The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Yes. I don't think it should be limited to readers, actually. I think it was -- I was thinking about readers in that paragraph of the submission and I was thinking about section 1, which is the point I think where they talk about respect for the truth, and it seemed to me that could be thought of as respect partly for readers.

But why respect? That's a good question. My sense is that that is the concept that -- that that is the fundamental moral concept here that goes along with duties. You respect people -- when you respect people, you're doing your duty to them. I wanted to use that concept partly for reasons I think I mentioned earlier in the written submission and partly because I think that's interestingly distinct, though related, from the concept of harm. I think sometimes you can harm people while respecting people. Sometimes respecting people requires you to harm them. You have to tell them unpleasant truths, these sorts of things.

So I wanted to make it clear that the duties we're thinking about -- ethical duties of newspapers -- is not that whenever they're harming someone, there's a duty that's been violated and that when you have people whose interests or wellbeing are going to be interestingly in conflict, you have a conflict, therefore, of duties. Sometimes you can respect someone and that still involves harming them.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech