When advertising agencies rent space for their clients on the fences of stadiums and other sporting venues, they usually obtain secondary, and free, exposure for their clients when photographs or video of the event are reproduced on television, newspapers and magazines.
Presumably, the owner of the stadium or fence on which the original advertisement is displayed was paid for the use of the space. The question is: Can the broadcasters and publishers exposing the advertisement to an additional (and potentially much larger) audience, charge for that exposure?
What should the media do?

Results of the Previous Problems

May a journalist alter a story, even if to make the meaning clearer?

By John Virtue

Results

The majority of respondents would have acted ethically: 30% would have interviewed Vicente Fox and some of the Mexicans in the audience and 24% would have used a voice-over. The rest – 46% -- would have done what then candidate Fox agreed to: ask the moderator to read some of the questions in Spanish and have Fox answer them. The question I would ask is: are you altering reality by having Fox restage the question and answer? Of course. You would also be giving Fox an opportunity to better answer some of the questions.

The case

While campaigning for the presidency of Mexico, Vicente Fox went to a political rally in Washington in 2000. Since he was campaigning in the United States, Fox decided to conduct the event in English. Those questions that were submitted by Mexicans in attendance, in Spanish, were translated into English and answered in English.

Near the end of the session, a television crew from a Mexican station arrived. The producer was surprised that the event was being held in English, rather than in Spanish. What should he do?

1. Filmed the rest of the session and used a voice-over in Spanish?

2. Interviewed Fox and some of the Mexicans in attendance?

3. Asked the moderator to read one of the questions in its original Spanish and have Fox answer in Spanish?

When does a journalist become a participant in the story?

By John Virtue

Results

Journalists record the news and are not supposed to become participants in news events;.yet, they are often confronted with life and death situations.

One classic example: during the war in Vietnam, a monk doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire to protest hostilities. Peter Arnett, then a reporter for the Associated Press, said he could have saved the monk's life by removing the can of gasoline, but didn't because that was not what a journalist did. He also said that such an action would not have saved the monk's life because the man would have returned later to protest the war by committing suicide.

Of those who responded to the case involving another man determined to protest by dousing himself in gasoline and lighting a match, 42 percent said they would have left their camera in their vehicles and tried to convince the man to abandon his plans. Another 26 percent said they would have tried to convince the man while filming. Twenty-three percent would have called the police and not filmed. Just 9 percent would have filmed and not tried to dissuade the man.

Was there a proper ethical response? This is one of those rare cases where the reporter acts instinctively at the last moment. All four responses can be justified.

However, filming while trying to dissuade the man fulfils both a journalistic and a humanitarian goal.

I don't know what happened in the actual case.

The case

A man calls the TV station where you work to announce he is going to set himself on fire to protest the high unemployment rate. You pay no attention until the man calls for the third time, and then you call the police.

The man, a 37-year-old unemployed construction laborer, is obviously drunk, and asks you to send a reporter with a cameraman to the Central Plaza. None of your reporters is available, so you send two cameramen, a veteran and a rookie.

The rookie is a university student and part-time employee who, you hope, will act as reporter while trying to get some shots.

When the two cameramen arrive at the scene, the man approaches them, douses himself in gasoline and lights a match, yelling at them to keep their distance. The more experienced cameraman manages to get some footage before his partner rushes the man, trying to extinguish the fire with his notebook. The fire burns until the man runs across the Plaza and a fireman puts it out with a fire extinguisher.

What would you have done?

1. Nothing, except call the police, because the very presence of the cameras would prompt the man to set himself on fire.

2. Get the footage and then try to help the man.

3. Leave the cameras in the car and try to talk the man out of his purpose.

4. Try to dissuade the man from setting himself on fire while getting the footage.

Can you break the law to get the story?

By John Virtue

Results

By a margin of better than four-to-one, 82% to 18%, respondents opted to disclose to the audience that the film crew had violated state law in filming the corrupt officials gambling at the casino.

This is the first ethics case used in Pulso that reflects an actual case that originated in the United States, although a parallel case occurred in Mexico recently when a public official was also caught gambling.

This case came to light last September in Las Vegas at an investigative reporters' convention, which coincidentally was held in the MGM Grand, probably the largest casino in Las Vegas. And indeed, there are prominent warning signs posted warning that filming at the casino is against the law in the state of Nevada.

A television reporter presented the case as an example of good investigative reporting. Another reporter in the audience asked the presenter if she had disclosed to the audience that the station had broken the law to obtain the video.

She said it had not, but added that she would probably advise the audience were she to find herself in a similar situation in the future.

I have certain reservations about this case, the prime one being that such laws are likely pushed through state legislatures by casino operators seeking to protect their customers, or more to the point, their financial interests.

The case

You are assigned to film with a hidden camera the activities of three municipal employees attending a convention at a hotel casino. Your television station had been alerted by a disgruntled employee that these three have been to previous conventions and spent all of their time in the casino and not in the conference rooms. Sure enough, as you follow the three men about, you find they spend almost all of their time gambling, which you videotape. There are posted signs saying that the taking of photographs or videotaping in the casino is a crime under state law.

