The ethical importance of good sources
When considering the ethicality of releasing a story with only one source I consult Kant’s categorical imperative. This ethical principle states to “act only on such maxim whereby at the same time you can will to become universal law.” According to this principle, if I, as a journalist say that it is ethical to break a story using only one source in this case, then I have to be able to say the same for all cases. This college news story may not seem like an issue that requires deep ethical thinking however, when using Kant’s categorical imperative, I am able to seriously consider the ramifications of the ethicality of my actions as journalist.
This ethical reflection through Kant’s principle allows me, as a journalist, to decide that it is not ethical to break a story using only one source. I came to this decision because even though the example in this case study seems minor, I would not be able to will my decision to become universal law.
In making this decision, I imagined what it would be like if a news station came out with a story that accused President Donald Trump of federal fraud, but they based the entire story off only one source. Even to somebody who has no knowledge of journalistic ethics or values, this story would have no credibility.
In the SPJ’s Code of Ethics, journalists are told to “verify information before releasing it,” “identify sources clearly” and “provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.” All of these standards were not met in the journalist’s decision to run this story at their college. Making the college journalist’s decision both unethical by Kant’s categorical imperative as well as by SPJ’s Code of Ethics.
According to Kant’s categorical imperative, finding evidence of the story on social media is not enough to justify running the story with still only one source, because I cannot will that action to become a universal law. As seen in this case, social media should never be the only source a news story is based off of. Social media evidence can easily be deleted, just like in this situation, which is why I could not will it to become a universal law.
SPJ’s Code of Ethics also states to “provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate,” and in this case the journalists were not able to meet this standard due to their reliance on only one source: social media. By doing this, the reporter risks their entire creditability and reliability as a journalist, which is vital to a successful career in the industry.
Breaking a story through a letter to an editor is not ethical when using Kant’s categorical imperative because then I would have to determine that in all situations, not just this one case, it is ethical. I do not feel like could will this action to become universal law because it leaves a source unnamed and questionable. I also personally believe it is an unprofessional way to go about reporting a news story.
When I consult SPJ's Code of Ethics as well there are also specific standards set that support this stance. Two of these standards state to “Identify sources clearly” and “the public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivation of sources.” When using this ethical code paired with Kant’s categorical imperative, I can determine that breaking a story through a letter the the editor is unethical because it does not identify a clear source. It leaves the source anonymous. Therefore, the public is not able to properly judge the reliability and motivation of the source involved.
Through reading this case study and the SPJ's Code of Ethics, I am better able to understand the ethical importance of multiple reliable and creditable sources in journalism.
