Please Note: Ethics Newsline® will not be published next week in observance of the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States. We will return with a new issue on Monday, December 8. We extend our warmest wishes to you and yours.

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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

It’s been said that if you wanted to define water, you wouldn’t ask the fishes. In a similar way, the last people capable of defining the current financial atmosphere may be the news junkies. So immersed are they in their craft — its headlines, news flashes, commentaries, and backstories — that they rarely remember that news is framed rather than ordained. They can forget, in other words, that they’re seeing the world through a particular frame, language, or paradigm.

That latter word belongs to Thomas Kuhn, whose 1962 classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of a paradigm shift. More on Kuhn in a moment. To understand paradigms, however, just scan the headlines. What you’ll find is that nearly everything we know about the financial crisis has come through one of two languages, that of economics or that of politics. The first examines wealth, studies numbers, and asks, “Where’s the bottom line?” The second looks at power, tracks influence, and asks, “Who’s winning?” These two ways of coming to terms with the world have become the default languages of journalism.

The problem is that today’s situation — a global economic crisis shot through with political interventions — is rapidly outstripping the capacity of these frames to explain it. As a result, a third language is coming into play — the language of ethics. Talking not about wealth or power, it talks about values. Tracking neither numbers nor influence, it examines moral sensibilities. Instead of asking about bottom lines or winners, it asks, “What’s right?” Its focus is less on resolving the crisis than on seeing what it tells us about ourselves.

Under the influence of this third language, what began as a discussion of money has shifted into a conversation about metaphysics, character, and integrity. This shift came clearly into view during the third week of October, bookended by the twin iconic figures of investment guru Warren Buffett and former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. On October 17, Mr. Buffett proclaimed his intention to buy and hold stocks regardless of uncertainties in the market. His op-ed piece in the New York Times was a powerful declaration, looking back over a long personal history of successful investing. Framed in the language of economics, it seemed to make sense of a familiar world.

Six days later, Mr. Greenspan told a congressional committee that, having trusted overmuch in the markets’ capacity for self-regulation, he was in a state of “shocked disbelief.” In a public recalibration of his long-standing free-market principles, his testimony pushed through into an introspective examination of identity. While still relying on economic and political framing, it had more than a hint of a moral discourse as it accepted the presence of a new world around us.

Can things really change that fast? Here’s where Kuhn helps. As a historian of science, he was intent on explaining how revolutions in scientific thought come about as we move from, say, Copernicus to Newton to Einstein. Though he’s writing about science, his thesis helps explain how wholesale changes in thought typically happen:

• They arise after “frequent and deep debates” over methods and standards, leading to “the need constantly to reexamine … first principles” — as Mr. Greenspan was doing.
• They are “generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity,” arising from “the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should” — showing up today as a lack of confidence in economics itself.
• They grow from a sense that something is “fundamentally wrong” with current ways of thinking, especially in the presence of a “cumulative acquisition of unanticipated novelties” that researchers (or Treasury officials) can’t explain.
• Political revolutions, like those in science, arise when a minority of the community senses that “existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created.”
• Significant change, whether political or scientific, is less evolutionary than revolutionary, less gradual than sudden, and often encounters significant resistance from the community’s most respected members — some of whom are in Congress.
• While such change is sometimes anticipated, usually “no such structure is consciously seen in advance.” Instead, “the new paradigm, or a sufficient hint to permit later articulation, emerges all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night.”

True, there are significant differences between scientific and economic change. But what if the analogy works? What if today’s economic mistakes can’t be corrected within the system? What if this “persistent failure” indicates that our “first principles” are “fundamentally wrong”? What if this turmoil presages an entirely new order of thought, where ethics is integral to free enterprise rather than simply an adjunct to it?

I’m not arguing for an ethics revolution. I don’t think economic and political language will join alchemy and the four humors in the museum of outgrown paradigms. But public thought is clamoring for philosophical depth and personal integrity, articulated in a language where right counts as much as wealth or power. If that clamor leads to a more ethical capitalism and a more moral democracy, don’t be surprised if the change emerges all at once in the middle of the night.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“The government put a publicity blackout on it so they can do anything they like…. They are trying to restrict anticorruption efforts all over the country.”