What should your producer do with your report since you broke the law to obtain it?

1. Tell the viewers that you ignored prohibitions on videotaping because the story was of sufficient importance to justify it.

2. Show the footage without any mention of the prohibition.

Compromised journalist?

By John Virtue

Results

No one likes to be used by someone else. But that is what happened to the reporter in this case, who discovered that the sugar company that was the object of his investigation had coordinated the interviews he was to make with the help of a media consultant.

Here's what Pulso readers would have done:

1. Ignore the document and continue with his story. 8%

2. Ignore the document and not do the story. 0%

3. Continue with his story, but before publishing it, tell his editor what he found out and let him decide. 33%

4. Publish the story of the document he found, including the list of media and journalists involved, as well as the name of the journalist who developed the plan. 21%

5. Publish the story along with interviews of all involved. 2%

6. Talk to company administrators. Tell them he is a professional working for an ethical medium which does not allow practices such as those in the plan and not publish the story. 36%

I agree with the plurality who elected option 6: confront the administration.

This was a case presented at recent a workshop in Nicaragua. I don't know what decision the reporter finally took, but I hope he consulted first with his editor, No. 3. He could then advise him what to do: confront the administration or continue with the report.

The case

A journalist working on a story about the increase in sugar production visits a sugar mill, he interviews several people, and in an idle moment, finds himself alone in an office. While there, he finds some documents that outline a plan to improve the image of the company that owns the sugar mill, drafted by a self-proclaimed "independent" journalist.

The document includes a list of media and journalists to be paid for publishing articles burnishing the company's image. Among the names, the journalist finds his own. What should he do?

1. Ignore the document and continue with his story.

2. Ignore the document and not do the story.

3. Continue with his story, but before publishing it, tell his editor what he found out and let him decide.

4. Publish the story of the document he found, including the list of media and journalists involved, as well as the name of the journalist who developed the plan.

5. Publish the story along with interviews of all involved.

6. Talk to company administrators. Tell them he is a professional working for an ethical medium which does not allow practices such as those in the plan and not publish the story.

Can you use an old interview as if it were current?

By John Virtue

Results

Those of you who responded overwhelmingly chose to publish an interview the following day, even though the competition would have had the story first, rather than use an old interview as if it were new: 92 percent.

If any of the other options were used, probably only the president of the university would have known. But he would have known that the newspaper was not being honest with its readers. He would no longer consider the newspaper credible.

The source of this case study was a newspaper that published an old interview as if it were new.

The case

You are the editor of a newspaper and you send a reporter to interview the president of one of the universities in the country to find out what he thinks about a bill being debated in Congress and how it would affect the finances of the university. Later you decide to spike the story.

Two weeks later, the debate increases in intensity and the president of another university, whom we shall call president B, releases a strong statement about the proposed legislation. His point of view is diametrally opposed to those of president A, that were never published.

Taking into account that president A may have modified his opinion since the initial interview, you send another reporter to talk to him so that he can get his reaction to president B's statement. Yet, this time president A is not able to grant the interview. With deadline looming, your reporter calls you to say he saw a rival walk out of the president's office.

What would you do?

1. Tell your reporter to hang around and interview the president even if it may be after your deadline for the day's paper.

2. Publish the two-week-old interview as if it were new, and omit the reporter's byline.

3. Publish the two-week-old interview as if it were new with the reporter's byline.

4. Combine the old interview with the new material by the second reporter, pointing out the difference between presidents A's and B's opinions, and publish the story under a common byline, without mentioning that some of the material is two weeks old.

5. The same as the previous example, except you would include an explanation that president A's opinions are from two weeks before.

How do you stop a reporter who distorts remarks?

By John Virtue

Results

Those who responded to the case involving a reporter who distorted the remarks of someone whom he interviewed were almost equally divided between talking to the editor in charge (45%) and talking to the reporter (43%). The rest would have done nothing.

This case reflects what happened at an important American newspaper. The person who discovered that the reporter had distorted an interview asked for my opinion on what he should do. I agree with either approach: talk to the editor or talk to the reporter. The important thing is to put an end to such a practice because it will inevitably affect the credibility of the media.

The case

You are recently out of journalism school and are on probation for 60 days at an important newspaper. You are assigned to do research for the newspaper's star reporter. Towards the end of your probation, you become aware that they possibly won't keep you because you heard the reporter tell the editor that you are not up to the newspaper's standards.

On a certain occasion, you happened to see the reporter's notes of an interview with a confidential source. When the story appears in the front page, you realize the reporter has spiced up the source's information.

What do you do?

Tell the editor.

Tell the reporter that you have noticed the discrepancies.

Do nothing, even though it makes you feel guilty.

Do you keep using the reporter?

By John Virtue

Results

Of those that responded, 75% would have fired the reporter and published a story telling the public about the incident. A further 20% would have just fired the reporter, and the remaining 5% would have done nothing.

Firing the reporter and informing the public is, of course, the most ethical and complete solution to the problem. That's what El Universo, in Guayaquil, did in this real-life case.

The case

Your newspaper employs as a stringer a reporter who works for a radio station in the interior of the country. The reporter files a flattering interview with the legislator who represents the province where the radio station is located.

