Professional Ethics and the Integrity of Journalism

Professional Ethics: To What and to Whom?

A professional’s ethical responsibility is to what and to whom? Physicians follow the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” Journalists are compelled by their profession to follow the ideal to be “honest, fair, and courageous” in “gathering, reporting, and interpreting information.” What about educators or accountants? Accountants are called upon to “be objective, avoid conflicts of interest, and to report clearly and accurately.” The ethical code of teachers instructs them not to indoctrinate.

The Journalist's Perspective

I am quoting Weston and also calling upon my own life experience in covering this topic in more detail. I would be happy to give equal time to physicians and accountants, but I have not been in either of those professions. I was a working journalist for about six years and have been a teacher for more than 25 years, but I find the ethical codes and practices of journalists to be a more intriguing topic.

Principles of the Society of Professional Journalists

Weston notes the following as among the principles from the ethical code of the Society of Professional Journalists. Journalists should:

• Treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
• Be free of obligation to an interest other than the public’s right to know.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

The Internal Goods of Journalism

Weston writes: “…the proposed list of virtues flows directly from the ‘internal goods’ of the profession. The aim of journalism is to inform people and by so doing to help promote democratic decision-making. Therefore, telling the truth is crucial. Some attempt to present both sides (or all sides) of a dispute is crucial, too, especially when most of the established powers stand on one side. Careful distinction between news and ‘advocacy’ allows people to make up their own minds.”

A Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma

Weston poses this hypothetical dilemma: “You’re a newspaper reporter investigating a new make of car. You discover that the car has some very dangerous features. The car’s manufacturer advertises lavishly in your paper. If you report your discovery, your article will be spiked by your editors, who are unwilling to lose advertising revenue and the company’s goodwill. You may even lose your job.”

The Moral Choice

Should you water down your article to ensure that it gets published and the public is at least minimally informed? How far are you willing to stick out your neck?