Justifying journalistic Harms: Right to know vs. interest in knowing

Journal of Mass Media Ethics 8 (3):133 – 146 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Journalists are regularly criticized for causing harm to others, such as invading privacy, printing, or airing offensive material, and so forth. Although most sensitive journalists readily acknowledge these harms, they frequently argue that the pursuit and coverage of news is nonetheless justified because it fulfills a greater moral purpose - satisfaction of the public's right to know. This article argues that although "the public s right to know" does justify some harmful journalistic behavior, too often the phrase is used without the conceptual precision necessary to justify the competing harm. That is, journalists often confuse having a right to know with having an interest or curiosity in knowing and such conceptual confusion too often allows journalistic behavior to occur that would otherwise be seen as unethical



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

64 (#232,468)

6 months
14 (#121,257)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher Meyers
California State University, Bakersfield

References found in this work

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Natural law and natural rights.John Finnis - 1979 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The Republic.Paul Plato & Shorey - 2000 - ePenguin. Edited by Cynthia Johnson, Holly Davidson Lewis & Benjamin Jowett.
On Liberty.John Stuart Mill - 1859 - Broadview Press.
On liberty.John Stuart Mill - 2000 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press USA. pp. 519-522.

View all 10 references / Add more references