There are no journalistic ethics that transcend the value of human life. There are none. In a situation where you can save a human life, you must. There isn't any conflict in my mind.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The ethics of journalism are one thing. Another thing is the ethics of business.
Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and further life it is bad to damage and destroy life.
The most important ethical issues and the most difficult ones are the human ones because a reporter has enormous power to hurt people.
I do think that there are gray lines of morality in a newsroom, when it comes to some stories. The best-intentioned journalist still has a difficult mission, to try to boil down people.
Journalism, for me, has always been a calling. There are things that must be exposed to the light, truths that must be uncovered, stories worth risking your life for.
In essence, I see the value of journalism as resting in a twofold mission: informing the public of accurate and vital information, and its unique ability to provide a truly adversarial check on those in power.
The media does play a vital role in our democracy, and if we cannot depend on journalistic ethics, the nation's in trouble.
We have rights in America. In tandem with those rights, we have responsibility. Whatever type of journalist we are, whether it be in the entertainment business, or as professional journalists, we always have the consequences of the way we present fact and information.
I don't think there's any reason in journalism not to approach stories we cover with humility, empathy, compassion, and intellectual openness. I mean, I think those are just important human traits. I don't think that precludes scrutiny, negativity, where it's appropriate.
Journalism without a moral position is impossible. Every journalist is a moralist. It's absolutely unavoidable.