Ethical Issues in Political Communication and Media

Özlem (2017) indicates that morality is shaped by the beliefs, values and norms guiding individuals, groups, or communities. In this context, he elaborates that morality has many different branches, manifesting in diverse forms across various fields of study or in different beliefs and orientations. Concurrently, those embarking on the study of ethics also encounter the multiplicity of morality. From this, Özlem points out that studies in ethics and morality trace back to Ancient Greece. He mentions that Sophists like Protagoras interpreted ethics in a relative manner, as human-derived or non-generalizable judgments; while Socrates and Plato demonstrated a more generalizable approach, veering towards a universalist perspective in ethics.

As articulated by Öztürk (2022), ethics encompasses a systematic thought process directed towards moral concepts. While morality deals with the assessments of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ethics are concerned with their theoretical aspects. In a sense, the practical application of these assessments can be examined on the side of morality (2022: 12). The etymology of the concept of ethics also traces back to Ancient Greece. In literature reviews, it originates from two different written forms of a Greek word: “ethos”. According to Annemarie Pieper, as reported by Tekerek N. and Tekerek İ. (2008), the first usage denotes customs and traditions, symbolizing the line followed by people adhering to generally accepted moral laws. The second and primary meaning emerges as a definition where an individual applies these transmitted action rules after questioning and filtering them through a thought process (cited from Pieper 1999 in Tekerek N. & Tekerek İ., 2008: 59).

In communication studies, when we examine the approach to the concept of ethics, it’s observed to have a social responsibility-oriented counterpart. It’s seen to be considered in conjunction with the sense of responsibility manifested during the execution of an action (İnan & Pekün, 2009). Proceeding from this point, when we try to look at the theoretical structure, we encounter four different paths. These can be described as; Meta ethical theories that examine value judgments separately from morality; normative ethical theories focused on the decision-making processes regarding the rightness or wrongness of an action; applied ethical theories that are reduced to more specific areas, focusing on criteria that frame ethical issues in human behaviors, capable of forming their own field in politics and encountered in life and professional settings; and descriptive ethics, which examines how people actually behave and what moral beliefs they hold (Öztürk, 2022: 9-10; Valdez-Martinez, et al. 2006:96). Political communication, in a general sense, feeds from the basic methods of communication. For instance, we can say that elements such as the message, receiver, source, channel and noise are also pertinent to political communication in the same sense (Eraslan & Durur, 2018: 196). In addition, the perspectives on ethics in the context of political communication are further clarified by numerous economic and political theories. Therefore, learning about significant theories related to ethics in a philosophical sense will contribute to our assessment of action fields in political communication.

To better comprehend the ethical understanding and issues in the political communication process, it’s essential to discuss three approaches. These can be counted as William James’s interpretation of pragmatism, Immanuel Kant’s perspective on deontology and John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian approach.

William James’s pragmatism and its context in ethics are evaluated in terms of results. In this sense, pragmatism can be said to represent a process that signifies the outcomes produced by practical applications. That is, it’s feasible to state that a conceptual thought, founded on an intellectual basis, can be defined by its sustainability in terms of its results. Furthermore, as Heidi (2010) mentioned in her studies, William James, considered as a pioneer of pragmatism, posited that truth has a function and that beliefs which best fulfill this function can be deemed correct. Based on this, in terms of political communication, the discourses of political figures or any politically affiliated individuals or groups can be considered ethically pragmatic to the extent that a practical and beneficial coherence in terms of results is demonstrated. In other words, concrete results are important. According to him, experience is the key factor in correcting the current functionalities. On the other hand, freedom in the context of ethics is another important part that can be counted.

