RFTM Ch. 6: Ethics

What are ethics? Simply put, acting and thinking morally and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. It's key to establishing credibility. But the answers to what is ethical and what is not can be elusive, situational and judgmental.

In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:

• Who will be hurt by this story?
• Who will be helped?
• What do we usually do in similar situations?
• Is this the best alternative?
• Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
• Can you justify your actions to the public?
• What principles or values can you apply?
• Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
• What is the objective of this story?
• Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
• Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?

There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.

Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.

So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.

I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.

Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details re-aired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.

Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people. 

Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.

Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.

As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.

Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ... 

... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.

... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.

... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.

... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.

... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.   

Ethics: A Code To Follow

Listed below is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation's leading organization of journalists. I strongly recommend you print out the code and keep it handy for however long you are a journalist. The principles offered within can help you guide an ethical and responsible response to numerous situations: 


SPJ Code of Ethics
Download a printable copy [PDF]

Preamble
 
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

---

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

For an expanded explanation, please follow this link.

Seek Truth and Report It
 
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

---

Minimize Harm 
 
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

---

Act Independently
 
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news. 

---

Be Accountable
 
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

---

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

Ethics: 9/11's Falling Man, The Buzzard And The Girl, The Burn Victim

There's a fine line between showing readers the brutal truth of a situation so that they understand the powerful truth of any story, and showing readers a truth so brutal that readers ignore the point you were trying to make and instead question your judgment.

I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:

  
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.

If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?

Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture? 

That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.

Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War? 

Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.

What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:

-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.

-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.


I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.

Ethics: What I Would Have Done

Many ethical decisions in journalism are best guesses; rarely is there an obvious "right" answer. We look at the circumstances, apply our values and aim to do the most good and the least harm. In the messy real world, never is that ratio 100 percent good/zero percent harm. It's subjective as hell, but that's the way the world is.

But here's what I would have done, and why:

On Sept. 11, 2001, I would have shot and decided to run the Falling Man pic. To me, it is the most powerful symbol of the day. 9/11 wasn't about airplanes hitting buildings; it was about 3,000 individual people, with lives just like you and me, who had to make horrible death-or-death decisions like, "Do I fall 102 stories or do I burn to death?" That picture brings home that this was humanity at its worst in an incredibly powerful way.

But it may have been too powerful for that day.I think on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have regretted that choice. That's because in reality, there was a ton of public fury over the publication and airing of jumper pics, like the Falling Man one. The public was spending far more time considering editorial judgment (arguing if it was death porn) rather than editorial content (the humanity behind 9/11).

The point of how we write a story or what photo we use is to highlight the facts, meaning and content of the subject we're focusing on, and not distract from it. On 9/11, at least, the pic was a distraction. With the next-day perspective maybe I would have run it Web-only with a disclaimer, or run it well after 9/11, when the wound wasn't as raw. 

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't have run pics showing humanity, or even the brutal side of 9/11. It's just I think I would have edited more carefully to show pics that make the point of human tragedy without alienating my audience. Journalism without an audience simply isn't journalism. There's no perfect way to measure that; I would have to consider the facts, then the audience and where it draws the line, and make an educated guess.

You need to share what you see. That doesn't necessarily mean every literal thing you see -- like the Falling Man -- but it does have to be something that is representative of all the things you saw and heard. Maybe another image would have done that, while being more receptive to the audience. Maybe Falling Man would have been better considered by the audience well after that day, after wounds have been allowed to heal somewhat.

Then again, the root of the word news is new. That's no accident; it's news only if it's new, or recent, or revelatory. Is it news if I hide it when it matters most: right when something is happening? Maybe not.

Yes, you want to tell stories truthfully, even if the truth is brutal. But you don't want to distract from the story's underlying point, either. And we have to serve the audience when they want or need news. Our challenge is to reconcile those three factors, even when it's hard. Like it was on 9/11.

I would have taken the starving girl/vulture pic, and I would have run it. But I would have done something else in-between those actions. I would have taken the girl to a first aid station after getting the pic.

Just taking the pic and doing nothing else is not a good choice, in my view. This wasn't an instance where there were hundreds of people waiting to die, all of whom one journalist couldn't help. This was one child; one child is doable.

