Ethics Decoded

Anna Wise
aw138915@gmail.com

We are currently in a time where the trust in media is at an all-time low. Being regarded as an "enemy of the people" does not bode well for any of us in this industry, whether you are a news and information or strategic communication journalist. By following our different codes of ethics and following our own ethical compasses, maybe we can begin to gain back some of that lost trust.

Why are the Codes Important?

We've looked at a number of different sets of codes of ethics that span across the media industry, meant to help guide us as professionals and help us make decisions. Many of them overlap in what they agree to be important; transparency, vigilance, and to always seek truth in what you're reporting, to name a few. But no matter how many codes and guidelines we may be given, what we ultimately do is still up to us.

A Balancing Act

The Society of Professional Journalists discussed the fact that no matter what, ethics cannot equal rules. Ethics cannot be enforced on anyone, but simply encouraged in hopes that they will be followed. There's no way that any set of guidelines could ever take into account every single possibility of ethical decision-making and cover the span of dilemmas that professionals face.

I think that the SPJ principle that sticks out to me the most is to "minimize harm." I feel like for just two words, this principle is loaded with ambiguity and can be one of the hardest things to consider in journalism. Do you minimize harm for the public? For your sources? For the subjects you're covering? How can you possibly make sure not a single person or being is hurt in the process?

 I think I'm starting to understand that the truth of that principle is that you simply can't. That's probably why the principle says to try to "minimize" harm instead of "eradicate" or "do no harm." There will always be someone who disagrees, someone who discredits you and your choices and someone who would do anything to change what you've written or said. I think that if my first obligation is to the public as a professional, then the public should be who I minimize harm for, always. Will that always result in a perfect outcome for everyone? Probably not, and I have to learn to balance that.

That being said, I agree with SPJ that ethics should be about balance and figuring out how to give and take from each ethical standard they present and that we hold within ourselves. In almost any code of ethics, you cannot follow one sole principle because it would mean ignoring the responsibility of another one. In our discussion of last week's New York Times op-ed, I think that the balance dilemma was clearly a factor in NYT's decision to publish the op-ed and defend themselves in doing so.

Courtesy of: Infovista.com

Entering this world where I know I will be faced with this balancing act everyday is without a doubt scary. Knowing a single decision I make could have a major impact on the public in a negative way is something that I have to come to terms with and do my absolute best to avoid. I could follow every single principle of every single code of ethics out there, as well as abide by my own values and beliefs, and still make mistakes in the process. As long as I can learn from my mistakes as well as consider the equilibirum of ethics I want to achieve, I think I can remain balanced in the desicions I make. I think those qualities make for a good journalist, professional and human being, as well.