As a third approach, utilitarianism, which is often associated with the pioneering works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, can be elucidated (D’Olimpio, 2019). While utilitarianism can be traced back to Bentham, who laid its foundational principles, in the context of ethical implications, it becomes essential to focus more on Mill’s interpretation. Mill is particularly noted for his economic studies and for refining utilitarianism to emphasize not just the quantity, but also the quality of happiness. Recognized for presenting a functional framework that prioritizes human happiness, utilitarian ethics centers the concept of the highest good around happiness. This approach provides a general assessment by making various judgments about the moral dimensions of human actions in terms of good and bad. Mill’s interpretation of utilitarianism establishes a viewpoint wherein the highest happiness output is delivered to the greatest number of people (Möngü, 2018: 144-145, 165). This approach is also mentioned in the literature as aligning with Aristotle’s views due to his quite low amount of similarity of the objective consideration of happiness (Aydın, 2013: 165-166). When considered in the context of political communication, it’s possible to say that decisions or statements aimed at providing benefits that reach out to a larger segment of society can be marked within the framework of this approach.

In today’s world, accessing information has become a fast and easy process for humanity. In this context, it can be asserted that the experiences mediated around traditional media from the past to the present are undergoing changes that can now be positioned within a very different framework. The methods of accessing information, the noise encountered during this access and the qualitative changes in the content during its journey on the channel, all affect our perception of communication. The fact that information can sometimes take forms that are single-sided, misleading, incorrect, incomplete, true, false, or real, enables us to make inferences about the ethical implications of political communication. Therefore, it can be said that examining the basic philosophical approaches to information and evaluating the reflections of these forms in political communication can help better understand the ethical issues involved around the systems.

Finally, the PMOGI (Political, Media, Organization, Group, and Interpersonal) model, as an example that can be observed in the literature, situates political communication within an ethical framework, differing from the approaches mentioned above. As conveyed by Beckett (2003: 45-46), this model, developed by the Members of the Institute of Communication Ethics, integrates the political, media, organizational, group and interpersonal aspects under a unified structure, facilitating the shaping of their interactions. According to Beckett, the model encompasses three fundamental points of rupture. First, it enables the articulation of different perspectives among parties in a dialogical sense. Second, it’s utilized in identifying tensions between powers or participants. Third, it aims to delineate the complexity of ethical issues that may arise in individuals’ decision-making processes and dialogues.

As the history of knowledge is traversed, and the 20^th century approaches, Karl Popper comes into encounter.” At this juncture in the evolution of ideas about knowledge, Popper put forward various thoughts concerning scientific knowledge. In this context, the scientific process is explained through its problem-solving capability, with falsifiable knowledge at its core. In the literature, they note that Popper characterized science as a process of solving problems that facilitate the correction of errors. The principle he established here is that of falsifiability. Unlike positivist approaches, he focused not on the verifiability of science but on its falsifiability, adopting a more critical perspective (Maden, 2019). It’s conveyed that Popper argued focusing on verification in the scientific problem-solving process would lead to dogmatism and erroneous conclusions (Taner, 2022). Popper didn’t consider the positivist approach sufficient for scientific hypotheses to be verified under certain conditions and times; he pointed out that this outcome doesn’t offer an absolute representational power all the time (Temiz, 2017).

Disinformation refers to the deliberate dissemination of information to the public, often using various communication tools. The internet, particularly with the influence of modern platforms, has become one of the most significant fortresses for the spread of disinformation (Zaloga, 2022). To illustrate in the context of political communication, explanations can be made through wars, mass events and influences of popular culture. The process can be illustrated by changing the effect of noise before the message reaches the recipient, a tactic often used by various groups to influence actions in their favor. Numerous methods can be employed for this purpose. For instance, robot users created on social media can repetitively send the same information in different forms through certain automation systems. Ethically, this process, which excludes both the broadcaster and the political side, aims to direct the entire society or a specific segment towards a desired perspective on the subject. During this process, incorrect information cannot only be provided in the entirety of the message, but intentional false content can also be injected into a message that is extensively prepared and generally contains truth. This leads individuals to assimilate and accept the fake subtext hidden within the message as true. The fake part can be overlooked by placing solid evidence about the broad range of aspects of the message. To receive a better response from the public, it needs to make progress with extraordinary activity. Disinformation tends to move quickly and spontaneously, making it a challenging and error-prone factor to control. Therefore, it’s essential to use modern technologies to combat disinformation. Particularly, it’s known that certain control mechanisms involving artificial intelligence in visual, auditory, and textual contexts can be employed. Thus, by using concurrent methods such as data mining, faster access to the source-spreading disinformation can be achieved, paving the way for its prevention (Khan, Brohman & Addas, 2022; Rasool et al., 2019; Kozlov et al., 2020). At this point, the perception of societies towards communication tools and in a broader sense, the traditional/new media context, can also exhibit a variation in trust. For example, there are studies indicating that in Malaysia, there is a more pronounced societal dependency towards traditional means of communication compared to the Internet (Arandas, Ling & Chiand, 2021).