But helping the girl without taking the pic I find to be a bad choice. First, the way journalists help the most people while hurting the fewest is by sharing horrible things happening beyond the horizon of our audience. How can they possibly decide this is  tragedy and want to make a priority of helping if they don't see how bad it really is there?

Second, we are not there to be aid workers; we are there to be journalists. That's the reason we're there. That's why our news organizations paid for us to go. We can't forget what our job is. It's just that we don't forget we're human, either. We can be both simultaneously. What's more, we need to be both at the same time, never forgetting one or the other.

Given that explanation, I would have done exactly what was done regarding the Vietnam War burned girl pic. I would have taken the pic, illustrating what war really is: not just tanks and explosions, but the very real human carnage of an innocent and terrified girl having her clothes burned off. I would then have done whatever I could to help, like the journalists did in this case by securing medical treatment for the girl.

And then I would have run the pic; again, a story (or pic) without an audience isn't journalism. You need to share what you see.  That's why we were there in the first place. And we do no good to the masses if we don't share what we discovered.

What do you guys think on my points? Give it some thought. Quite often, there is no "right" answer in journalism; rather, there's a bunch of good answers. What we look for is the best solution, even if it's imperfect (and it usually is).   

RFTM Ch. 6: Ethics

What are ethics? Simply put, acting and thinking morally and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. It's key to establishing credibility. But the answers to what is ethical and what is not can be elusive, situational and judgmental.

In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:

• Who will be hurt by this story?
• Who will be helped?
• What do we usually do in similar situations?
• Is this the best alternative?
• Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
• Can you justify your actions to the public?
• What principles or values can you apply?
• Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
• What is the objective of this story?
• Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
• Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?

There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.

Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.

So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.

I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.

Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details re-aired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.

Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people. 

Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.

Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.

As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.

Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ... 

... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.

... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.

... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.

... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.

... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.   

Ethics: A Code To Follow

Listed below is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation's leading organization of journalists. I strongly recommend you print out the code and keep it handy for however long you are a journalist. The principles offered within can help you guide an ethical and responsible response to numerous situations: 


SPJ Code of Ethics
Download a printable copy [PDF]

Preamble
 
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

---

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

For an expanded explanation, please follow this link.

Seek Truth and Report It
 
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

---

Minimize Harm 
 
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

---

Act Independently
 
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news. 

---

Be Accountable
 
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

---

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

Ethics: 9/11's Falling Man, The Buzzard And The Girl, The Burn Victim

Ethics: 9/11's Falling Man, The Buzzard And The Girl, The Burn Victim

There's a fine line between showing readers the brutal truth of a situation so that they understand the powerful truth of any story, and showing readers a truth so brutal that readers ignore the point you were trying to make and instead question your judgment.

I can think of no better example of this than the so-called "Falling Man" photo, taken by an Associated Press photographer during the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and published by The New York Times the next day. Here it is:

  
This remarkable article from Esquire Magazine in 2003 offers a summation of the complex and contradictory forces at play in deciding if running the image was the absolute right thing or the incredibly wrong thing to do.

If you were an editor on Sept. 11, what would you have done? And why?

Likewise, what would you do if you were a photographer covering an African famine and you came across a starving girl being stalked by a vulture? 

That was a real-world decision for one photog, and it may have led to his own unfortunate end.

Finally, what would you do if you were the photographer who took this award-winning pic of this badly-burned girl in the Vietnam War? 

Look carefully at each picture; read each link carefully and in its entirety; and then let's talk it out.

What I'd like you to do for each photo is to answer the following questions for each of the three photos and scenarios:

-- Do you agree with the course of action actually taken by the photojournalist? Why or why not? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.

-- What you would have done and why if you were the photographer? Cite ethical values we've discussed in the blog and read in the ethics chapter.


I want to hear what you think, and why. I'm not looking for simply your personal opinions; I'm looking for your professional opinions, based on what we've learned and what we believe in as journalists and as human beings.

Ethics: What I Would Have Done

Many ethical decisions in journalism are best guesses; rarely is there an obvious "right" answer. We look at the circumstances, apply our values and aim to do the most good and the least harm. In the messy real world, never is that ratio 100 percent good/zero percent harm. It's subjective as hell, but that's the way the world is.

