Introduction
The mass media fraternity is characterized by codes of ethics. The first known ethics in the mass media were implemented in 1923 under the Canons of Journalism of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. (Vivian, 2009, p. 506) Almost every stakeholder in the mass media is regulated by well-set codes and ethics. Many people who are new in the field of journalism assume that all the choices they make in news reporting are contained in the existing codes. While adhering to the set codes can be helpful in a great way, sticking to them is not such an easy thing. This difficulty is best brought about when a broadcaster is presented with a situation where he has to make a choice between sticking to the codes of ethics and fulfilling a moral obligation to the society. A good example is the clause in the code of ethics that states that reporters are supposed to show reverence to the privacy and dignity of the public. However, there are times when these issues become obsolete considering the priorities at hand. A journalist who is confronted by such an issue would find himself or herself in a sort of dilemma that if not handled clearly may result to the fall of the journalist or harm to the public. (Vivian, 2009, p. 506)
Ethics Versus the law
An important thing to know is that ethics and the law are closely related. However, a major difference occurs in the way they are applied. Ethics is a matter ingrained in an individual’s conscience. It is important to understand that conscience is a matter that is inherent to an individual. In life, no two people can have the same conscience. This is the reason why where one journalist would find it unethical to report some things, another will find it to be a walk in the park. There are however some things that all journalists agree on. This is where the law comes in. It is however important to point out that there are things that the law permits but one that individual journalists would find it hard to adhere to. Other issues might be illegal but journalists will find it impossible not to report them. It is in such times when journalists find themselves in a dilemma on the right cause of action to take. (Vivian, 2009, p. 518)
A classic example of a journalist confronted with an ethical dilemma was a report on roaches in a food outlet known as the Utah Restaurant Association. The 1998 report by KVTX television showed how the restaurant kitchens were infested with cockroaches. It also showed how the restaurant staff used in hygienic methods in handling the food. (Vivian, 2009, p. 497) After the report, the television station was taken to court for infringing on the rights of the restaurant. According to the restaurants’ attorney, the report had tampered with the restaurants right of privacy. This report must have presented the journalist with a dilemma in its reporting. (Ralph, 1965)
The ethical dilemma presented in such a case is the possible outcome of such a report. As it is, such a damning report would make the restaurant lose customers who would be irate on the low level of hygiene practiced in the restaurant. The journalist preparing the report must also have mulled over the fate of the hotel staff in case the restaurant went under. On the other side, he/she also had to think of his viewers who were threatened with eating contaminated food in the restaurant if the right standards of hygiene were not practiced. (Humber, Almeder, & Kasting, 1994)
The journalist had several choices in reporting the issue. The first thing that the journalist would have decided to do would be to ignore the fact that there were low standards of hygiene in the restaurant. He would also have empathized with the owner of the restaurant over the possible loss of business. Since the journalist, must have come from a family, he could have looked at the financial implications that the people who lost jobs in the restaurant would encounter. This feeling would be brought about by the thought that the person who has lost the job is depended by his family to provide their daily bread. These issues could make the journalist rescind his decision on reporting on the issue. On the other hand, his failure to report on the issue would mean that the restaurant continued to practice in hygienic methods in food preparation. This in essence would mean that there is the possibility of the journalists viewers contracting diseases brought about by poor food handling. (Clifford, Kim, & Mark, 2002)
The journalist must have considered many things to come to his/her final decision. One thing that he must have considered was the profits that the restaurant had been making over the years. It is apparent that the restaurant had been in operation for several years and should have used part of its proceeds to employ competent staff who knew about proper food handling. Another thing that the journalist understood was that he had a duty to his viewers. This duty was to inform them of the dangers they were exposing themselves to in eating contaminated food. The journalist also had a duty to his employer who in this case was KVTX TV. At the end of the day, the journalist had to fulfill his duty to his viewers and to his employer. (Harris, 2001, p.368)
