Throughout the course, we've looked into many debatable dilemmas that question our morals and ethics.We've looked into different trolley cases, undercover reporting, bribing sources, objectivity, and the list goes on and on. I think that's the beauty and curse about journalism; how ethical dilemmas can either present you as a credible and respectable journalist or frowned upon and questionable.
I have spoken to many journalists and one of the first things they immediately point out is "to always speak the truth". When you're a journalist, your credibility is the backbone to your career. The community reads your stories and trust that it is truthful and accountable. Once you lose your credibility, then whatever reputation you've gained as a journalist is lost in the public's eye. Therefore keeping an open mind and being objective is essential to being a journalist. Without objectivity then it's quite difficult to attain credibility.
The idea of undercover reporting has also come up during class discussions. To do or not to do? I have recently come across an article about an undercover reporter investigating the abuse of seniors and people with disabilities in a care home in the UK. The reporter had applied for the position as a helper and had to witness the abuse, torture and inhuman acts that occurred right in front of his eyes. In undercover reporting, there are many ethical questions that are hard to identify as simply black or white. Should the reporter blow his cover in order to prevent an abuse? Is it ethical to film the event? When, if necessary, should he reveal his identity? In the end, the reporter kept his cover and knew that if the patient's life was in danger he would step in even if it meant blowing his cover. By keeping the utilitarianism idea in mind, he continued with the story, which led to a full investigation of the facility.
I base my code of ethics on utilitarianism. As a reporter, I feel that my duty is to provide the community with information that will help them understand and provide an unbiased account of the event. It's natural for all human beings to have an opinion and with every situation there are circumstances. In such cases, controversial documentaries like Taxi to the Dark Side can question if following the utilitarianism idea is well worth it at all. In a quick summary, the documentary illustrates the torture and humiliation of Afghan civilians made by U.S. troops in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Some U.S. citizens argue that we have the right to know about these situations. Others, have attacked reporters and filmmakers, claiming that they are unpatriotic for showcasing such a thing. But isn't it the truth?
Overall, I believe our personal code of ethics is a compilation of many things. It is a mixture of our morals that we have grown up living by, facts and ideas learned in class and personal experiences from our past. Not everyone have the same code of ethics, but there is definite overlapping. In the end, I personally believed that it's a matter of what you think is ethical and what you think is moral. While I may be against climbing over gates and showing up at my source's house, the person sitting next to me may have reasons to why this could be ethical. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced or I may convince him or her otherwise.