But here's what I would have done, and why:

On Sept. 11, 2001, I would have shot and decided to run the Falling Man pic. To me, it is the most powerful symbol of the day. 9/11 wasn't about airplanes hitting buildings; it was about 3,000 individual people, with lives just like you and me, who had to make horrible death-or-death decisions like, "Do I fall 102 stories or do I burn to death?" That picture brings home that this was humanity at its worst in an incredibly powerful way.

But it may have been too powerful for that day.I think on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have regretted that choice. That's because in reality, there was a ton of public fury over the publication and airing of jumper pics, like the Falling Man one. The public was spending far more time considering editorial judgment (arguing if it was death porn) rather than editorial content (the humanity behind 9/11).

The point of how we write a story or what photo we use is to highlight the facts, meaning and content of the subject we're focusing on, and not distract from it. On 9/11, at least, the pic was a distraction. With the next-day perspective maybe I would have run it Web-only with a disclaimer, or run it well after 9/11, when the wound wasn't as raw. 

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't have run pics showing humanity, or even the brutal side of 9/11. It's just I think I would have edited more carefully to show pics that make the point of human tragedy without alienating my audience. Journalism without an audience simply isn't journalism. There's no perfect way to measure that; I would have to consider the facts, then the audience and where it draws the line, and make an educated guess.

You need to share what you see. That doesn't necessarily mean every literal thing you see -- like the Falling Man -- but it does have to be something that is representative of all the things you saw and heard. Maybe another image would have done that, while being more receptive to the audience. Maybe Falling Man would have been better considered by the audience well after that day, after wounds have been allowed to heal somewhat.

Then again, the root of the word news is new. That's no accident; it's news only if it's new, or recent, or revelatory. Is it news if I hide it when it matters most: right when something is happening? Maybe not.

Yes, you want to tell stories truthfully, even if the truth is brutal. But you don't want to distract from the story's underlying point, either. And we have to serve the audience when they want or need news. Our challenge is to reconcile those three factors, even when it's hard. Like it was on 9/11.

I would have taken the starving girl/vulture pic, and I would have run it. But I would have done something else in-between those actions. I would have taken the girl to a first aid station after getting the pic.

Just taking the pic and doing nothing else is not a good choice, in my view. This wasn't an instance where there were hundreds of people waiting to die, all of whom one journalist couldn't help. This was one child; one child is doable.

But helping the girl without taking the pic I find to be a bad choice. First, the way journalists help the most people while hurting the fewest is by sharing horrible things happening beyond the horizon of our audience. How can they possibly decide this is  tragedy and want to make a priority of helping if they don't see how bad it really is there?

Second, we are not there to be aid workers; we are there to be journalists. That's the reason we're there. That's why our news organizations paid for us to go. We can't forget what our job is. It's just that we don't forget we're human, either. We can be both simultaneously. What's more, we need to be both at the same time, never forgetting one or the other.

Given that explanation, I would have done exactly what was done regarding the Vietnam War burned girl pic. I would have taken the pic, illustrating what war really is: not just tanks and explosions, but the very real human carnage of an innocent and terrified girl having her clothes burned off. I would then have done whatever I could to help, like the journalists did in this case by securing medical treatment for the girl.

And then I would have run the pic; again, a story (or pic) without an audience isn't journalism. You need to share what you see.  That's why we were there in the first place. And we do no good to the masses if we don't share what we discovered.

What do you guys think on my points? Give it some thought. Quite often, there is no "right" answer in journalism; rather, there's a bunch of good answers. What we look for is the best solution, even if it's imperfect (and it usually is).   

Ethics: A Quiz!

What I would like you to do is to answer the following questions in an email. Then, send the email to me to omars@msu.edu, with the subject line of ethics quiz. This is a closed-book quiz; please take it after reading the ethics chapter and blog post, but DO NOT use those materials while actually taking the quiz. 

Here are your questions, to be answered in a true/false format:

1. Many reporter decisions have unintended and long-term consequences.

2. A question to ask when making an ethical decision is, "Does this decision fit the kind of journalism I believe in and the way people should treat one another?"

