AN EXAMPLE USING THE ETHICAL WORKSHEET

1. Issue: An activist group composed of concerned parents and several leading citizens have found a local paper’s series coverage of high school se and the transmittal of seually transmitted diseases (STDs) offensive. They argue that such coverage affects the moral character of high school and other students and does not belong in so public a forum as the local the paper. They are also concerned that the identities of the students used as "case studies" in the series might be discovered, and also that the reputation of the entire school district might be harmed.

2. Relevant facts include:

• Several leading citizens (including two school board members) have signed a letter to the editor asking that the series be terminated.
• Their concern is over the "delicate" nature of the topic in so public a forum.
• Some state that the names of the "sources" should be made known so that they can seek medical treatment and not be allowed to "spread the disease."
• The paper is the only one in town.
• The series is also slated to cover the danger of AIDS and other STDs.
• The paper has taken care to conceal the names of actual students it has interviewed.
• Readership has dropped with the advent of "soft" news on local TV, especially the tabloid-type syndicated programs airing just before prime time.
• As editor and primary decision maker in this case, I am aware that my own high-school-aged children face the same problems my paper is portraying.
• Special considerations include the need for confidentiality of sources, the general moral tenor of the community (it is fairly conservative), and whether the newspaper is using the series simply to boost circulation.

3. Claimants:

• Parents: Parents seek some measure of control over their children’s behavior, especially in the area of se education. Many would prefer the subject be confined to their households for discussion. Parents of students featured in series are especially vulnerable, even if the students’ names are withheld. (Duty of non-injury.)
• Students: They are not naive, but some of them, like their parents, might prefer the topic be discussed in a less open forum, although they might see this as a useful service to their peer group. Students used as sources for the story need to protect their identities and are relying on the paper to maintain their confidentiality. Also, they would probably want their "lessons" to be of some use to others. (Duties of non-injury and fidelity to sources not to reveal names.)
• Reporters: Need to protect their right to gather and print information they feel is important to the public interest, often despite pubic opinion to the contrary. (Duty of self-improvement; duty of fidelity to the profession and the community.)
• The paper itself: Must maintain its viability by producing stories that not only inform the community, but compete well in the marketplace. (Duty of fidelity to the paper and to the community.)
• School officials: Might feel they are being put in a bad "light" since students under their supervision are the ones being featured in this series. (Duty of non-injury; duty of justice.)
• Community members: (Those who do not fit into above categories). They have a right to be kept aware of topics of concern/importance to the community. Despite the letter to the editor, many community members may, in fact, support the story being run. (Duty of fidelity, possibly gratitude.)

4. The options, as I see them, are:

• Continue with the series as is.
• Discontinue the series.
• Continue with the series, but offer to reduce offensive language or incidents pictured in the stories to an acceptable level.
• Continue with the series, and work with student and parent groups toward some resolutions to the problems portrayed in the stories. This way, we are a part of the solution, not just a recounting of the problem.

Favored options:

• Activist parents and citizens clearly would favor option b, and wouldn’t view option c as complete enough a measure
• The paper would favor a, but would probably view c as censorship. It might consider d.
• Students could go either way, but would probably favor a.
• Community would probably favor d.

Best- & worst-Case scenarios

• Continuing the series as-is Best case—no one gets hurt. The series is respected by community as good journalism. Lives are affected in a positive way. Worst case—could alienate more of my target audience. The paper could lose readership. I could lose my job.
• Discontinue the series Best case—our support among those protesting the series grows. Worst case—Some in the community would be pleased if we don’t continue the series; however, the paper would lose its journalistic integrity and will have violated its mandate to give the people what they need, not just what they want. We might also be violating the students’ trust, since they probably want the story told.
• Continue the series but with editing for language and graphic content Best case—no one is concerned with the editing. The story remains effective despite the editing. Worst case—the editing softens the story to the point that it is ineffective. Editing under community pressure is a bad precedent to set.
• Continue the series and work with the community toward a solution Best case—the series brings the problem to the community’s attentions. The paper is recognized as a good citizen. Worst case—people are still angry. The paper shifts its focus to "public journalism" and away from objective journalism.

Harm

• Any action would likely cause harm (or perceived harm) to some party, but in differing degrees.
• Ideals include: freedom of choice (for readers); freedom of speech (for the paper and its journalists); freedom from harm (for students, the schools and parents); respect for minority opinion; freedom from censorship (by both the paper and the community members who might wish to see the stories).

