In the event that I was a journalist reporting an airline's illegal practices that would result in 20 percent of the city being left unemployed if such information was made public I would have to look at it from a couple of points of view.
On one hand, you have the fact that when writing news you have to “Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance” (Day, 455). With that, I think it is important to note that with every story reported there can definitely be repercussions of this magnitude such as 20 percent of people being laid off. The way I see it can almost be inevitable, but I think in this aspect of things it comes down to whether or not you appreciate the honesty and hard facts of the reporting. For example, news writer Nanette Light would write about not-so-flattering things about a Dallas School District, more specifically about its higher-ups (Mervosh). She once wrote about why the CFO of ISD (Dallas Independent School District) had a vote no sign about school tax increase up in his front lawn; this story could have potentially cost him his job, but even he himself appreciated Lights honesty when she reported.
On the other hand, you have the choice to save face and let people keep their jobs, meanwhile, the airline company can still conduct illegal activity since it is not known on a grand scale. When you choose this side of things you would exercise the ethics code to “Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage” (SPJ Code of Ethics). With that, I think it's important to note how one instance of reporting that doesn’t show compassion can affect how people view reporters as a whole. For example, Julia Dahl recounted how she may have ruined a man and his son’s day by trying to report on a man trying to turn his life around by going to college after serving a prison sentence for child pornography(Dahl). I think this is not exactly the same as losing your job for an airline report, but in essence can be similar because the man is minding his business not thinking his past can still haunt him, to it all of sudden affecting his life more than he thought. Whereas we can look at it from the airline standpoint of these people don’t know what is going on with their airline company and immediately a report on it can turn their lives for the worst too.
Personally, I think I would choose the scenario where I did a report on the illegal practices of procuring the fuel the planes need because just as we would not be reporting to protect the lives of the employees, I feel as though the illegal practice should be brought to light to protect all of the airline's passengers. In this situation, you would really be exercising the principle of utilitarianism. As a journalist whatever decision you make, whether it be reporting or not reporting, isn't going to affect you, therefore you need to think of which situation would protect the most people. In this case, I believe more people would be affected by faulty fuel than the 20% of people losing their jobs because of the report. Ultimately, the report would be all facts because the confidential source's information was proven to be correct.
References:
"SPJ Code of Ethics." Society of Professional Journalists, 6 Sept. 2014, www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
Dahl, Julia. “What I Learned about Journalism at the New York Post.” Columbia Journalism Review, Columbia Journalism Review, 31 July 2017, www.cjr.org/first_person/new-york-post-reporting-lessons.php.
Day, Louis A. Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies. Southbank, Victoria, Australia: Thomson, Wadsworth, 2006. Print.
Mervosh, Sarah, et al. “These Reporters Lost Their Jobs. Here Are the Stories They Couldn't Tell.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/us/local-news-lost-stories.html.
Comments