3.  Two important questions to ask when facing ethical decisions are "Who will be hurt, and how many?" and "Who will be helped, and how many?"

4. Deciding which side to present first in a story is a value judgment.

5. Managing editors encourage their journalists to become involved in city politics.

6. It is usually all right for reporters to interfere with police procedures.

7. News stories often are the sources of a second wound to victims.

8. The mirco issue is the main reason for publishing or airing a story.

9. Good journalists are also compassionate journalists.

10. It is ethical to lie about being a reporter when the result is a good story.

11. It is now acceptable to publish the names of all juvenile defenders.

12. Gossip is a good source for news topics.

13. Journalists must learn to recognize their biases.

14. Professional organizations can compel members to follow their ethics codes.

15. Being ethical means being able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Ethics: What I Would Have Done

Many ethical decisions in journalism are best guesses; rarely is there an obvious "right" answer. We look at the circumstances, apply our values and aim to do the most good and the least harm. In the messy real world, never is that ratio 100 percent good/zero percent harm. It's subjective as hell, but that's the way the world is.

But here's what I would have done, and why:

On Sept. 11, 2001, I would have shot and decided to run the Falling Man pic. To me, it is the most powerful symbol of the day. 9/11 wasn't about airplanes hitting buildings; it was about 3,000 individual people, with lives just like you and me, who had to make horrible death-or-death decisions like, "Do I fall 102 stories or do I burn to death?" That picture brings home that this was humanity at its worst in an incredibly powerful way.

But it may have been too powerful for that day.I think on Sept. 12, 2001, I would have regretted that choice. That's because in reality, there was a ton of public fury over the publication and airing of jumper pics, like the Falling Man one. The public was spending far more time considering editorial judgment (arguing if it was death porn) rather than editorial content (the humanity behind 9/11).

The point of how we write a story or what photo we use is to highlight the facts, meaning and content of the subject we're focusing on, and not distract from it. On 9/11, at least, the pic was a distraction. With the next-day perspective maybe I would have run it Web-only with a disclaimer, or run it well after 9/11, when the wound wasn't as raw. 

Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't have run pics showing humanity, or even the brutal side of 9/11. It's just I think I would have edited more carefully to show pics that make the point of human tragedy without alienating my audience. Journalism without an audience simply isn't journalism. There's no perfect way to measure that; I would have to consider the facts, then the audience and where it draws the line, and make an educated guess.

You need to share what you see. That doesn't necessarily mean every literal thing you see -- like the Falling Man -- but it does have to be something that is representative of all the things you saw and heard. Maybe another image would have done that, while being more receptive to the audience. Maybe Falling Man would have been better considered by the audience well after that day, after wounds have been allowed to heal somewhat.

Then again, the root of the word news is new. That's no accident; it's news only if it's new, or recent, or revelatory. Is it news if I hide it when it matters most: right when something is happening? Maybe not.

Yes, you want to tell stories truthfully, even if the truth is brutal. But you don't want to distract from the story's underlying point, either. And we have to serve the audience when they want or need news. Our challenge is to reconcile those three factors, even when it's hard. Like it was on 9/11.

I would have taken the starving girl/vulture pic, and I would have run it. But I would have done something else in-between those actions. I would have taken the girl to a first aid station after getting the pic.

Just taking the pic and doing nothing else is not a good choice, in myview. This wasn't an instance where there were hundreds of people waiting to die, all of whom one journalist couldn't help. This was one child; one child is doable.

But helping the girl without taking the pic I find to be a bad choice. First, the way journalists help the most people while hurting the fewest is by sharing horrible things happening beyond the horizon of our audience. How can they possibly decide this is  tragedy and want to make a priority of helping if they don't see how bad it really is there?

Second, we are not there to be aid workers; we are there to be journalists. That's the reason we're there. That's why our news organizations paid for us to go. We can't forget what our job is. It's just that we don't forget we're human, either. We can be both simultaneously. What's more, we need to be both at the same time, never forgetting one or the other.

Given that explanation, I would have done exactly what was done regarding the Vietnam War burned girl pic. I would have taken the pic, illustrating what war really is: not just tanks and explosions, but the very real human carnage of an innocent and terrified girl having her clothes burned off. I would then have done whatever I could to help, like the journalists did in this case by securing medical treatment for the girl.

