Why You Need a Process
In a perfect world, we would anticipate ethical dilemmas before they arise and make our choices without keeping one eye on the clock. In this less-than-perfect world, we'd be smart to think about our obligations and worries ahead of time and get some practice weighing the values that will undoubtedly collide half an hour before deadline.

But the value of knowing a system for making tough choices is that when a dilemma drops out of the blue, our decision-making is still more efficient and more reliable than trying to think of everything at once and for the first time.

Keep in mind:
· We should listen to our "gut" but not let it fool us into thinking we "know" the answer. We "know" the answer after we've worked through the issue, weighing guidelines, hearing diverse points of view, developing options.
· Ethical decision-making is less reliable when we go it alone. We should get several people with different perspectives - especially including the contrarian view - to walk through the issues. And we'll always be more confident of our choice if we can hear from the people who will be affected most. Collaborative decision-making sharpens our thinking so we're better prepared in those instances when we must go solo.
· There are multiple right answers. (But if we're mostly thinking of beating the competition or mostly hoping to get a reputation for daring masquerades, there are multiple wrong answers.)
· Since we work for the public, we are accountable for what we do in their name. Because of that, the ideal ethical decision is publicly justifiable; the moral reasoning behind it can be clearly explained to the public.
· It's OK to consider the interests of the news organization (i.e., the bottom line or the newspaper's credibility), but self-serving concerns can't count more than the interests of the public we serve or the people who may be hurt by our choice.
· A decision made on a case today doesn't dictate all future cases. But consistency is important in ethical decision-making. One way to measure our consistency is to identify what is unique each time a similar case brings us to a different decision and to justify that difference.
 
Tips
Step One: Define the goal You are about to work your way systematically to a good ethics decision. If we use a sound process to make journalism ethics decisions, we can be sure: we have not relied on fickle instinct, we have efficiently spent our time "on task," we have thought of everything we should, we can still meet the deadline.

Not to mention: we have made a good decision that we can justify, even to people who disagree. Making ethical decisions is a skill you can learn and use.

 
Give this case a label for future reference:
 
What do you need to decide and when do you need to decide it?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Step Two: Start with the facts. · What do we know for sure?
· What has happened so far?
· What pieces of the puzzle are missing?
· What are our assumptions?
· How might we be wrong?
· What are the facts from the point of view of those who might be harmed by our choice?
· Do we know enough to make this decision now?
· What else do we need to know?
 
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
Step Three: Know the journalistic purpose. If your dilemma involves content, answer these questions before you go on. If it's not about news gathering and reporting, skip to the next screen.
 
What story do our readers, viewers, listeners need?
 
 
   
   
   
Why are we obliged to report this particular information?  
   
   
   
   
Step Four: Consider the ethical principles at stake.
The social principles are gleaned from the works of Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Gert. Learn more about each principle that seems relevant before proceeding to Step Five.
 
PROFESSIONAL
· Serve the public interest
· Protect journalistic independence
· Inform the public
 
SOCIAL
· Do not jeopardize a life
· Minimize harm
· Act justly
· Help those in immediate need
· Keep promises
· Respect people
· Do not deceive
Step Five: Identify the principles that collide. Usually, what brings you to the ethics tool is the collision of two principles -- sometimes three. In this step, pick out the two or three principles that seem most applicable in this case. Circle "YES" next to each applicable principle. Weed out the principles that are not applicable by circling NA. The idea is to focus on the two or three principles that are most relevant.
PROFESSIONAL
NA YES NO  Serve the public interest
NA YES NO  Protect journalistic independence
NA YES NO  Inform the public

SOCIAL
NA YES NO  Do not jeopardize a life
NA YES NO  Minimize harm
NA YES NO  Act justly
NA YES NO  Help those in immediate need
NA YES NO  Keep promises
NA YES NO  Respect people
NA YES NO  Do not deceive
Step Six: Identify the stakeholders. 1. Source
2. Subject of the story
3. Family of subject or source
4. Institution affected
5. News organization
6. Other news organizations
7. Person making the decision
8. The journalist involved
9. Others

The above list is intended to provoke your thinking. You may choose to enter specific names or groups involved in your case.
 
Which of the stakeholders are the most affected?
 
 
 
Which of the stakeholders are the most vulnerable?
 
Step Seven: Identify your options. What alternative courses of action are possible? (Choose at least three options.)
 
Option 1
 
   
   
   
Option 2  
   
   
   
   
Option 3  
   
   
   
   
Add options as needed.  
Step Eight: Evaluate your options. Discuss the impact of each option on the most relevant prinicples at stake.

The stakeholders don't decide what you're going to do, but imagining their preferences is useful information when deciding, and helps you focus when minimizing harm.

 
Look at the principles you listed as the most relevant in this case:  (Step 5)
 
 
Discuss the impact of each option on the most relevant prinicples at stake here.
 
 
 
 
Step Nine: Make a choice. All things considered, what looks like the best way to proceed? (We have inserted the option you identified as best serving the most important principles in this case, but you can choose the likely favorite of a stakeholder and/or edit as you see fit.) If you have assigned equal rank to two or more principles, now is the time to decide which you value most in this situation.

What can be done to reduce the cost to a principle that is being outweighed in this case? (If we have decided to respect people -their privacy, say - at the cost of informing the public, what can we do to more fully inform the public in this case?)

And: How can we minimize the harm to vulnerable stakeholders? (If we have decided that informing the public is more important this time than protecting privacy, how can we reduce the impact on those whose privacy is being compromised?)

 
A good choice:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What can be done to reduce the cost to a principle that is being outweighed in this case?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
And: How can we minimize the harm to vulnerable stakeholders?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Step Ten: Test your thinking.
Write a story explaining your reasoning. Whether it's published or not, imagine that it will be seen by: those named in the story, sources, people hurt by the decision, your mentor, journalists at a competing shop, a teen-ager who looks up to you. Just fill in the blanks.
 
We have decided to
 
 
 
 
 
 
We reached the decision after weighing  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
We also considered  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
We think this decision best upholds the principle of  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
We believe our obligation to  
   
is outweighed in this case because  
   
   
To reduce the damage to  
   
we will