– Sheik Sabah al-Saeidi, a Shiite lawmaker who heads the Integrity Committee in the Iraqi Parliament, quoted last week in a New York Times article examining apparent efforts to curb oversight by the government of Iraqi prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The Times notes that of the Iraqi government’s 30 Cabinet-level oversight officials, between six and 17 have been quietly terminated by Maliki’s administration, which is accused of dismissing the officials so it can have vacancies or install political appointees who may turn a blind eye to corruption. Among the inspectors general reportedly terminated include those watching over the departments of Water Resources, Culture, Trade, as well as the Central Bank of Iraq.

While Maliki’s government is behind the firings, the Times notes that the fault also lies with the U.S. government. It notes that Stuart Bowen, head of the U.S. office monitoring fraud and corruption in Iraq’s reconstruction, said the inspectors general “were vulnerable because once their offices were created, the United States provided little support and training for what was a startling concept for the bureaucracy, which was shaped by the secrecy and corruption of the Saddam Hussein era.”

Source: New York Times, Nov. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 8, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 6, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2006.

Tin cups in hand, U.S. auto execs flew luxury private jets to Washington to seek bailout; Newsweek profiles firm that made ethical subprime lending pay; Scotland launches an effort to help socially responsible firms

VARIOUS DATELINES
Several moral aspects of the world’s economic turmoil were highlighted last week. Among those grabbing headlines:

• The proposed U.S. auto bailout hit choppy waters on several fronts, with the ethical issue of executive compensation again capturing the attention of the press. In a widely cited story, ABC News reported that the CEOs of the big three automakers flew to Washington to ask for bailout money aboard luxurious private jets. Investigative reporters Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee calculated that GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s round trip cost his struggling company $20,000. In comparison, seats on a Northwest Airlines flight covering that route were available online for $288 coach and $837 first class. Wagoner declined to comment on the issue. In related news, Bloomberg reports that the proposed bailouts may spark trade disputes over claims that the United States is trying unfairly to subsidize its auto industry. The European Union has threatened to lodge a complaint against any U.S. bailout, according to Bloomberg.
• Under the right circumstances, subprime lending can be ethical and profitable, according to Newsweek, which profiles the firm Clearinghouse CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution). Since 2003, the for-profit firm in California has made $220 million in subprime mortgages, with 90 percent of home loans going to first-time buyers, about half of whom are minorities. Of its 770 single-family home loans, seven foreclosures have been reported, according to the firm’s CEO, Douglas Bystry. His secret for staying solvent? Ethical subprime lenders carefully evaluate each application, do not pay big fees to brokers to steer clients into high-rate loans, and mostly hold onto the loans they write, rather than resell them, according to the report. “If one of our employees pushed someone into a house they couldn’t afford, they would be fired,” Bystry told Newsweek.
• The Edinburgh Scotsman reports that the nation’s mergers and acquisitions market is being revved up by a program that helps socially conscious firms take over family businesses that are for sale. The Big Lottery Fund, a grant-making agency of the National Lottery, founded to fund ethical causes, has donated about $738 million to the effort. According to the Scotsman, the funding will help small family companies that want to sell out but have trouble finding a buyer, and will aid socially conscious firms that want to acquire them. The paper cites the example of Aberdeen Foyer, an organization that offers jobs to vulnerable young people, which has become increasingly active in acquiring small businesses in Scotland.

Sources: Bloomberg, Nov. 21 — Scotsman, Nov. 21 — ABC News, Nov. 19 — Newsweek, Nov. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 27 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 20 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8.

Teen ingested lethal dose of medicine while others watched; while some notified authorities, others egged him on

PEMBROKE PINES, Florida
A Florida teenager killed himself on a live Internet broadcast last week, and press reports indicate that he may have been egged on by some viewers.

