An Ethical Dilemma

Baylee DeMuth
bd575016@ohio.edu

Every year around the holidays I find myself telling the same relatives that I am a journalism major and receiving the same response: "So you're in the fake news business, huh?" 

It's difficult to hear my family bash my chosen career choice, but how can they not when, as the reading put it, "media bashing has become both a lucrative industry and an insidious political tactic?" With polls showing the public's trust in the media at an all time low, it makes sense why my family and so many others have a hard time believing anything the media puts out there nowadays. It has become harder to find honest journalism among the sleazy tabloids and constant political bias, putting readers in the sticky situation of whether or not they can trust the information being presented to them. It's a journalist's job to hold authorities accountable, to report on issues and topics around the world and to tell engaging stories that spark a conversation, all while making ethical decisions in the process. That doesn't seem too hard to handle, right? Unfortunately, some journalists have forgotten the meaning of ethics and the philosophy behind making sound moral decisions.

In chapter one of Moral Reasoning for Journalists, the authors use ethical to describe choices that reflect reasoning, and unethical to describe choices based on assumption, emotion or reflex. I believe those are wise descriptions of two words that many people wrongfully use synonymously with the words good and bad. With the pressures of deadline and making a profit, ethical codes are thrown out the window, leaving readers with even more belief journalists are fabricating stories. 

A reporter fabricating his own story. (Source: Chainsawsuit by Kris Straub)

I found the paragraph on ethical egoism quite intriguing, because I know ethical egoists out there, but was never able to put a term to it. Maybe sometimes the looming pressures of getting a story out there turns journalists into ethical egoists, enabling them to run a story without all the right facts just to save their behind. While there may be some relief in that, it is very short lived. As the article goes on, it brings up the problem of ethical reasoning, which is concerned with the notion of self-in-society, not just with self. A story that cuts ethical corners poorly affects readers, giving them false information that gets passed on, feeding the vicious cycle of mistrust between the press and the public. So why continue to make poor ethical decisions when it negatively affects society as a whole? Despite the actions of some, the reading reveals that it's in each individual's interest that the larger society continues to function, providing at least some hope that ethical reasoning among journalists is not dead.

The bottom line is there is no excuse for sloppy journalism. Being an ethical journalist and reporting on the facts is a vital skill this world needs, and we must hold one another more accountable for our wrongful actions, no matter how big or small. Despite the bad reputation the media has, it's slowly gaining back the public's trust, and it's thanks to the journalists who take place in those conversations and produce truthful and ethical news through all the chaos.