And then I would have run the pic; again, a story (or pic) without an audience isn't journalism. You need to share what you see.  That's why we were there in the first place. And we do no good to the masses if we don't share what we discovered.

What do you guys think on my points? Give it some thought. Quite often, there is no "right" answer in journalism; rather, there's a bunch of good answers. What we look for is the best solution, even if it's imperfect (and it usually is).  

RFTM Ch. 6: Ethics

What are ethics? Simply put, acting and thinking morally and being able to distinguish between right and wrong. It's key to establishing credibility. But the answers to what is ethical and what is not can be elusive, situational and judgmental.

In ethical decision-making, there are several guiding questions. Among them:

• Who will be hurt by this story?
• Who will be helped?
• What do we usually do in similar situations?
• Is this the best alternative?
• Can you look yourself in the mirror tomorrow and believe you did the right thing for the right reasons?
• Can you justify your actions to the public?
• What principles or values can you apply?
• Does this decision fit the kind of journalism you believe in and the way people should treat one another?
• What is the objective of this story?
• Will my decisions contribute to the reason for writing the story?
• Is there a greater good that you're trying to accomplish that outweighs whatever bad that may result from my actions?

There are several issues central to ethics. First, we must maintain objectivity. We must put aside personal biases; be accurate, and offer proper context based on the facts we find.

Second, we must be on guard against exploiting grief. It's important to establish the true human impact of a bad happening; that's why we try to talk to victims and survivors and their loved ones. But that's difficult because of the state of victims and their families. We risk hurting victims again by creating a "second wound" of retelling and detailing a tragic event.

So, we need to weigh the importance in the community being able to appreciate the full, tragic weight of an event versus the harm that may be done to victims.

I mean, would you feel the same about something like 9/11 if you didn't hear the personal stories of what people went through that day? That's what made 9/11 news; not that planes hit buildings, but that those events altered scores of human lives like ours.

Then again, how must it be for victim families to hear those details re-aired, not only to them but to the whole world? There is no perfect answer; so we try to come up with the best imperfect answer we can.

Third, we should never steal or fabricate information. There's no grey area here; it's never acceptable. We're in the truth business. We tell the truth. It's the same as not tolerating a cop who steals or a firefighter who's a pyromaniac or a doctor that murders people. 

Fourth, we must take care in handling rumors and speculation. Ideally, reporters investigate rumors and come up with evidence so they can turn rumors into facts, or debunk rumors. We don't just report rumors.

Fifth, when witnessing a crime or disaster, we need to weigh the risk to the victim versus the value of information gleaned. If we come across a victim that is not being assisted, we should be human first and help others in need. If those hurt are already being assisted, do your job and let professional responders do theirs.

As journalists, we are trying to assist humanity. Our primary way of doing that is by sharing stories of importance to the greater world. It also means using common sense, being a human being and not being a dick when the circumstances call for humanity.

Sixth, conflicts of interest should be avoided. We are in a conflict of interest when we or someone close to us are in a position to benefit from a story we cover. Circumstances that create a conflict of interest include ... 

... accepting freebies. We should not accept anything of even minimal value from a news source. Whether or not the freebie actually influences a story is irrelevant; it can create a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest, and it's that appearance we're trying to avoid.

... free trips. We cannot accept transportation or lodging for an event that would otherwise be inaccessible. If we must be embedded with those we cover, we need to pay back the cost of our access.

... participating in the news. We should not hold public office, help with campaigns or special-interest issues, or write about issues in which we have a direct or indirect interest. For example, if we're the member of a fraternity, we shouldn't be the one writing about that frat's fund-raiser. If we think we have a conflict of interest, alert your boss and ask to be reassigned.

... dating and cronyism. Don't date who you write about. If you do, ask to be reassigned. Plus, don't allow similar conflicts with friends, family or your own private interests.

... "scratching backs." Don't write stories with the purpose of currying favor with a source. You write stories only because they are in the public interest, not your own. Try to have multiple sources in any subject area so you are not beholden to any single source for info.