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).
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.
