One of the difficulties in taking a philosophical approach to media ethics is that many people often fail to grasp the difference between a philosophical and a sociological, political, or critical-cultural studies position on the issues discussed. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is no clear body of empirical findings or theory that constitutes a philosophical approach and is waiting to be learned. Of course, there is a sociological reason for this. Although historically concerned with central moral and social issues, philosophers have yet to consider many of these issues in relation to the distinctive problems arising from our contemporary media and journalistic practices. But there is a deeper reason too. For philosophy is not so much a subject where we learn information, but one in which we learn how to think about various issues. This is not to deny that many philosophers have made distinctive contributions to the stock of human knowledge. But, rather, there are certain kinds of questions and issues -- those concerned with right and wrong, what constitutes a good life, and the nature of evil -- that can only really be thought of and argued about in a philosophical manner, and only philosophical thinking can deepen our understanding of them.

The topic of this book, media ethics, is an extension of such philosophical concerns. For the question is, in essence, what constitutes ethical media practice and why? Just what is it that journalists, morally speaking, should do? Is it really news to print a story about the sex life of a public celebrity? Are they justified in lying and cheating to get a story? Are intrusions into privacy always justifiable in the name of the public interest? Is showing sexually explicit films on television . . .