The incident, according to CNET reporter Greg Sandoval, “will undoubtedly raise questions about the power of Web video and whether it can go too far.”

Abraham Biggs, Jr., ingested a lethal cocktail of three different drugs and then continued to blog about it in a text-message area linked to his webcast, according to the Miami Herald. Some viewers, possibly reacting to previous online suicide threats made by Biggs, mocked him and encouraged him, says the Herald report.

But some, including the chat’s monitor, notified authorities, who broke down the door of Biggs’s residence, reports Wired.

As police prodded the teen to see if he was alive, viewers still hooked onto the feed posted online-jargon comments ranging from OMG (”Oh my God”) to LOL (”laughing out loud”).

Wired’s David Kravets reports: “Public suicides are common; people jump from bridges and buildings. But the phenomenon is now encroaching on to the global arena offered by the Internet. A British man suffered the same fate two years ago after being goaded to hang himself while in a webcam chatroom. And the net is also a known medium for organizing suicide pacts.”

Times of London technology reporter Murad Ahmed notes that the live-streaming site that screened the suicide, Justin.tv, has policies against running violent and inappropriate footage, but the fact that the service enables videos to be run live makes it difficult for the site to react quickly when such incidents occur.

Sources: Miami Herald, Nov. 21 — Times of London, Nov. 21 — Wired, Nov. 21 — CNET, Nov. 20.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 7 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 24 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline Commentary, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007.

Measure originally was intended to keep panicked mothers from abandoning infants, but it was being used by families of troubled older children, some from out-of-state; lawmakers say they will find some other way to close the gaps in the social safety net

OMAHA
The U.S. state of Nebraska has tightened its “Safe Haven” law after a series of high-profile incidents in which parents abandoned unwanted children, including teenagers, at hospitals.

USA Today reports that Nebraska governor Dave Heineman signed the measure into law over the weekend.

According to UPI, Nebraska was — for a time — the only place in the country where parents could drop children at hospitals without consequences. Among the 35 children abandoned since September, almost all have been 11 years of age or older.

Among the few younger children abandoned, reports UPI, was a five-year-old left by his mother, who had driven to Nebraska from Washington State. She said the boy had hit a baby with a hammer and set fire to a shower curtain. The mother said the situation had driven her to attempt suicide.

Nebraska’s Safe Haven law originally was intended to keep panicked new mothers from abandoning infants in trash bins or ditches, reports Omaha’s Leader newspaper.

Several elected officials told Omaha television station KETV that they understand the desperation of families seeking relief from troubled youths, and even though they are closing the door on the Safe Haven option, they will work with mental health providers, government agencies, and hospitals to find alternative solutions for those families.

Sources: USA Today, Nov. 21 — Leader, Nov 21 — UPI, Nov. 21 — KETV, Omaha, Nov. 21.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 11 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 25 — Related Newsline story, July 28 — Related Newsline story, May 27 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007.

Public editor recalls previous case when family’s request for blackout was ignored; government official involved in previous negotiations argues it’s “too bad the media aren’t always such a big help”

VARIOUS DATELINES
Media reaction was mixed following the revelation last week that Western media had kept quiet about the kidnapping of a CBC reporter for 28 days, bowing to government fears that releasing information about the kidnapping would endanger negotiations for the hostage’s release.

Melissa Fung was set free in apparent good physical health about two weeks ago.

As examined in last week’s commentary in Ethics Newsline®, the media’s decision to not disclose the incident ran counter to the general assumption that journalists’ duty is to report. But on the other end of the spectrum is the assumption, as articulated in the Canadian Press wire service guide, that “no news story is worth someone’s life.”

