Ethics Newsline®

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

I met myself online two years ago and have gotten to know myself pretty well since then.

When I was ordering a book from Amazon.com, I discovered that the site “recommended” books and music based on my previous buying and browsing records. I got hooked. The more customized suggestions Amazon.com offered, the more I snapped them up.

Looking back at my purchase history, I’ve learned a few things about myself. In some ways, I seem like a fairly normal if eclectic person: My musical tastes run toward an odd mixture of Mozart and 1970s nostalgia, and to books about politics, the Internet, and media history.

But lurking in the Amazon.com list is what seems to be evidence of a sinister obsession with true crime. On further reflection, I noted that in a typical week I also gravitate to a dozen cable-TV crime shows that involve increasingly inventive examples of antisocial behavior.

I’m not sure I like the picture that’s emerging — a media system that not only knows my tastes but feeds and solidifies them. Given the current pattern, will I, in 2019, have anything on my media menu other than disco, Mozart, and murder?

Luckily, one of the books I ordered recently might head off this fate. Republic.com 2.0, by University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein, examines the practical and ethical effects of media echo chambers on public discourse.

What I’ve done, according to Sunstein, is create my prototype “Daily Me” — an electronic diet of media consumerism tailored to my tastes. But mine is in its infancy and limited primarily to my interests in entertainment. A true Daily Me allows the user to completely retreat into a world where all of the day’s news corresponds to a particular interest or point of view, making the user become at once connected (with others who share a view or a lifestyle) and isolated (from unexpected encounters with different cultures or dissenting opinions).

The outcome of the Daily Me is polarization: Studies show that groups adopt more extreme views when they communicate only with like-minded people.

Such polarization is by no means a distant threat. Blogs, which in many cases have evolved into magnetic forums for like-minded people talking exclusively to each other, have become the new frontier in U.S. presidential politics. Social networking sites, where users can wall themselves up in identity-based communities, are becoming as “real” to some users as real life. Websites for those with extreme and insular views have become media forces that cohere public opinion, sometimes along extreme tangents. Extremists and a variety of conspiracy theorists regularly reinforce their views with “facts” that have become reality only because they are echoed so often and “reporting” that looks like journalism but isn’t, in the sense that a journalist seeks balance or contrary opinions, or presents alternative explanations.

What’s the ethical issue with the Daily Me? I have no problem with customized news. After all, you are reading this on a custom-news site where we view news items of mutual interest. But in the news summaries we gather, we make a good-faith effort to include publications and venues from differing ends of the political spectrum — reliable sources that you might not necessarily agree with, and which you might not encounter unless you went looking for them.

But I do take ethical issue with industrywide trends that lean toward a product designed to polarize, to repackage the output of the echo chamber as “journalism” or “news.”

“News” that isolates us from the unexpected or unpleasant or unfamiliar isn’t really news at all, and it’s a poor diet for people who need a comprehensive worldview in order to feed a deliberative democracy.

I’m 54 years old and formed my news consumption habits by watching Walter Cronkite, who occasionally force-fed me a story about a remote area of the world that I should care about even if I’d never heard of it before. A generation ago, my family, like most in our working-class neighborhood, subscribed to not one but two daily newspapers, vehicles that presented an array of stories at a single glance and cultivated the habit of getting hooked on stories we didn’t go looking for.

As a result, I’ve probably been inoculated to some extent. I’m able to tell when I’m overdosing on forensic shows and documentaries about bank robberies, grab myself by the lapels, and shake myself back to reality. But I’m not sure if younger people, raised on customizable and increasingly narrow media menus, have built up similar resistance.

The bottom line:

• Media organizations, especially those that present themselves as news suppliers, have an ethical responsibility to be something above and beyond that of profit-centered echo chambers.
• Media consumers — and that’s all of us — have an affirmative duty to monitor our own habits and stay engaged with a broad variety of opinions and perspectives, even if they don’t always make us comfortable.
• Parents, teachers, and other responsible adults have a moral responsibility to let younger people know that there are alternative universes outside of their customizable media-saturated universes.

Issues like this tend to creep up on us like quiet jungle cats, and we tend not to notice them until they’re upon us. Think back to 1992, when Bruce Springsteen poked fun at the infinite but vacuous media universe with his song “57 Channels and Nothing On.”

I don’t know about you, but I get about 350 channels, and that’s with the basic package.

57 channels? How quaint.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

“I’m not sure what was said on that. I could tell you today, though, that we have no evidence and we have no way of showing that any email at all are missing.”