Conflicting ideals:

• Evidently, some parents and influential citizens favor stopping the series, thus upholding the principles of majority rule (to the etent that it is or may become a majority) and the right to protect their community from what they see as unnecessary eposure.
• The paper’s obligation to present information of concern and interest to the community and its right to be free from censorship obviously will conflict at times with some community opinions or ideals.
• Students, parents and schools who might be harmed from this would complain that their rights to protection from this kind of story are being violated by the paper. After all, isn’t it up to the community to say what is best for it?
• The community is likely to favor overall freedom of the press, despite disparate elements within the community who might feel otherwise. The key may turn on how loudly the activist group protests.
• My tendency, at this point, is to honor freedom of the press as an ideal, trying to keep in mind that I must limit, to the best of my ability, the harm that could come from my publishing the series in question. I must also make sure that increased readership is not the sole reason for my position.
• No ideal, viewed in context, invalidates any option. Viewed singularly, any ideal will rule out certain options.

Rules

• The code of the Society of Professional Journalists, Article I, states that it is the responsibility of journalists to provide news of public importance and interest. In fact, the code states that this is the "overriding mission" of the mass media. I think that this series could be said to be in the interest of the public. Some would call the subject into question, and Article V states that the news media should not pander to morbid curiosity about details of vice and crime. However, I don’t believe this series panders to the public curiosity in any way. As to naming the sources of the stories, Article III of the code strictly forbids this. I would say that the SPJ code is on the side of the media in this case.

Ethical theories:

Consequential:

• Mill’s "Harm Principle" allows restraints on liberty only if there is harm (or viola-tion of another’s liberty). The harm, in this case, has not been demonstrated. Indeed, there is a strong argument that this series will be beneficial to the community since it will help make them more aware of the problem of STDs.
• Egoism could be driving the paper to run the stories because it may help stimulate sales; however, given the SPJ code and the importance of the subject to the community, I think that the paper is not acting in an egoistic manner here.
• An argument could be made on utilitarian grounds that the objecting citizens rep-resent a majority of citizens in the community. However, continuing to publish the series is more in line with First Amendments intent, which is also utilitarian by nature and speaks to a greater societal good.

Non-consequential:

• There is a clear Kantian rule embodied in the First Amendment: "Don’t censor." In fact, and despite the obvious court-sanctioned eceptions, the First Amendment is couched in pretty clear "perfect duty" language.
• Ross’s prima facie duties apply in a number of ways. The newspaper owes a duty of fidelity to the citizens of the community. A newspaper operates to bring news to the community that it wants and needs to remain an informed citizenry. If it were to publish only that news that the community wanted, it would not be doing its civic duty. Non-injury, on the other hand, would have us consider the potential harmful effects of the stories on students. However, I would argue that we do greater harm covering up this sort of epidemic. Beneficence is also applicable since by printing the series of stories we are helping society come to grips with this problem.
• Aristotle’s Golden Mean is not especially applicable here since the middle ground would have us partially censor the stories, which goes against our First Amendment position of non-censorship. Plus, I believe that the stories would lose some of their impact if censored.

6. Decision:

I would continue to publish the series, making sure that no sensationalism creeps into the stories in any way. They will be factual and truthful. I will personally respond to the upset citizens of the community via an editorial which will contain much of my defense below.

7. Defense:

The position of those seeking to prevent publication is that citizens, and especially parents, should have some say in the degree to which their children are eposed to unsettling (and possibly sensational) information. This seems reasonable. However, as the only newspaper in town, we are obligated to present the community not just with news it wants, but also with news it needs. In an open, democratic society, this means eposing them to a variety of issues, some which potentially conflict with some individuals’ standards. In every controversial story, there will be something that someone finds objectionable. While you may disagree that some of the issues we choose to bring to your attention are worthy, we reserve the right, as citizens ourselves, to work on your behalf in presenting the news. We admit the paternalistic nature of this arrangement; however, we will continue to listen to you and to try to respond to your complaints while reserving the right to make the kind of judgments our training has prepared us to make. In short, we wouldn’t print a story we thought was not in the best interest of the community of which we are an integral part. Most importantly, we believe that any limitation on the freedom of epression in this country is counter-produc-tive and can only lead to further restrictions of our most valued liberty.