Many news organizations invite readers to post online comments to news stories. Comments may get posted automatically and most are signed with pseudonyms. Many are insensitive, even rude, and use speculation and language that would be rejected if written by a staff member or in a letter to the editor. Are news organizations holding true to their ethical guidelines when they publish anonymous reader comments on their Web sites while rejecting them for their hard-copy editions?

Citizens need accurate news to govern themselves effectively in a democratic society. Journalists argue editorial independence is necessary to ensure that the integrity of news is not compromised. However, the economic characteristics of news create conflicts between the ideal of independence and the need to pay production costs. This study analyzes those conflicts and the economic tools for resolving them. The analysis suggests ways to balance independence and economic necessity without violating mutual ethical obligations shared by journalists, audiences, and advertisers. (...) Independence, along with a good budget, tends to make for quality journalism. —Michael Wolff, The Man Who Owns the News (p. 225). (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis article poses the following questions: Do digital intermediaries have a duty to prevent or ameliorate harm to victims of vile speech? Or do they have a duty to ensure that as much speech as possible gets published on their platforms? To dissect this dilemma, this article offers ethical rationales behind these competing goals. The rationale for promoting speech is founded on a concern for the facilitation of discourse democracy, while the rationale for preventing harm is based on a concern (...) for human dignity. The article concludes by discussing issues of accountability in digital intermediaries’ self-regulatory regimes. (shrink)