"Seek Truth and Report it" 

In our current day and age, it isn’t uncommon to hear of incidences of misconduct within the work field. Whether it is an executive charged with sexual harassment, a policeman allegedly acting out of racism, or a professor accused of fat-shaming, it seems that stories of “unprofessionalism” are always being published. Many people read these articles and believe every word without considering the side of the accused. However, what if the situation was published with a missing piece? 

Journalists are expected to follow a code of ethics. This code is a moral contract that ensures readers unbiased, accurate information. As a society, we trust that the journalists who provide us an insight into global affairs are following this code of ethics. However, it is naive of us to trust these writers because, without researching the topic ourselves, we do not know if the situation is presented in its entirety. 

The Society of Professional Journalists calls for writers to “Seek the Truth and Report It,” “Minimize Harm,” and “Be Accountable and Transparent.” It is simple for journalists to practice these principles as long as they do not let bias and sensationalism interfere with the credibility of their publications. 

To understand the possible devastation of irresponsible journalism, it can be applied to a situation detailing professional misconduct. Circumstances viewed in this manner are often fueled by private lawsuits. Because of the litigation, accused parties may not be able to comment regarding the situation, and without the input of both involved parties, the article could become a misrepresentation of the event’s reality. Admitting the accused individual’s leg

ally binding silence does not remove the fact that the public is only hearing the situation from the side of the “victim.” Breaking the code of ethics into its ideals, the given situation can be analyzed in a more refined manner. 

As previously mentioned, journalists are asked to “Seek the Truth and Report It.” In the case of reporting on a misconduct lawsuit, journalists cannot always collect all the information necessary to “Seek the Truth and Report It.” Said journalists are only able to address the “victim’s” truth. Through this exclusion, readers are not able to fully comprehend the situation and make their own, informed decisions. Much of the audience will side with the “victim,” as the article will be written in such a way that the accused party will not receive the same opportunity to defend himself or herself. 

Moving on, journalists should be morally obligated to “Minimize Harm.” In featuring alleged professional misconduct, the writer is providing an opportunity for the accused party’s reputation to be affected beyond repair. Even if the individual accused is, in the end, innocent, the public may still view him or her in a corrupt light. Because of one journalist’s possible negligence, a competent, caring professional’s career can be shattered forever. 

To show principles of integrity, a journalist must “Be Accountable and Transparent.” A journalist may choose not to assign his or her name to a piece written if frightened by the possibility of backlash. If the creator of a piece does not believe in it enough to support it explicitly, then how could the public be expected to believe in it? If a person is not confident enough to stand behind his or her work, perhaps the piece should not have been published at all. 

Irresponsible journalism is a careless, harmful practice. Whether it is intentional, or simply a case of misrepresentation, it affects everyone involved with the piece. Aside from the obvious repercussions on the accused, reckless journalism can heavily influence society’s understanding of the world around them. A reader can develop hatred for an individual whose actions were distorted within the article. Qualified, compassionate professionals can be damaged beyond repair in the eyes of the public. 

Unfortunately, we can no longer blindly trust every news source. We cannot expect that the information with which we are presented is complete. To fully understand published articles, we must take a step back and think objectively. Could there be more to this story? Is everyone involved equally represented? We must understand that there are truths hidden out of our sight. We, as a society, must advocate for the opportunity to form our own opinions.