ETHICS AND TELEVISION
Television ethics are derived from early professional codes of broadcasting that began in the late 1920s and are grounded in problems and issues identified in early radio. For television these ethical systems came into their own and grew rapidly, in conjunction with the development of the new medium, during the 1960s. But they now no longer exist as they once did.
Like radio for a previous generation, television had the ability to penetrate the private home and its potential obtrusiveness was the subject of concern. It was, after all, a "guest" in the home and in that capacity it was able to serve the public interest--informing, instructing and enlightening. It also had the ability, recognized early on, for serving private interests driven by the desire for economic gain. The keen awareness of potential confrontation between service on the one hand, and the desire for laissez faire operation on the other, led to another set of possible conflicts--between self regulation and regulation by government. The broadcasting industry placed its faith and its interests in self regulation.
The industry created its own Code of Broadcasting which consisted of eight "rules." Four had to do with advertising and concern over "overcommercialization." The other rules dealt with general operations and responsible programming: no "fraudulent, deceptive or obscene" material. Many of these same ideas and even the language appeared again in the Television Code established in the early 1950s.
Early on, a vexing problem for the Code, a potential problem in any ethical system, surfaced. It was the issue of penalty. As in any enforcement of self-regulated ethics, there was little room for harsh sanctions. The only penalty called for violators to be investigated and notified. Later the penalty was strengthened by adding notification among the broadcast community--the threat of ostracism among colleagues. When television came on the scene, radio had recently experienced rapid growth in its commercialization. And with that growth came continuing threats of further, more far reaching regulation from the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. In an effort to keep the government regulators at bay, the broadcasters' "Code of Good Practice" became more definitive. One of the main elements focused on regulation of the amount of time that should be devoted to commercials.
The evolution of the Code can be seen by examining the use of commercial time in the 1930s. While there could be some advertising (of a good-will nature) before 6:00 P.M., "Commercial announcements, as the term is generally understood, should not be broadcast between 7 and 11 p.m." That restriction then evolved to allow increased broadcasting of commercial messages, to 5 minutes, then 10, then 18 by 1970. When television assumed a dominant place in broadcasting, beginning in the early 1950s, the rules affecting commercial time evolved the same way, increasing the allowed time slowly over the years.
Although the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) created a separate set of ethical guidelines for television, distinct from radio, the existing concerns were applied to the newer medium: time limits of advertising, types of products advertised, fraud, especially in advertising, and special sensitivity to programming and advertising directed to children. Other program themes, obviously taboo in their times, such as sexual suggestiveness and explicit violence, were also addressed.
At the same time each network installed its own staff for Network Standards and Practices (S and P), to enforce their particular policies for advertising and programming. These were the offices and individuals often thought of as "network censors." Large corporations also created statements of policies concerning their professional ethics as related to broadcasting.
These network and company rules of self regulation were supplementary to the NAB's continuation of its two nationally visible codes, one for radio, one for television. But each of these was becoming unwieldy. A dozen or so pages of the Television Code of Good Practice contained a long list of programming prohibitions: hypnotism, occultism, and astrology, as well as obscene, profane or indecent material, and programs that ridiculed those with disabilities.
Still, the NAB Codes remained an important public relations device for the industry. At the apex of its use, NAB President Vince Wasilewski stated, "Our Codes are not peripheral activities. No activity of NAB is closer to the public."
As social mores changed and social and cultural climates became more permissive, so too did television programming. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Code seemed hopelessly outdated, continually violated, unenforceable and generally ignored by the broadcasters.
In 1982, when advertisers were lined up for a limited amount of available time on the television networks, it appeared that the networks gave favor for its best time slots to the largest advertisers. Displeased, one of the smaller advertisers pointed out this practice to the Justice Department, claiming unfair competitive practices, a violation of anti-trust laws. The Justice Department took action against the National Association of Broadcasters, because, it said, the NAB Code, limiting the amount of available commercial time, was responsible for the network practice. The court agreed, and ordered the NAB to purge that part of the Code. After some initial hesitancy, the NAB agreed.
For eight years, from 1982 to 1990, both radio and television had no code of professional ethics. During that period, research showed that although the networks and some large corporate broadcasters had their own codes, or standards and practices, there still seemed to be no universal guidance. One study, based on a national sample of broadcast managers, suggested that broadcasters preferred self regulation rather than government regulation. It also suggested some concern that without such self regulation, government regulation might increase.
In 1990, the NAB issued a new "Statement of Principles of Radio and Television Broadcasting," designed as a brief, general document intended to reflect the generally accepted standards of American's broadcasting. The Statement encouraged broadcasters to individually write their own specific policies. It also encouraged responsible and careful judgment in the selection of material for broadcast rather than forming a list of prohibition as was the case with the old Code. Caution was advised in dealing with violence, drugs and substance abuse, and with sexually oriented materials, but there was also positive encouragement for responsible artistic freedom and responsibility in children's programming. The Statement made it clear that these principles are advisory, rather than restrictive. Finally, the 1990 Statement mentioned First Amendment rights and encouraged broadcasters to align themselves with the audiences' expectations and the public interest.
The new philosophy concerning ethics in broadcasting reveals that:
• they are advisory rather than prohibitive;
• they should be centered in individual stations or corporations, rather than a national organization like NAB;
• since there is no provision for monitoring and enforcement on the national level, any concerns about ethics should come from individual stations and listeners/viewers;
• the decentralization of ethics may be indicative of a pluralistic society, where values and mores reflect distinct group perspectives, rather than a national standard.
Some observers bemoan the fact that there is no nationally visible standard--no way of measuring whether the language of a daring new television program is actually on the "cutting edge," or merely "bravado bunk." Yet, since the broadcast industry itself has been largely deregulated, the question remains whether this means there is now room for more self regulation, or whether self regulation itself should also be deregulated.

Journalist’s Code of Ethics (Philippines)
Formulated by Philippine Press Institute and National Press Club
1. I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognise the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.
2. I shall not violate confidential information or material given me in the exercise of my calling.
3. I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news, photographs and/or documents, and shall properly identify myself as a representative of the press when obtaining any personal interview intended for publication.
4. I shall refrain from writing reports which will adversely affect a private reputation unless the public interest justifies it. At the same time, I shall fight vigorously for public access to information.
5. I shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity.
6. I shall not commit any act of plagiarism.
7. I shall not in any manner ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin.
8. I shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. I shall exercise caution in publishing names of minors and women involved in criminal cases so that they may not unjustly lose their standing in society.
9. I shall not take unfair advantage of fellow journalists.
10. I shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the ‘conscience clause’ when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience.
11. I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watch word.