– White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, responding to questions last week about a newly released report that found “473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices,” reports the Washington Post. The 2005 internal study of White House electronic communications renewed attention to the controversy surrounding White House recordkeeping. The dispute centers on questions about “whether the Bush administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records — including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions — for history and in case of any future legal demands,” notes the Post.

Source: Washington Post, Jan. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 25, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 19, 2007.

In California, scientists report a breakthrough in producing embryo; cloned animal products are deemed safe to eat in U.S. and Europe, but an ethics panel says the process is being rushed; and after much debate, British scientists get the go-ahead to study human-animal clones

VARIOUS DATELINES
Cloning — human, animal, and human-animal — ignited ethics debate last week. Among the stories:

• Scientists in California report say they have created cloned embryos from single skin cells taken from adults, a scientific advance that could open the door for various medical treatments, but which also reignited the on-again, off-again debate about the ethics of cloning. TIME magazine reports that the technique, which has not been shown conclusively to be practical, would have the advantage of not requiring the destruction of embryos, which has been a legal and moral barrier for stem cell research. But as a report from the San Diego Union-Tribune points out, the reported initial success of the technique does demonstrate that human cloning remains a clear feasibility — a development that is likely to rekindle that particular area of debate. The California team says that while the embryos it produced could be transplanted into a uterus, they have no intent to try to create babies from the embryos.
• An ethics panel in Europe has voiced strong misgivings over cloned animal products, turning up the temperature in a debate over what critics have dubbed “Frankenfood.” The Agence France-Presse reports that the European Group on Ethics, in an opinion delivered to the European Commission, said “it does not see convincing arguments to justify the production of food from clones and their offspring.” The report followed endorsements of the safety of cloned food by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and a similar opinion from the European Food Safety Authority. At issue, according to reports from Newsweek and the Economist, are claims that the science is too new and complex to make judgments about food safety, complaints that the process may produce sick and disabled animals, and allegations that the genetic alterations of food supplies are being pushed because of their profit potential.
• Debates over human and animal cloning intersected last week when it was announced that U.K. authorities gave scientists permission to create human-animal embryos for stem cell research, according to US News & World Report. Only two research panels are licensed to conduct the investigations, and the hybrid embryos must be destroyed within 14 days. The measure has faced stiff opposition from many quarters, including religious groups, which claim that the process tinkers with the fundamental definition of life.

Sources: San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 18 — TIME, Jan. 17 — AFP, Jan. 17 — Newsweek, Jan. 18 — Economist, Jan. 18 — US News & World Report, Jan. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 2, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 6, 2006 — Related Newsline story, June 12, 2006 — Related Newsline story, May 15, 2006.

Lawyer believed that prosecution suppressed evidence and kept quiet for 10 years; he had to stay mum because he represented the other man charged in the case

YORKTOWN, Va.
A Virginia lawyer — told by ethics authorities that he had to keep a secret even though what he had to say could save the life of a man on death row — was eventually allowed to tell his story, and on Thursday, the death sentence was commuted.

The New York Times reports that Leslie Smith had kept his misgivings about the case secret for more than 10 years because authorities on legal ethics told him he had no choice. But the Virginia Bar Association reversed course last year, and Smith received permission to air his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Smith maintained that prosecutors withheld evidence in the trial that eventually convicted Daryl Atkins, reports the Washington Post.

The ethics issue: As an attorney, Smith represented another man charged in the same murder, according to UPI. Atkins and Smith’s client each claimed that the other pulled the trigger, and under Virginia law only the actual triggerman is eligible for the death penalty.

Smith was told that he could not endanger his client by revealing his belief that evidence was manipulated in order to put the blame on Atkins. That prohibition was finally lifted when Smith’s client finally was sentenced to life in prison and all action on his case was officially concluded.

According to the Hampton Roads, Va., Daily Press, the case also had been the focus of a parallel ethics issue: whether Atkins, who is of low intelligence, is retarded, and whether retarded criminals should be eligible for the death penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that execution of the retarded is unconstitutional, but the case had lingered in the courts because Virginia countered that Atkins did not fit the definition of retardation.

Sources: New York Times, Jan. 19 — UPI, Jan. 19 — Washington Post, Jan. 19 — Daily Press, Jan. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 23, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 26, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 20, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 29, 2007.

China, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Thailand all coping with various issues; also, new study says corruption artificially expands workforce, draining efficiency in industry

VARIOUS DATELINES
Corruption continued to be the focus of news stories from around the globe last week. Among the stories:

• China’s latest anticorruption push centers on a distinctly capitalist problem: insider stock trading. According to the official news agency Xinhua, the Communist Party has warned that officials who abuse their positions to transact insider trades will face fines and prison. Party heads also warned local officials not to accept gifts at weddings and funerals, cautioning also against using their position to unfairly buy affordable housing intended for low-income families.
• In Bangladesh, former prime minister Sheikh Hasina is on trial for extortion. The BBC reports that Hasina and her family are denying charges that they took money from a prominent businessman. Another former prime minister, Khaleda Zia, also is facing corruption charges. The two women, members of different parties, alternated as leaders of Bangladesh for 15 years until October 2006.
• Nigerian president Umaru Musa Yar’Adua is attempting to reassure the international community, which is skittish about investing in his nation, that anticorruption measures are in place and working. The Lagos Day reports that Yar’Adua said that anticorruption monitors, who will be trained abroad, will scrutinize how public officials obtain their assets.
• Backers of former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown amid a corruption scandal, have formed a coalition government with five other parties in the Thai parliament, reports the Voice of America. The move paves the way for Thaksin’s return from exile. His supporters also want to exonerate him of the corruption charges.
• Corruption breeds inefficiency, which means lower profits, say researchers at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. In a recent study, researchers found that corruption leads to inflation of the employee ranks and drags down efficiency. This, in turn, slows the growth of a nation’s wealth. According to a summary of the report posted on the university’s website, while it is widely known that corruption is associated with lower per-capita gross national products and lower rates of investments, the study is the first to demonstrate how corruption damages national economies by making business inefficient.

Sources: Xinhua, Jan. 19 — BBC, Jan. 19 — Day, Jan. 19 — Voice of America, Jan. 19 — Stanford Graduate School of Business News, December 2007.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan.14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 26, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 26, 2007 — Stanford press release, Jan. 16.

They say it violates provisions of anti-landmine treaty

OTTAWA
Critics in Canada are protesting the proposed sale of the nation’s preeminent space engineering firm to a U.S. arms maker.

The Canadian Press reports that Alliant Techsystems of Minneapolis, Minnesota, wants to buy a division of the British Columbia-based MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates for about $1.25 billion.

According to the Vancouver Sun, Alliant manufactures landmines, which are prohibited under a treaty to which Canada was one of the first signatories. The United States did not sign the treaty.

Late last week, the Canadian Auto Workers union called on the Harper government to block the sale, saying the treaty bans the transfer of public money to a company that manufactures landmines.

The union maintains that the firm’s prize product, the Canadarm, a robotic arm used, in different versions, on the space shuttle and the International Space Station, was developed with tax money, the Toronto Star reports.

ATK says that it only provides weapons to NATO countries and other allies and that its products are compliant with the provisions of the treaty, CTV reports. In the case of landmines, that means that the systems can be deactivated and self-destructed.

Sources: CTV, Jan. 18 –Canadian Press, Jan. 18 –Toronto Sun, Jan. 18 –Vancouver Sun, Jan. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 14, 2007 — Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 21, 2005 — Related Newsline story, July 18, 2005.

Critics say extremely powerful sonar injures marine life; Navy says using sonar is only way to train for submarine warfare

LOS ANGELES
President Bush last week authorized the U.S. Navy to continue using extremely powerful sonar off the coast of southern California in upcoming war games, despite a court ruling saying sonar use there should be limited because it harms whales and other sea life.

Bush exempted the Navy based on the premise that national security trumps the ecological concerns, reports the Jurist, an online publication of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

The Navy is involved in submarine warfare exercises and says the use of the sonar is essential for training sailors to detect quiet submarines, reports Los Angeles television station KNBC.

Ecologists and scientists argue that the sonar signals damage marine mammals’ hearing and brains and confuse whales, in some cases leading to bleeding and beaching of whales.

Late last week, a federal judge in Los Angeles temporarily set aside some of the restrictions in the original court order after Bush’s exemption was announced, but said she will consider arguments later this week before issuing a final ruling, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In related news, an Australian judge has banned the company that conducts Japan’s whale hunt from killing the animals in a segment of its hunting grounds off Antarctica, according to reports from the U.K. Press Association and the Sydney Morning Herald.

The move is expected to strain ties between Japan and Australia if the Japanese ignore the injunction and Australia attempts to enforce it.

