Three Philosophical Approaches for Editors
(Plus the Golden Rule and the SPJ Code)

Thousands of wise people over thousands of years have thought deeply about how best to live an ethical life.

Most of us grew up in a tradition based on Judeo-Christian beliefs: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. That's a perfectly fine moral guideline ... but journalists must deal with at least two aspects of their role in society that can make following the Golden Rule difficult.

* One, they generally hold more power than many of the people they cover. So they have the ability to "do unto others" who are in no position to do unto them in comparable ways.

* And two, journalism that never harmed anybody would be a weak sort of journalism indeed. The "watchdog" function of the media means that journalists need to hold public officials accountable for wrongdoing -- even if individual officials are "harmed" in the process. Similarly, journalists report on crimes, court verdicts, accidents, wars, natural disasters ... grief of all sorts that the public needs to know about.

The Society of Professional Journalists offers these guidelines in its Code of Ethics as ways for journalists to balance the power of their position in society with their public service role. Details about each guideline are available online and in The Editorial Eye (pp. 151-153).

SEEK TRUTH and REPORT IT
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
MINIMIZE HARM
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
ACT INDEPENDENTLY
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
BE ACCOUNTABLE
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

So you probably knew all that already. But the Golden Rule is pretty broad; the SPJ code is pretty specific. Somewhere in between lie philosophical approaches that inform much of our decision-making.

Although they may not articulate it quite this way, I think journalists (and other people, as well) tend to fall into one of three philosophical camps. That is, they tend to see the decision-making process as being primarily about one of these things:

IT'S ABOUT MY DUTY
Journalists may approach ethical decision-making by identifying and then adhering to a central duty -- for instance, to tell what they know to be true or to remain free of outside influence.

(The philosopher most closely associated with this approach is Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German.)

IT'S ABOUT FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND
Journalists may approach ethical decision-making as the need to find compromise solutions to problems that will satisfy stakeholders with competing interests. For instance, they might run a gory photo from Iraq inside the paper rather than on the front page, satisfying their interest in telling an important truth as they know it and their readers' interest in not gagging over brekkies.

(The philosopher most closely associated with this approach is Aristotle, a 4th-century B.C. Greek. Aristotle also emphasized the need to develop ethical habits through lifelong practice.)

IT'S ABOUT DOING WHAT WILL BEST SERVE THE MOST PEOPLE
This utilitarian approach probably is the one most journalists take most often. They consider what action will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For instance, a story that exposes a corrupt official harms the official but benefits the general public.

(The philosopher most closely associated with this approach is John Stuart Mill, a 19th-century Englishman.)

 

Guiding Questions