In the aftermath of the incident, various Canadian news organizations weighed in on its ethical implications:

• From the London, Ontario, Free Press’s Larry Cornies: “The impulse among journalists to protect one of their own is understandable, even laudable. But the suspension by any news organization of its primary missional activity — the timely, fair, and open reporting of information to the public — represents a descent into murky waters. If Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon were abducted on an upcoming trip to Kandahar Air Field, would Canadian journalism executives abide by a similar request from the Prime Minister’s Office not to report it?”
• Toronto Star public editor Kathy English noted that her paper had confronted a similar dilemma earlier this year when the family of an Edmonton man taken into custody in North Korea pleaded with the paper to not report the incident, hoping that quiet diplomacy would secure his release. The Star did not comply, and although the man was eventually released, English faced an uncomfortable confrontation with the kidnap victim’s daughter. “I explained what [Asia Bureau Chief Bill] Schiller had already told her: that the incarceration of a Canadian by a foreign government was an issue of important public interest in Canada. So, too, was the question of what Canadian authorities were doing to secure his release. I added that as information about her father’s plight had already been posted on the Internet, it was likely that other journalists would report it, perhaps with less sensitivity than Schiller, who conveyed the family’s concerns about publicity.” English concluded that while there were significant differences in the cases, she remains troubled by the disparity in the way they were handled and quotes observers who say the Star needs a clear policy on such incidents.
• Gar Pardy, former director general of Consular Services for Canada, wrote an opinion piece for Ontario’s Windsor Star titled, “Too Bad Media Aren’t Always Such a Big Help.” Pardy recounts how he was involved in negotiations for the release of several Canadians kidnapped in volatile areas. He charges that in at least one case, involving the kidnapping of seven Canadians in Ecuador in 1999, “there was no introspection on the part of the media on the impact of the reporting. For most the story was more important than the well-being of those being force-marched through the Ecuadorian and possibly the Colombian jungles.” Arguing that publicity was often the kidnappers’ motivating factor, Pardy contends that not only was there little cooperation from the press, but that “more often than not the media were antagonistic and there was a view that government officials were hiding behind the no-publicity pleas in order to cover up mistakes and inaction.”

Sources: Free Press, Nov. 21 — Toronto Star, Nov. 15 — Windsor Star, Nov. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 16 — Related Newsline story, June 6 — Related Newsline story, May 19.

Dan Abrams says the company will ‘bend over backwards’ to avoid ethical conflicts, but some say having working reporters moonlight as consultants erodes journalists’ credibility

NEW YORK
A new public relations business venture by a former cable news executive is raising eyebrows over the ethical propriety of using currently employed reporters to advise clients on how to obtain favorable coverage from the press.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Dan Abrams, the former general manager of MSNBC, is launching a media-strategy firm that has as its chief selling point a network of media insiders who will offer advice for an hourly fee.

But the Journal notes that while such an arrangement might be appealing for clients, some say it could damage the public image of journalism.

“While it makes sense for business, for working journalists to be moonlighting as business consultants is ultimately going to degrade the credibility of journalism even further,” Trevor Butterworth, a fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, told the Journal. “It’s really offering a weapon to activist groups of any kind to say: ‘We can’t trust journalism anymore.’”

But Abrams tells the New York Times his company will “bend over backwards to make sure that there are no conflicts or ethical issues that arise.”

Abrams also told New York magazine that his company is just a more formalized version of a practice that has been occurring for years. “Journalists are on panels all the time, they are quoted in articles all the time, they sit down for coffee with friends, or friends of friends, to give advice all the time. I give advice to people all the time privately — and I seek it.”

While Abrams has left MSNBC, he is expected to continue as chief legal correspondent for NBC News, reports trade journal Broadcasting & Cable.

Sources: Broadcasting & Cable, Nov. 19 — New York, Nov. 19 — Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18 — New York Times, Nov. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 25.

But authors stop short of advocating outright prohibition, noting that such a level of intervention is not typical in the United States

CHICAGO
In the latest salvo in the ethics debate over balancing the rights of advertisers with the desire to protect overeaters from themselves, a major university study has concluded that banning fast-food ads on U.S. television could reduce the soaring rate of childhood obesity by as much as 18 percent.

Economist Shin-Yi Chou of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, a principal in the multi-university study, told Reuters that there has been little empirical research examining the relationship between advertising and obesity.

“Hopefully, this line of research can lead to a serious discussion about the type of policies that can curb America’s obesity epidemic,” he said.