So, what can we say about misinformation? This process, which isn’t significantly different from disinformation in terms of its consequences, can lead to the spread of false news due to its human-centric nature. However, rather than malicious intent, the prevalence effect arising, particularly from the sudden direction of human emotions, needs to be discussed. Sometimes people may inadvertently spread news, contributing to the escalation of a political crisis. The fundamental criterion here is the lack of information or the incorrect transmission, sharing and widespread dissemination of learned information. Ethically speaking, when the false information is known yet still shared, an opposing action confronts us. The ethical problem here is people sharing the relevant message without verifying its accuracy. The motive can be explained by functions such as seeking attention, becoming famous or expressing personal reactions with emotional feelings. Thus, although there is no sharp clarity, individuals may not necessarily exhibit direct malicious intent or attitude in the spread of erroneous information (Scheufele & Krause, 2019; Shadiuk & Sarnavska, 2021).

Both disinformation and misinformation intersect at the concept of manipulation, which serves as a connecting bridge between them. Manipulation fundamentally involves altering the direction of a process for the purpose of gaining advantage in certain circles, driven by different intentions. When considered in the context of communication tools, manipulation in various aspects, from the presentation of text and visuals to the music used or video editing, can be witnessed. On the other hand, the creation of a message through the manipulation of data sets is also possible. This means that even though the conceptual content of the message and the information it presents may appear correct, there is a possibility of distorting the analysis process through manually altered data sets. This can be extended to a broad spectrum, from the selection of sample groups in scientific studies to the test data used in marketing a particular product. Therefore, it can be said that ensuring the accuracy and integrity of any kind of data and message content is an indispensable element of political communication ethics for individuals within political systems (Wyrostkiewicz, 2014; Ruffo et al., 2023; Cohen, 2017).

Another concept bearing similarities to these terms is malinformation. This term defines a flow of data that is based on accurate information but carried with malicious intent. At this point, it can encompass information leaks made internally with the intention of harming individuals, institutions or even countries on a larger scale, including harassment and hate speech. In malinformation, although the disseminated information has accurate foundations, its sharing is aimed at having a destructive effect (Ateş, 2022: 1577; Eyüboğlu & Kodak, 2023: 538). Therefore, it’s safe to say that media organizations’ significant ethical sensitivity should be focused on here to prevent malicious intentions. Information obtained through different political channels or internal turmoil, despite being accurate, is distributed in a way that negatively impacts the involved parties. Sometimes, even if it’s assumed to be in compliance with ethics in a covert sense, it can create adversities endangering national security.

Finally, post-truth, a concept not fundamentally different from the others but more popular in contemporary usage, can be discussed. Post-truth, in the context of political communication, shows an approach where communication tools are subjectively interpreted to achieve a certain goal. According to Flood (2016), as she cited from Oxford Dictionaries, the term post-truth was first used in a 1992 essay by Steve Tesich in The Nation magazine, where he discussed the acceptance of lies and the concealment of facts. Güven (2020: 20-21) conceptually points to another important figure, Ralph Keyes, whose book The Post-Truth Era in 2004 further developed the concept and Güven also states that the term gained popularity after its use by Oxford Dictionary in 2016. According to Keyes (cited from Keyes, 2004 in Boles, 2022:13), post-truthful behavior is a process that tends to disrupt our social contract as a whole, especially through specific individuals. McIntyre (2018) noted that the term’s usage increased by %2000 in 2015. In the same study, post-truth is described as the concealment of facts and the abandonment of evidence-based standards in reasoning (2018: 1-3). Harsin (2018) provides an explanatory definition in terms of the forms the concept can take. In his study, he states that post-truth can be synonymously used with processes like lies, gossip, fake news, spin and propaganda. He also points out that it’s the intersection set of the two communication processes we define as misinformation and disinformation.