I completely agree with the decision that the journalist took in addressing the issue. This is because every time I go to a restaurant as an individual, I expect that the food I am served is of high quality. There is no way to know how food is handled in kitchens and it only takes the efforts of a good journalist to bring out what happens “behind the scenes”. Failure to do this would see consumers continue to be exploited by people who have no regard for the well-being of the society. However, I think the journalist should have first talked to the restaurant owner to warn him if he did not improve sanitation in the restaurant then, he would be forced to go public with the report. This would have brought the owners of the restaurant to their senses and saved all the involved parties a great deal of pain. (Humber, Almeder, & Kasting, 1994)
The report of the journalist must have had an instant impact on the involved parties. Though the restaurant owners sued the TV station, it is obvious that they had to do something about the level of hygiene in the restaurant. The report also served as a wake up call to the society. Through the report, they learned that the restaurant they loved most did not meet the expected level of hygiene. With this information, they were better placed to decide if to continue going to the restaurant or not. Again, had the report not been broadcast, customers and the society would continue being given food that did not meet the expected quality. This would also be some good information to the body that deals with ensuring proper sanitation in such places to act. (Thomas, 2004)
In reaching the decision, the journalist should have looked at the existing laws addressing the issue. One law that clearly covers this area is the Libel Law. This is a situation where a journalist prints damaging and false information on the life of a person. Under this law, the offended party has the right to take the journalist to court. However, the journalist in this case was protected since he ensured that he had proof of what he was reporting on. This would automatically prevent the owners of the restaurant from suing under this law. There is also a legislation that allows for comment and criticism and that is what the journalist seems to have stood on. (Ralph, 1965)
However, there are other laws that the journalist disregarded in carrying out his/her report. Though he/she could not be sued for libel since they had clear evidence on what they were reporting on, one thing that they disregarded was the respect of privacy. Both the law and the media code of ethics realize the respect of people’s privacy. When the restaurant found out they could not sue under the libel act, they decided to sue under the infringement of privacy. This was something that the journalists had not expected and the case went against them. According to the restaurant’s attorney, the journalist trespassed on the restaurants property. As it is, he had gone in to a private area without the permission of the restaurant. In this case, the private area was the kitchen and other areas that are out of bounds for the public in the restaurant. This is something that journalists should take seriously since the constitution spells out clearly the implications of trespassing on private property. (Thomas, 2004)
Conclusion
From the above scenario, it is evident that journalists while in the course of their work are presented with some situations that call upon them to make decisions that are outside the law or outside their code of ethics. Such scenarios present a journalist with hard choices and often leads to a dilemma. It is important for a journalist in such moments to first consider their priorities before going on with their reporting. They should also be conversant with different laws that govern their profession. Understanding the law clearly will in most cases prevent individual journalists and media houses from being taken to court for breaking the law.
One mistake made by many journalists is their failure to verify the sources of their information before going public with a certain report. This often leads to libel cases against many media houses. These libels can be very expensive when ruled against a media house or an individual journalist. In most cases, libels have been found out to cause the collapse of giant media houses. This can only be avoided if journalists seek out to present the facts as they are to the public. This is something that many journalists do not want to undertake in the spirit of beating deadlines. However, considering the final implications, it is a sacrifice that is worthy making.
References
Clifford G. C, Kim B. R, & Mark. F. (2002).Media Ethics (6th Ed), Longman.
Harris, N.M. (2001). “The euthanasia debate.” J R Army Med Corps, vol.147, no.3, pp. 367–70
Humber, M.J, Almeder, F.R, & Kasting, A.G. (1994). Physician-assisted death (Ed), Human Press.
Ralph B. P. (1965). “The Structure of American Christian Responses to the Nuclear Dilemma, 1958–1963.” Harvard University. America
Thomas, B. (2004). Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations and Journalism. Erlbaum.
Vivian, J. (2009).The Media of Mass Communication (9th Ed), Allyn & Bacon. Pearson Education, Inc.