Yes, journalists come across ethical questions all the time. In class we’ve discussed several of them. The following were all experienced by my professor to some degree or other during his career and generated heated debate in class.
The first example is still the most controversial. In the scenario below, assume you are against the death penalty.
A man is on death row and tomorrow, after his clemency hearings (his last chance to appeal for life in prison) he will probably die.
You interview him and he tells you to talk to another witness that can clear him, but never testified in court. Following that lead you talk to the witness and instead of clearing him, he gives you undeniable proof that the man on death row is guilty.
Question: (Keep reading for the Question)
Question: Do you print the story
Question: Do you print the new information, damming this man to fry in the electric chair? Or do you print another story without that extra information. (keep in mind you are against the death penalty in this scenario).
Me, I say print it. It’s the truth and even if you are against the death penalty, you aren’t pulling the trigger, nor is it your role to play judge and jury. Others argued that you are then participating in a system that you don’t agree with and worried about guilty feelings that would follow. But for me, the truth is the truth is the truth and that’s what journalists print.
The most poignant comment in my favor: If it were the day before the trial (not the execution) you would most definitely print the new info, even if that meant he would be sentenced to death. So why does the timing make one choose differently.
Another example: Assuming you are a pacifist
Another general problem: Can journalists get involved in the story. Answer: It depends.
The first example (death sentence scenario) might leave one saying: “Of course you report the story, a journalist should never let their personal feelings get in the way of the story.”
But this is about ethics. Being a journalist doesn’t mean you aren’t a person. In fact, many times it means you are a person in very dangerous and complex situations.
If you’re sitting in the newsroom and suddenly there is a car crash in front of the building, who do you call first: 9-1-1 or….. the photographer? When do you switch caps from citizen to journalist?
If you are a pacifist embeeded as a war reporter and you see a sniper about to shoot at one of the soldiers with whom you’re embedded, do you warn him? The first response is, “Hell yes.”
But would you do the same for an Iraqi in the sight of an American soldier? “Hey, look out Mr. Iraqi, one of my soldiers over here is going to kill you!”
What if you were embedded with the enemy (something we need more coverage of) and they were about to shoot an American? — this is a generally tough question: I think we should have more journalists embedded with the enemy. I think we are curious how the think, what they do etc, but when would the journalist know too much? Following them as they hide and camp is one thing, trailing them when they plant explosive devices is a huge moral quandary.
Some questions are tough. It’s funny because now matter how tough they are, they also require split second decisions.