Chapter 23—Ethics

So, after a semester of Ethics, I’d like to think that I’m ready for solving ethical dilemmas, but as I was reading this chapter, I just realized that I’m not. And I’ll never be!

The first thing that came to my mind was who I should be loyal to. To the editor? To the newspaper? To the audience? To the source? The problem is that the moment I choose one of these, I deny my loyalty from the others. This means that I either lose my job (in case I’m ignoring the benefits of the newspaper) or I can’t sleep at night (if I do chose to serve the newspaper instead of the source or my readers).

Then: Freebies. Well, I don’t think I can be “bought” with presents and stuff, so I don’t think that part would be a problem for me. But what about business travels? Right now, I’m thinking of a case when I’m sent to a gorgeous island to cover something. Can I take a couple days off and just enjoy the sunshine and the beach? Of course, only when I’m done with my work…I mean this would save me the price of the flight and maybe the hotel. Well, okay staying at a nice hotel at the expenses of the newspaper is not nice. But how about the flight??

I’m sort of startled that checkbook journalism actually exists. But on the other hand, I understand that journalists make money of what sources tell them for free. But at the same time, when a source buys a newspaper, what he or she really pays for is the price of printing and paper, not the actual reporting… So if they benefit from my work for free, why shouldn’t I use them for free??

And the last two things: participation in news and advertising pressure. So, I’m not allowed to join any religious or political groups in my free time as a private citizen, but at the same time, I’m almost required to promote the advertiser. So which one is unethical?? Also, it’s my responsibility to write objectively, right? So, as long as I can distance myself from the issue and cover it without putting personal views in my articles, why couldn’t I do whatever I want in my private life?? This is just so unjust!!!

The issue of withholding information is also hard. I think in such cases, the question a journalist should consider is whether it’s absolutely essential to publish a story. But of course, you never know what publishing certain information will cause. For example, I was to argue that airing the message that made the meteorologist guy kill himself was unethical… But then I figured that it wasn’t. I thought it was only after I read that he committed suicide after it.