In this scenario, an award-winning journalist is offered a top job at national TV station, but soon after starting her new job she discovers corruption in the media house.
The journalist is something of a maverick by nature but has uncovered some exclusive stories on corrupt practices involving mining companies and politicians in the past.
Eventually her work leads to an award as anti-corruption journalist of the year.
The TV station recruits the journalist to be the main presenter on its evening business programme..
The journalist is excited by the new job and is looking forward to bringing her award-winning investigative journalistic approach to the programme
However, it transpires that the TV station has signed a secret contract with the minister in charge of ‘Industry and Development’. It’s worth $250,000 USD, and guarantees the minister at least 10 appearances on the programme during a 20-week run.
The journalist finds out about the contract, but has only just joined the TV station where she is earning three times as much as she did in her previous job.
Should she:
- Say nothing but strive to ask difficult questions to balance out any bias
- Raise her concerns with the producer of the programme and the TV station’s management and hope that they will at least acknowledge that any interview is paid for
- Resign immediately and say nothing about why
- Resign immediately and leak the story to the TV station’s main competitor.
Suggested action
In the real example of this scenario the reporter resigned but said nothing. However tough the interview might be, the repetitional risk to the reporter’s name as a journalist was considered to be more important than any other consideration.
Raising the concerns with the station management was pointless, since corruption works two ways. Accepting the money is as corrupt as taking it. Leaking the story would have broken the terms of the reporter’s contract of employment.
Let’s break down this scenario and analyse the journalist’s options, considering the context of her established reputation and the ethical implications.
Analysis:
- The journalist’s strengths:
- She’s a proven, award-winning investigative journalist with a strong anti-corruption track record.
- She’s a “maverick,” indicating she’s not afraid to challenge the status quo.
- She has high ethical standards, evidenced by her past work and the dilemma she faces.
- The TV station’s corruption:
- The secret contract reveals a clear conflict of interest and a breach of journalistic integrity.
- The station is willing to compromise its credibility for financial gain.
- This suggests a systemic issue, not just a one-off incident.
- The journalist’s dilemma:
- She’s faced with a choice between her career advancement and her ethical principles.
- The high salary creates a strong incentive to stay, but her reputation is at stake.
- She must balance the potential for internal change with the risk of being complicit in corruption.
Suggested action:
- The real world example of the reporter resigning and saying nothing is understandable, but not optimal. It preserves the reporters reputation, but does not expose the corruption.
- The analysis of raising concerns with management being pointless is very likely accurate. Corrupt systems protect themselves.
- The analysis of leaking the story breaking the terms of the reporters contract is also accurate.
The options:
- Say nothing but strive to ask difficult questions:
- Pros: Allows her to keep her job and high salary.
- Cons: Compromises her integrity, makes her complicit in the station’s corruption, and risks damaging her reputation. The minister will still have a platform to spread propaganda. Her questions, while possibly difficult, will be within a system that has been bought.
- Raise her concerns with management:
- Pros: Attempts to address the issue internally.
- Cons: Highly unlikely to succeed, as the station is complicit. Could lead to retaliation or dismissal. Reveals her knowledge of the contract, and removes the element of suprise if she chooses to leak the story.
- Resign immediately and say nothing:
- Pros: Preserves her integrity and avoids direct association with the corruption.
- Cons: Does not expose the corruption, allowing it to continue. Potential loss of income and career momentum.
- Resign immediately and leak the story:
- Pros: Exposes the corruption, holds the station and minister accountable, and upholds journalistic ethics.
- Cons: Potential legal repercussions for breach of contract, risk of retaliation, and potential career backlash. However, the journalists reputation would be enhanced by the action.
Best course of action:
Considering the journalist’s established reputation and the severity of the corruption, resigning immediately and leaking the story to the TV station’s main competitor is the most effective and ethical course of action.
- It aligns with her past actions and reinforces her commitment to anti-corruption.
- It holds the corrupt parties accountable and protects the public interest.
- While there are risks, the potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
- It is important that the leak of the information is done in a way that protects the reporter as much as possible, perhaps through the use of an intermediary.
Issues:
- Public interest: The public has a right to know about corruption within the media, as it undermines their trust in information sources.
- Long-term impact: Exposing the corruption can lead to systemic change and deter future unethical practices.
- Reputation mManagement: While there may be short-term challenges, the journalist’s long-term reputation as a principled and courageous journalist will be enhanced.
- Legal advice: The journalist should seek legal advice before leaking any information, to understand the legal ramifications and to protect themselves.
- Documentation: The journalist should document all the evidence that they have of the corrupt practices.
In conclusion, while resigning quietly might seem like the safest option, it does not serve the public interest or uphold the principles of journalism. By choosing to expose the corruption, the journalist takes a courageous stand and reinforces the importance of ethical conduct in the media.
