The reading that stood out most to me this week was Robert Scott’s "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic." In it, Scott takes a look at truth in terms of certainty and how cooperative critical inquiry contributes to its creation.
Scott attempts to define ‘truth’ in terms of certainty and discusses two different types of argument – analytical and substantial. He uses the concept of argumentative justification in rhetoric as an alternative to analytic logic. He points out that one can rarely, if ever, be certain and thus must act with responsibility. Scott defines rhetoric in terms of tolerance, will, and responsibility. Rhetoric is not a matter of giving effectiveness to truth but creating truth (Scott 13). He sees that knowledge (truth) does not exist prior to action, but is constructed through action. Scott argues that cooperative critical inquiry is what creates truth. He states explicitly “truth can only arise from cooperative critical inquiry” (14). It is our actions that create truth, because for man “by acting and in action that he is enabled to know” (15). Because one cannot be certain, he must do his best in each situation. Scott states “man cannot be certain but must act in the face of uncertainty to create situational truth” (16). If he does not do his best, it is ethically wrong. “Inaction, failure to take on the burden of participating in the development of contingent truth, ought be considered ethical failure” (16). Therefore, man’s actions concerning the creation of truth tie directly into ethics. “To act with intentions for good consequences, but to accept the responsibilities for all the consequences in so far as they can be know is part of what being ethical must mean” (17). Scott points out that truth must be seen as dual by saying that one must consider truth “not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). We not only must learn to cope with our creation of truth, but do out best to make the right efforts in reaction to that truth in each situation for ethical purposes. Overall, Scott argues that rhetoric, in the absence of certainty, is a way of knowing and can help us cope with this. Therefore, rhetoric is epistemic.
How Scott’s article really connected to me was through my background in journalism. A lot of professions – doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc. – set high standards for their behaviors in order to keep their credentials. Journalists do too. The truth, especially in terms of ethics, is very important to journalists. Journalism’s core business is integrity. As a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth, in essence journalism is a discipline of verification. However, the news changes everyday and every situation is different. Therefore truth in each different case is always changing and thus tough to find. We can’t really be certain of the truth but must attempt to seek it out and do our best to act upon it by reporting it. Journalists have to appraise each situation. They must know all the facts from a variety of sources, so they need to do a lot of research. I connected this to what Scott said about cooperative critical inquiry. Also, it connects to what he says about man’s actions and the creation of truth. As journalists it is kind of up to us to create truth. While we don’t outright create it, we still make choices that frame the news and therefore help to construct the public’s conception of truth and reality.
As far as how finding/creating the truth ties into journalistic ethics, it is both normal and essential for journalists to have a code of ethics, or standards and values that guide their professional conduct. The overall goal is to communicate the truth objectively to the people, but it isn’t always easy to figure out what the truth is. Journalists constantly have to make judgments in every situation. While there is no legally enforced guideline to apply to these situations, oftentimes people adopt different codes or guidelines. Doing the right thing isn’t always as easy as it seems, and these can help. Doing what’s safe, legal, or easiest isn’t necessarily the same as doing what’s right. Withholding information or publishing anything with a hidden agenda is of course unethical, whether intentional or not. But some cases are harder to determine.
For this reason, we have the codes. For example, one of the most widely followed codes here in the U.S. is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. It states that the four main duties of the journalist are to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. By seeking truth and reporting it, they should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information. By minimizing harm, they should treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. By acting independently, journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. And finally, journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Overall, by assuming that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy, the code portrays the duty of the journalist as furthering this by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
I felt like the application of journalistic ethics in seeking the truth really applied to Scott’s discussion of how one must strive to make the right choice in the face of uncertainty to best react to that created truth. Like Scott’s point that truth arises through cooperative critical inquiry, journalists must work together to seek out the truth. We can never be certain of what is the ‘truth’ but can do our best in each situation with the help of guidelines. We have an obligation to the public to provide the truth, or our best version of it, and failing to do so is a failure in ethics.
Here is the link to the SPJ’s Code of Ethics:
No comments:
Post a Comment