." They had obscene
conversation by telephone.
February
28, 1997 He unbuttoned her dress and fondled her breasts. For the first
time, she performed oral sex through completion because he accepted her
begging on seeing his ejaculation. The President's semen stained near hip
and chest area of Ms. Lewinsky's navy blue Gap dress. Ms. Lewinsky testified
they had sexual contact in the bathroom of the back study. She found stains
on the chest of her dress and thought that it might be the President’s
‘trace.’
March 29, 1997
Ms. Lewinsky without underwear wanted him to touch her genitals
with his genitals and he did so without penetration. Then Ms. Lewinsky
performed oral sex on him, again until he ejaculated. Ms. Lewinsky wanted
him to have intimate relation with her. He did so.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books, Journals and Magazines
Christians, Clifford G., Mark Fackler, and Kim B. Rotzoll. Media ethics,
cases and moral
Reasoning. New York: Longman,
1995.
Johnson, Paul. “The media and the truth: Is there a moral duty?” Current
(December
1992): 4-7.
Kantrowitz, Barbara. “Mom, what’s oral sex?” Newsweek (21 September
1998): 44.
Kim, Wooryong. “People regret Clinton coverage changes into sexual
commercialism.”
WIN (Seoul, 25 September
1998): 75-80.
Lambeth, Edmund B. Committed Journalism. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press,
1992.
Maier, Timothy W. “Clinton’s shame stuns our kids.” Insight on the
News (5 October
1998): 12-13.
Merrill, John C. and S. Jack Odell. Philosophy and Journalism. New
York: Longman,
1983.
Noddings, Nel. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Berkeley:
University of California
Press, 1984.
Oldenquist, Andrew. “Loyalties.” Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 173-193.
Patterson, Philip and Lee Wilkins, eds. Media ethics: Issues and cases.
New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1998.
Potter, Ralph B. “The logic of moral argument.” In Toward a discipline
of social ethics,
ed. Paul Deats, 93-114.
Boston: Boston University Press, 1972.
Rust, Michael. “Talking dirty to us.” Insight on the News (5 October
1998): 8-10.
Sullivan, Carl and Joe Nicholson. “Starr report leaves newsrooms scrambling,”
Editor &
Publisher (19 September
1998): 8-12.
Newspapers and Wire Services
Chosun Ilbo (Seoul). 13, 14, 21, 23 September 1998.
Joongang Ilbo (Seoul). 14, 15 September 1998.
New York Times. 12, 13, 14 September 1998.
USA Today. 14 September 1998.
Washington Post. 12 September 1998.
Associated Press. 2 October 1998.
Agence France Presse. 12 September 1998.
Gannett News Service. 1 October 1998.