In this article, the main question is whether and, if so, to what extent online journalism raises new moral issues and, if any, what kind of answers are preferable. Or do questions merely appear new, since they are really old ones in an electronic wrapping, old wine in new bottles? And how does journalism deal with the moral aspects of online journalism? The phenomenon of the Internet emerged in our society a few years ago. Since then, a large number of Dutch people have gone online, and the World Wide Web is now an integral part of our range of means of communication. Dutch journalism is online too, although certainly not in the lead. More and more journalists use the Internet as a source, especially for background information. Newspapers have their web sites, where the online version of the printed paper can be read. And that is it for the time being. There are no more far-reaching developments at present, certainly not on a large scale. Real online journalism is rather scarce in the Netherlands. The debate concerning the moral aspects of online journalism is mainly being conducted in the United States. First of all, by way of introduction, I will present an outline of online journalism. The first instance is the online version of the newspaper. Here, only to a certain degree new issues come up for discussion, since the reputation of reliability and accuracy of the papers, in spite of all criticism, also applies to their online versions. Besides, especially in the United States and increasingly in European countries as well, there is the so-called dotcom journalism, the e-zines, the online news sites without any relationship with printed newspapers. This may be the reason why these sites do not have a strong commitment to moral standards, at least as they have developed in the journalistic culture of the newspapers. After having outlined the moral issues arising in online journalism, the question will be addressed whether and, if so, to what extent it is meaningful and desirable to develop instruments of self-regulation for this new phenomenon of journalism.
DOCUMENT
Aim: Midwives are expected to identify and help resolve ethics problems that arise in practice, skills that are presumed to be taught in midwifery educational programs. In this study, we explore how midwives recognize ethical dilemmas in clinical practice and examine the sources of their ethics education. Methods: We conducted semi-structured, individual interviews with midwives from throughout the United States (U.S.) (n = 15). Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using an iterative process to identify themes and subthemes. Findings: Midwives described a range of professional ethical dilemmas, including challenges related to negotiating strained interprofessional relationships and protecting or promoting autonomy for women. Ethical dilemmas were identified by the theme of unease, a sense of distress that was expressed in three subthemes: uncertainty of action, compromise in action, and reflecting on action. Learning about ethics and ethical dilemmas occurred, for the most part, outside of the classroom, with the majority of participants reporting that their midwifery program did not confer the skills to identify and resolve ethical challenges. Conclusion: Midwives in this study reported a range of ethical challenges and minimal classroom education related to ethics. Midwifery educators should consider the purposeful and explicit inclusion of midwifery-specific ethics content in their curricula and in interprofessional ethics education. Reflection and self-awareness of bias were identified as key components of understanding ethical frameworks. As clinical preceptors were identified as a key source of ethics learning, midwifery educators should consider ways to support preceptors in building their skills as role models and ethics educators.
DOCUMENT