The area in question has been designated a sanctuary by Australia, but Japan and many other nations do not recognize Australia’s territorial claim on the region.

Sources: Los Angles Times, Jan. 18 — Jurist, Jan. 16 — KNBC, Los Angeles, Jan. 16 — UPI, Jan. 16 — Sydney Morning Herald, Jan. 19 — U.K. Press Association, Jan. 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 10, 2006 — Related Newsline Commentary, Aug. 9, 2004 — Related Newsline story, May 31, 1999 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 22, 1999 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 15, 1999.

Week’s news features controversies over steroid use and racially charged remarks in a golf match

WASHINGTON and NEW YORK
Sports again captured headlines last week, with careers and credibility on the line in a number of cases. Among the stories:

• Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens says he will meet with congressional investigators this week to discuss a report that linked him to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Bloomberg reports that Clemens will be asked to submit to a deposition or a transcribed interview. Clemens was named in a December report from former U.S. senator George Mitchell linking more than 80 players to illegal substances.
• A former All-Pro defensive lineman for the San Francisco 49ers pleaded guilty last week to lying to a federal agent about his use of performance-enhancing drugs. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Dana Stubblefield will be sentenced on April 25. While lying to a federal agent can carry a five-year prison term, defendants who, like Stubblefield, have no criminal record generally receive six months or less.
• A conflict over racially charged remarks in a golf match escalated last week as GolfWeek Magazine replaced the editor who illustrated the cover of the magazine with a noose. The magazine was covering a previous incident in which a golf commentator joked that the only way competitors could surpass champion Tiger Woods is to “lynch him in a back alley.” The magazine illustrated the story about the comment with a stark picture of a hangman’s noose against a purple background. “We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers, and advertisers across the country,” said William Kupper, Jr., the head of the company that publishes GolfWeek. “We were trying to convey the controversial issues with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people.”
• Intelligence Squared, an organization that holds Oxford-style debates, usually about subjects like global warming, last week staged a debate about the role of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. The Associated Press reports that debaters supporting the use of the substances argued that permitting them would result in development of safe, regulated drugs, and that elite athletes take many risks and using drugs is no different. Pro-use debaters also contended that the use of human growth hormone to recover more quickly from an injury is ethically no different that an actor, who makes a living from his body, using Botox or liposuction. But opponents, according to the AP report, argued that athletes make a contract with their competitors and audience to compete fairly. They also posited that use of the substances by athletes would cause drugs to filter to youth. After the debate, which was moderated by Bob Costas, the number of polled audience members who were willing to say that performance-enhancing drugs should be permitted doubled. Still, 59 percent of the audience concluded that performance-enhancing drugs should be banned.

Sources: Bloomberg, Jan. 19 — San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 19 — USA Today, Jan. 18 — AP, Jan. 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline Commentary, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 26, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 22, 2005 — IntelligenceSquared, link to debate transcript.

“Survey reveals generational differences in views on marriage and commitment”

From AOL Personals and Zogby International:

“More than 4 in 10 Americans (44%), including 50% in their 20s don’t believe that they need to be married to validate the commitment of a long-term relationship, according to a survey from AOL Personals … and Zogby. This is just one of the many findings from a new interactive survey of Americans age 20 to 69 that tackles how different generations view a wide range of relationship issues — from love to soul mates, money and trust….

“Issues related to trust in relationships vary significantly among different generations. Younger respondents are more likely to want the truth from their partner, even if it hurts — more than 85% of respondents in their 20s said they always want the truth, compared to 79% of those in their 50s and 60s….

“Money is an important issue in any relationship, but different generations have varying views on managing money matters. Those in their 20s are less likely to be concerned with differences in income, with 88% saying they would date someone who makes significantly less money. Older respondents are less inclined to combine incomes in a romantic relationship, with 38% of respondents 40 and older likely to do so, compared with 50% of respondents in their 20s and 30s.

“When it comes to dating, most Americans are able to overlook flaws in potential partners — such as prospects with small bank accounts, job loss, or physical disabilities. Adults in their 20s are less likely to be concerned about differences between themselves and their partners, with respondents in the age group more likely than others to date someone who comes from a different racial or religious background. In addition, while more than half of respondents (51%) would date someone with opposing political beliefs, those in their 20s (60%) are most likely to leave politics at home while out on a date….”

For more information, see: Full press release from Zogby, Jan. 2 — Reuters, Jan. 3.

“The world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers.”

– William Wordsworth (English poet, 1770-1850)