An ethical question....?

Question

Hypothetically, suppose you're a journalist who used to work for a congressman, whom we'll call Congressman #1. Then suppose that, in the course of your work, you came across a staff member of Congressman #1's rival in the upcoming elections, whom we'll call Congressman #2.

Suppose this staff member of Congressman #2 (for some inscrutable reason) told you about a fascinating legal matter that could affect the election--say, a past conviction this Congressman #2 tried to bury.

What would you do? As a former staff member for Congressman #1, there's a definite perception of bias on your part.

But suppose it's a really pertinent piece of information...

I am looking for thoughtful responses from people who have an understanding of and respect for journalism.

Suppose you don't CURRENTLY work for Congressman #1 (Of course) but worked for him in the PAST.

Oh, and the piece of incriminating information is verifiable and, it turns out, true.

Answer 1

First, you say nothing of what your current job is, so we'll have to assume (by the category) that it has something to do with Journalism.

First and foremost you must ethically be charged with finding out the truth about this "hearsay". The staff member MAY be in the right position to give truthful information, but in a campaign, we all know that candidates sometimes give out false information hoping that it will get used by the media or their opponent so that they can attack both for being wrong. So, first you must decide (or detect) whether the information is truthful, or whether the staff member can be trusted to give out truthful informaiton. (After all, what does he gain by giving out potentially damaging information about his boss? Nothing? They why does he?) .

But let's take the idea that the 'hearsay' is, in fact, a truthful account. Let's also say that the staff member offered indisputable proof of the 'allegations' against Cong. #2. The question must also be asked of this 'Staff Member' as to what they hope to gain by releasing the informaton. In addition, it should also be pointed out that the information may end up in the paper because of your involvement. The Staff Member deserves this as a courtesy.

Your adhearance to ethics falls realy into three categories the order of which is determined by your own conscience.

1) to the Truth. As a journalist, you are bound to diseminate the truth about any candidate, espeically if it could affect the election of a dishonest politician. (And we all know that all politicians are honest, don't we....) Turn the information over to the paper, get the article written (get the by-line) and the glory.

2) To the law. If the information you have about Cong#2 is evidence of some unlawful act, you are also bound by the law to turn this information over to the proper agency for review. But as you point out, this is a PAST Conviction, so we know that the legality has already been tested in court, and the law couldn't care less.

3) Your allegiance to Cong. #1. Ok, so you really like this old geezer, and you want to see him re-elected. You can take him the information and allow HIM to break the story, asking for the exclusive and of course, the by-line (above the fold would be nice, don't you think?)

Actually, if it were me, I'd go with 3. I show my allegience to Con. #1 by bringing them the information and offer them the option of a news release (through me, of course). An exclusive wherein I get the article, the glory and all the media attention. #2 really doesn't matter as it's a past deal for Con.#2 and by getting the exclusive with Con.#1 you also are true to your career as a journalist.

The true test of ethics is the part where you inform the Staffer of the fact that you intend to release this information, or at least to pass the informatoin on to the public. You know what you want to do the moment the proof is shown, so letting this poor schlub know is only proper and yes, ethical.

Answer 2

Journalist working for a congressman?
Journalists typically work for a media outlet, like a newspaper or TV network. or freelance, like Matt Drudge
however, I think you are asking about the ethical implications of journalism, not hiring practices of congressmen
I trust journalists (I don't really trust journalists) to report the news as soon as it can be verified. That is, it IS WRONG to sit on a story until election time. Waiting for election to report news on a candidate is not journalism, its campaigning
If its really that important, contact the canidate, the one you have the dirt on, and ask for permission to release the story, that's about as good a compromise there is

Answer 3

Being a journalist means you have to report the news. If I was the journalist, I would not just go by the informants word and leak the story prematurely. I would keep it quiet and investigate the facts for myself. If and when there is truly a story to report, then it should be made available to the public.

Answer 4

This is a very difficult question. How one might respond to this dilemma depends on large part with the value system which has been evolving within you since childhood. Knowing right from wrong is an easy task, even for sociopaths, but reflecting and acting morally on an issue hinges on who YOU really are or want to be. So the answer lies within the question: Who do you want to be?

Answer 5

Your a journalist so what is your loyalty lies?...Truth?

How do you frame this information into the public mind? Is it just data or pointed to one direction.

You gather information like a machine. Trust the data to be place in the right location (public) and let us make that decision for you.

my guess you don't have the last say anyway your editor does.

Answer 6

I am just waiting for the time when journalists dig up dirt on each other and only put themselves under the ultra microscope. Of course that will never happen. If it was my job to blab I'd blab I have kids to feed.

Answer 7

if you are working for just money, standby congressman-1. if you have concisous and you can stand-by, be fair to yourself.

Answer 8

Sell it to the highest bidder.