But the study’s authors stop short of calling for an outright ban on such ads, noting that many people eat fast food in moderate amounts with no damage to their health, reports London’s Daily Telegraph.

The authors also note that restricting advertising would require a level of government intervention inconsistent with U.S. custom and free-speech guarantees, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The paper notes that Sweden, Norway, and Finland are the only nations to ban commercial sponsorship of children’s television programs.

Provincial laws in Quebec, Canada, also have prohibited advertising on children’s shows.

Australia is considering such a ban, reports the Australian Age, but opponents say the laws have not proved effective.

“Children in Quebec are the same size and circumference as other children in Canada,” said Colin Segelov, from the Australian Association of National Advertisers, according to the Age.

Sources: Australian Age, Nov. 20 — Daily Telegraph, Nov. 19 — Reuters, Nov. 19 — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 17 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 18, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 11, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 2, 2006 — Abstract of the study from the University of Chicago’s Journal of Law and Economics, November 2008.

Questions loom as scientists close in on cracking the DNA code of a Neanderthal

WASHINGTON
The possibility that modern genetic science could resurrect an ancient species is the type of ethical question pondered by the late Michael Crichton, the author of “Jurassic Park.”

Now fiction may become reality: Scientists have extracted genetic material from remains of a long-frozen wooly mammoth and have used them to map the behemoth’s DNA sequence, reports the Christian Science Monitor. The Penn State study brings researchers a step closer to being able to “resurrect” an extinct species though advancing cloning technology, PBS “NewsHour” reports.

But the New York Times points out that the project carries some heavy ethical baggage, with one of the more difficult issues arising if it becomes technically feasible to alter the genes of the human species.

Adding some urgency to the question is the fact that scientists expect that they soon will complete the mapping of the full genome sequence of Neanderthals, reports the Times.

Sources: New York Times, Nov. 21 — PBS “NewsHour”, Nov. 21 — Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 20 — National Geographic, Nov. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 3 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 4 — Related Newsline story, May 5.

Gallup’s “annual Honesty and Ethics poll rates nurses best of 21 professions”

From Gallup:

“For the seventh straight year, nurses enjoy top public accolades in Gallup’s annual Honesty and Ethics of professions survey. Eighty-four percent of Americans call their honesty and ethical standards either ‘high’ or ‘very high.’…

“Nurses have topped Gallup’s Honesty and Ethics ranking every year but one since they were added to the list in 1999. The exception is 2001, when firefighters were included on the list on a one-time basis, shortly after the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks….

“The standing of most of the professions surveyed in 2008 is similar to that of a year ago. The only significant change is a 12 percentage-point decline in positive ratings for bankers, from 35% to 23% — not surprising given that the banking industry is at the center of the Wall Street meltdown currently gutting many Americans’ investment accounts and destabilizing the U.S. economy. (Earlier this year, Gallup reported a similar decline in public confidence in banking as an institution.)

“The 2008 Gallup Honesty and Ethics poll marks the first time since 1996 that the honesty and ethics of bankers has registered below 30%. The last time bankers took a hit of similar magnitude to their image was in 1988, when it fell from 38% to 26% during the savings and loan crisis. However, the 23% recorded today marks a record low for the field.

“Nurses have no peer in the Gallup rankings today, but they are followed by pharmacists, high-school teachers, and medical doctors, all with close to two-thirds of Americans rating them highly….

“Building contractors, bankers, journalists, and real estate agents each receive relatively neutral ratings….

“While bankers could be faring much worse, a year ago they were in the top-rated category, with 35% rating their ethics high or very high and only 15% rating them low or very low.

“Indeed, several professions suffer from a heavily negative tilt in their image ratings. The worst of these are lobbyists, telemarketers, and car salesmen, all of which are considered to have low or very low honesty and ethics by a majority of Americans….”

For the full press release from Gallup, Nov. 24, click here.

“Our aspirations are our possibilities.”

– Robert Browning (English poet, 1812-1889)