The Relevance of Weberian Ethics for Contemporary Journalism

Abstract

Max Weber's distinction between expedient and value rationality and an ethic of responsibility and of ultimate ends is regarded as a theoretical tool to analyse the relationship between the mass media and politics in democracies. Weber considers journalists as an example of the combination of value-based rationality and adherence to an ethic of ultimate ends. In contrast, he considers politicians as an example of the combination of expedient action and ethics of responsibility. Intending to test one part of Weber's theory - his assumptions about journalists - the authors examined two aspects of journalistic predispositions - general views on journalistic rules of conduct and specific judgements on behaviour in concrete situations. In an experimental design six groups of newspaper editors were confronted with different options. Their reactions indicate that journalists generally and in concrete situations make value-based decisions when deciding whether to print a story or not. In contrast, journalists generally claim to adhere to an ethic of responsibility although they base their arguments on an ethic of ultimate ends in concrete situations. The consequences of this contradiction are discussed.