Making ethical decisions isn't always easy.
Dilemma: an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives.So you’ve got an ethical dilemma on your hands. How do you figure out what to do? Generally speaking, there are two major approaches that philosophers use in handling ethical dilemmas. One approach focuses on the practical consequences of what we do; the other concentrates on the actions themselves. The first school of thought basically argues "no harm, no foul"; the second claims that some actions are simply wrong.
* Who will be helped by what you do?
* Who will be hurt?
* What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about?
* How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run.
After looking at all of your options, which one produces the best mix of benefits over harms?
What you're looking for is the option whose actions are least problematic.
MAKE A DECISION — And now, based on your analysis, make a decision.
An exercise to help understand class discussion from Feb. 17 would be to click on the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and go through each of the ethical problems listed in the class handout. Find the SPJ answers to the dilemmas.—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
THANKS to all who participate in class discussion. Remember, you are learning to express your opinions, and in any type of work environment, that's important. I may be wrong, but I don't know of any boss-type who wants employees to just sit around, gazing at the clock or conversing with their neighbor while ignoring the task at hand. Think about it.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I think the following things were discussed in class. If you want to add something, go to the "Comment" link at the end of this post.
Generally, newspapers and television news do not name rape victims, and they don't identify juveniles accused of crime. The California newspaper I mentioned found itself in a quandary because they initially identified the young women who were abducted. It was only later when the word came out that they were raped. They didn't print the names in subsequent stories because they were abiding by their Code of Ethics.
Journalists should avoid accepting anything of value for doing their job. This includes junkets to New York for a fashion show, tickets to critique performances, meals for food critics or anything else that would appear to be a conflict of interest. Read any newspaper's Code of Ethics and you will see how strict or lax that newspaper is.
Not naming sources of information tends to reduce credibility of the medium. If a source requests anonymity, weigh carefully before granting that anonymity. If the source stands to lose his/her job or be harmed by releasing the name, generally, the reporter may choose to NOT reveal the source's name. But, know that a judge may hold the reporter in contempt and send him/her to jail. See N.Y. Times reporter is sent to jail for withholding source The point was made in class that maybe the reporter should not tell even the editor. That's one train of thought, but often an editor can act as a sounding board and help make the right decision.
Plagiarism is always unacceptable in journalism or any form of literature or academia. Remember Jayson Blair of The New York Times.
Avoid secondary employment if that employment would result in a conflict of interest. Example we discussed in class was the newspaper editor who also held a job as public relations counsel for a school district. A clear conflict of interest. See Moonlighting Reporter
A reporter should ALWAYS identify himself/herself as a reporter when conducting interviews for a story.
Journalists should not show political alliance or affiliation on the job or in public venues when the journalist would be recognized as such. See MSNBC reassigns liberal-biased 'reporters'
Avoid doing the job of law enforcement. This includes entrapment (setting someone up to break the law) to get or "manufacture" a story.
Generally, responsible newspapers and television news organizations do not PAY for stories or photos. One problem may arise if the media owner of newspapers, television networks and other media buys a story, such as the Pfc. Jessica Lynch story. Some magazines and tabloid publications do pay, and that presents the basis for much discussion both pro and con.
Probably the greatest amount of discussion and disagreement in class came with our discussion of manipulated photos and the photo of the boy impaled on a fence. I heard several good arguments about the use of the "boy" photo. Some pointed out that using the photo served no public good and would embarrass the boy and his family. But, to say that the photographer should not have TAKEN the photo may have gone too far. So long as he/she does not interfere with rescue efforts, the photographer's JOB is to TAKE photos. Whether it is used in the publication is a separate question. Some would say the photo "pandered to morbid curiosity" while others said "it warns parents to tell their children to not take chances that could result in harm." Since the number of newspapers using the photo was split evenly, I'd say both responses have merit.
Setting up a scene by a photographer is considered unethical unless it is labeled "photo illustration" or somehow explained as a reenactment. As for Janet Cooke of The Washington Post, who was forced to give back a Pulitzer Prize, she could have prevented that embarrassment and loss of the Pulitzer and her job by simply writing something at the beginning of her story to tell the reader that Jimmy represented the problem of heroin addiction in D.C. and was not a real 8-year-old kid.
I hope the point came across that there are few hard and fast rules about ethical behavior and quite often several options may be available. It is hoped that whatever decision is made will be balanced and fair. The Balancing Theory dictates that the harm to an individual must be balanced by the benefit to society.
I look forward to future class discussions in which everyone participates.
Back to beginning