In literature examining the connection between the media and political identities, Herman and Chomsky’s model of a propaganda approach analyzing interests and preferences is found. This model is shaped in relation to the survival efforts of the media. It involves the examination of binding issues such as advertising being the most significant source of income, the size of dominant media companies and the wealth of their owners (Şimşek, 2013: 131). As we can understand, communication tools, considered in different contexts and preferences over various periods, have been interpreted as an effective mechanism of political systems, both in public speaking and through different sources. Moving towards the present day, we observe that not only the expression styles of leaders but also individuals and communities towards political identities have gained importance. Therefore, it’s safe to say that the methods at this point have started to diversify and be reinterpreted.

In the context of the media, considering the attitudes towards political identities, it’s necessary to state that an ethical framework has been established in journalism, as in many different professions. Ethical rules are processed on similar grounds in different professions, but they are also observed in the media under the light of information and application principles. While this process is often carried out by non-governmental organizations, in Türkiye, a scheme protected under the Press Law is revealed. In other words, press members are subjected to a framework by public institutions; they also establish their own self-control mechanisms. For example, to the self-control mechanism, the Law of Press Morality represents one of the consensus texts agreed upon by journalists. The Press Council in Türkiye, one of the self-regulation mechanisms, implements certain principles that cover news content and information-sharing processes to form an ethical framework. Similarly, the Rights and Responsibilities Declaration implemented by the Turkish Journalists’ Association appears as a process framing the ethical approaches of the press in a similar manner (Şimşek, 2001). Although these structures experience variations in mass communication approaches in the context of traditional media tools, they continue to exist. On the other hand, technological advancements bring different problems to the agenda, independent of adherence to professional ethics. Especially with citizen journalism and the growth experienced on social media platforms, a communication window that is very difficult to control or monitor has opened. At this point, it must be said that the entire society cannot be expected to have the same political sense of responsibility towards the community as that of press members. Thus, even without showing malice, a framework that challenges political communication channels regarding ethics is presented. In this regard, social media has created a significant breaking point, especially in terms of information sharing and dissemination. Ethical problems arising from social media, as seen in literature, can be listed as follows; violation of privacy, lack of attribution, copyright infringement, unverified information, violation of personal data security, data mining, the phenomenon of digital surveillance, blurring of news and commercial information boundaries, intensive advertising, misleading tagging and titling, hate speech (cited from Çetin, 2019 in Selçuk, Alpsoy & Bingöl, 2022: 122).

The practice of media organizations conducting fact checks by examining news individually with evidence is becoming increasingly widespread. On the other hand, work continues on models that will distinguish true news from the false. In this regard, the search for a system construction independent of ethics is ongoing.

During this process, some findings are observed. For example, it is known that studies are being conducted on data validation analysis through neural networks, focusing on cultural communication differences. These studies report that individuals sharing false news tend to rely on a narrower range of news sources, whereas those sharing true news strive to access sources from a much broader spectrum (Li et al., 2019). This advanced technology validation effort doesn’t offer us an ethical framework on its own. Within the framework of media’s responsibilities as a political communication tool, there are three more main topics to be discussed, considering these in terms of conflict of interest, integrity, transparency, and accountability. It’s also important to note that this framework is bilateral and adherence to political identities will make it more socially acceptable. Additionally, these three topics together symbolize a general framework, where the absence of one makes it challenging to speak of a complete ethical framework.

Conflict of interest defines a situation where parties have a common intersecting set of benefits in certain matters. In terms of political communication, the potential common grounds between press members and politicians can create scenarios where their ability to criticize is hindered. It can be argued that groups with a conflict of interest may act in favor of or against each other, considering the benefit gain. Therefore, both media organizations and political identities take measures to prevent conflicts of interest. These measures can be temporal and spatial, like conducting interviews with different names or not being present at the same time. Similarly, the possibility of people working under the same roof supporting similar views can also lead to a conflict of interest. Both in terms of moral norms and general professional ethics, in general, individuals who have or will have joint interests should enlighten the public with a certain level of transparency. This can prevent the formation of biased attitudes. Parties can maintain their prestige by acting more transparently in the eyes of society. However, sometimes, besides avoiding conflict of interest, openly declaring that conflict is also possible and may help to exclude some negative comments. Although this may vary from issue to issue, concealing, hiding or not telling the existing conflicts of interest can negatively affect the image of professional ethics (John, 2018; Luebke, 1987).

The aspect of transparency and accountability, which can also be evaluated within the conflict of interest process, finds its practice base in many different areas. Ethically, it can be described as the effort of parties to enlighten the public without hiding anything from each other. It symbolizes processes conducted openly in compliance with general professional ethical codes in actions taken and decisions made. Max Weber has made significant statements regarding accountability and the relationship between politics and society. One of these is centered on the existence of politics for the individual or the individual for politics (cited from Weber, 2011 in Yılmaz & Doğan, 2013: 887). Weber asserts that an important path to the development of democracy is the accountability of bureaucrats to citizens (cited from Weber, 1999 in Demirkıran, Eser & Keklik, 2011: 175). The objectives of a transparent and accountable system have been articulated by Aucoin and Heintzman as follows (cited from Balcı, 2003 in Demirkıran, Eser & Keklik, 2011: 175): Monitoring and controlling possible misuse of authority, ensuring lawful and ethical management of public resources and promoting continuous learning in governance and administration. An accountable and transparent process, that is, understandable and fully explicable, can be characterized as the duty of political communication mechanisms in society. Regarding ethical codes, the comfort of the public conscience and the validation of trust in decision-making mechanisms necessitate the presentation of a completely understandable process. In its absence, a communication process dominated by conflicts of interest, disinformation and manipulation may occur, which can also shake the public conscience. Therefore, adhering to ethical rules, fundamentally aligns with ensuring the public’s sense of trust. In terms of compliance with ethical rules, another important concept often associated with ethics is integrity.

Integrity is a concept that can’t be considered independently of ethics and is often evaluated in conjunction with various ethical codes. Essentially, as a concept that portrays an image of goodness and truthfulness, integrity describes professionals who perform their duties with a sense of responsibility and care. From another perspective, it represents honesty, accountability and being untainted by corruption (cited from Karssing, 2001 & Dobel, 1999 in Huberts, 2018: 19-20). Ulman (2015) tries to explain integrity within the public structure, categorizing it under public values in a pyramid form. The foundation of this pyramid is the legal process, followed by transparency, impartiality and then public responsibility. At the top of the pyramid sits public integrity. According to Ulman, without transparency, a legal base can’t be established. Without impartiality, a transparent and legal principle framework can’t be drawn. If public officials do not adhere to legal, impartial and transparent processes, then public responsibility can’t be discussed. If there is no legal process, transparency, impartiality and public responsibility, then ultimately, public integrity in the general sense can’t be maintained (2015: 341-342). Integrity in the political context can be exemplified in terms of public employees. Political integrity can be exemplified by a public employee who is not politically affiliated or influenced by the related political environment (Jørgensen & Sørensen, 2014). Now, let’s try to place this in the media context. However, within all this context, a consistent axis with their own discourses needs to be drawn by media organizations. For example, suppose a newspaper or any other communication tool aims for integrity. In that case, it should be expected not to take sides on an issue, to give equal space to everyone in accordance with the law, to consider the needs of society with public responsibility and to maintain an equal distance to all sides. These conditions will also imply adherence to the processes coded as professional ethics.