Ethics

In this country, there are two forms of restraint on the powerful media:

* External restraints: Laws and rules imposed from the outside, primarily by government.

* Internal restraints: Ethics imposed from the inside, primarily by individual journalists and by the profession at large.

We seek to minimize external restraints. The First Amendment guarantees broad (though not universal) protection for free speech, by individuals and by the media.

Therefore, the need to maximize internal restraints becomes greater than it would be in a society with less press freedom.

Another way to look at this:

* The law gives us rights.

* Ethics gives us responsibilities.

Isn't this really about morals? No, not exactly.

* Morals are rooted in cultural customs, which eventually lead to laws. Laws are forms of external (governmental, religious and so on) control.

* Ethics are rooted in character, which grows out of individual choices and decisions. It takes practice to be an ethical person.

The key for journalists, then, becomes developing the ability to make good decisions -- on deadline.

The ability to draw on sound reasoning rather than your gut reaction comes with practice. But you can build on a relatively few ...

* Philosophical frameworks.

* Guided questions, which serve as steps toward rational choices.

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 this 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 ethical 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, one to which they would want everyone else to adhere, as well -- 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. Kant also emphasized treating all human beings with respect, never as a means to an end.)

* 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.E. 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.)

Contemporary ethicists, including media scholars, have come up with various tools to help journalists make good ethical decisions. Here are a few.

Use any of these that make sense to you; combine elements if you like!

Although they are not identical, all share common components:

* They involve a rational step-by-step process, urging you to work thoughtfully through difficult ethical questions rather than going with what seems right off the top of your head (or in your gut).

* Closely related: They involve reaching a decision that can be explained adequately to others, such as your sources, your readers and the world at large.

If your decision only makes sense to other people in the newsroom, it's probably not a great decision.

Here are four commonly used ethical decision-making tools that you may find helpful, all from contemporary ethicists.

* Ask yourself this series of questions, in this order, when facing an ethical choice:

1) What are the morally relevant factors?

a) Will the specific action that you are considering cause an evil?

b) Does the type of action that you are considering generally cause an evil?

If no to both, there's no ethical problem here.

If yes to either, keep going through all the rest of the questions.

2) Is a greater evil being prevented or punished?
3) Are you in a unique position to prevent or punish the evil?
4) If you take the action you are considering, would you be allowing yourself to be an exception to a rule you would want everyone else to follow?
5) Would a rational, uninvolved person appreciate your reason for causing harm? (And can you clearly articulate that reason outside the newsroom?)

If you answer "yes" to questions 2, 3 and 5, and "no" to question 4 -- run the story!

(These questions are from Deni Elliott, currently the Poynter Jamison Chair in Media Ethics and Press Policy at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg.)

* Go through this series of steps, asking yourself the related questions at each step, when facing an ethical choice. Each step will broaden your view of the situation and the options available to you.

Step one: Consult your conscience.

Related question: How do I feel about this?

Step two: Seek expert advice for alternatives.

Related question: What are my alternatives?

Step three: Conduct a public ethical dialogue with all of the parties involved (the stakeholders).

Related question: How will my action affect others?

 

If you honestly satisfy yourself, your respected experts and the outside stakeholders -- run the story!

(These questions are from Sissela Bok, a Harvard philosopher and prolific ethics author.)

* This one was designed to help journalists make decisions about whether it is ethical to lie (or engage in some other form of deception) in order to obtain a story. But the questions work well for considering whether to run almost any potentially problematic story.

Deception may be acceptable for journalists but only as a last resort, when all other alternatives have truly been ruled out.

When have you arrived at that last resort? Perhaps if you can honestly agree with all these statements about the problem your story deals with:

* The problem is pervasive and systemic (meaning it is part of the way the system normally works rather than a rare incident).

* The problem is significant.

* The problem demands an urgent solution.
* The problem demands media attention. 
* You are prepared to tell the public what you did and why you did it -- that is, to be accountable. 

If you can honestly say that the situation covered in the story meets all those criteria -- run the story!

(These criteria come from Ed Lambeth , a professor emeritus with the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia and currently director of the Center for Religion, the Profession and the Public, housed at MU.)

* This one is usually presented in the form of a box (called the Potter Box), but it's basically a set of steps in a decision-making process.

The sequence here is important; you should go through the steps in this order. Choosing among loyalties is the final, and often the most difficult, step.

1) Define the situation.

* What do you know about it?
* What don't you know?
* What alternatives do you have?
* What are the likely consequences of your decision?

2) Identify your values.

What is important or valuable to you, both personally (as a human being) and professionally (as a journalist)?

3) Apply ethical principles.

This is where the ethical approaches (for instance, following your duty or doing what is best for the most people) come in handy.

Challenge yourself to apply more than one principle, though, or you may miss the best solution.

4) Choose among your loyalties.

We all have multiple loyalties, again as both human beings and as journalists.

For journalists, loyalty to the public often comes first ... but sometimes, competing loyalties (to a particular source, for instance, or to the victim of a crime) may take precedence. You also may be loyal to particular ideals, such as telling the truth.

(This tool is from Ralph Potter of the Harvard University Divinity School. He is an emeritus professor of social ethics at Harvard.)