Months later, the newspaper's editor receives a letter from the legislator with a photocopy of a check made out to the reporter. The legislator says that the check was in payment for the interview but that the reporter has since started to criticize him on the radio station where he works. The legislator says he is writing because he fears the reporter will continue to criticize him unless he makes another payment.

What should the editor do?

Do you hold a story?

By John Virtue

Results

True story. The president was the late Omar Torrijos of Panama, who charmed the two female reporters accompanying him.

Unfortunately, the reporter who had to fly to her home base was shocked to learn that the other reporter had immediately filed her story, despite having agreed to wait until the next day. So, the reporter who had arranged for the interview was beaten.

When a reporter gives his word to a source that he will maintain the source's confidentiality, the source knows he will keep his word. The same should apply when one reporter makes a promise to another.

Of those who replied to the case, 81 per cent would have filed the story without waiting.

The case

A reporter from news agency "A" has been trying for many months to get an interview with the president of a neighboring country. The president is about to make a weekend helicopter trip to the interior and invites her along. At the last minute, his press secretary says that the local reporter for news agency "B" should also be invited.

The reporter from agency "A" was not very happy to meet her competitor at the airport when she boarded the presidential helicopter.

During the trip, the president anticipated several important announcements he planned to make over the next several days.

At the end of the trip, the reporter from agency "A" had to catch a flight back to the neighboring capital where she was based, since she had made a reservation unaware that her competitor would be along. She asked the reporter from agency "B" not to file her story until the next day since she would not have an opportunity to file her own story until then.

How should reporter "B" respond to the request?

Do you use the photographs?

By John Virtue

Results

The results were almost evenly split between those who would publish photos of beer bottles found in a commercial truck involved in an accident with a car, whose driver took the photos. Forty-eight percent would have published the photos, 52% would have rejected them.

The fact that there were beer bottles in the truck did not mean that the driver had been drinking. He said he was returning them for a deposit.

When I was a teenager, I was the passenger in a car, driven by a friend, that was involved in an accident. When my friend's father was told of the accident, he remembered that there were beer bottles in the trunk and sent someone to the scene to retrieve them before the police arrived. The beer bottles had nothing to do with the accident but might have raised suspicions.

The photos should not have been used.

The case

A commercial truck and a private car are involved in a spectacular traffic accident, although no one is killed or injured. There are no witnesses.

The driver of the car sees some empty beer bottles on the floor of the cab of the truck. He goes back to his car, gets a camera and takes pictures of the bottles and of the vehicles.

When a representative of the company that owns the truck arrives, the car driver demands that the company pay for the repairs to his car, because the truck driver had been drinking. The representative refuses, saying this is an issue for the police and the insurance company. He adds that the beer bottles came from a party held a few days earlier and that the driver was returning them for their deposit.

The driver of the car then goes to the local news media with the photos.

Do you publish the photos of the beer bottles?

Does the source stipulate publication date?

By John Virtue

Results

By a margin of 76% to 24% respondents would not agree to a source deciding on which day an article would be published.

I agree with the majority, but with some reservations. For instance, the news might have more impact if published or broadcast on the day the source wanted. But if the source wants the release timed to the beginning of an advertising campaign, for instance, the media should refuse, because the interest of the public would not be paramount.

The case

A news source has an interesting story to tell but, as a condition of talking to the reporter from a local newspaper, he wants to specify the day in which the article will be published.

If you were the editor of the newspaper, would you:

1. Agree to the request to publish the article on the day requested by the source?

2. Tell the source you cannot accept any pre-conditions to the interview?

Made-up name for a source?

By John Virtue

Results

Most of you, 49 percent, would suspend the reporter and publish an explanation of what had transpired.

Another 34 percent would just warn the reporter. Eleven percent would suspend the reporter and just six percent would fire her.

Those were the results of the case study on the Spanish page of Pulso. The results for those participating in the English section ran along the same lines.

Suspend and publish an explanation - 28%
Warn - 36%
Suspend - 27%
Fire - 9%

The similarity of the results shows that journalism ethics are universal.

The case in question occurred in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the reporter was fired. No explanation was published.

As a former newspaper editor, I would probably have suspended the reporter and, of course, published an explanation.

The case illustrates the danger of using friends as sources or of becoming friends with sources. The friendship can affect or influence the reporter's judgment.

The case

A newspaper reporter was good friends with the director of the public relations department of one of the city's largest employers.

One day one of the director's subordinates inadvertently commented that the company planned mass firings involving hundreds of employees.

The reporter knew that if she wrote about the planned firings her friendship with the director would be affected. Yet, this was a major story for her newspaper.

The reporter wrote the story and attributed news of the planned firing to an employee whose name she invented. The company soon determined that no such employee existed, so it demanded of the editor an explanation of the origin of the story.

The reporter admitted what she had done.

If you were the editor of the newspaper, what would you do:

1. Just warn the reporter not to do such a thing again.

2. Suspend the reporter.

3. Fire the reporter.

4. Suspend or fire the reporter and carry an editor's note advising readers.

Bow to threats?

By John Virtue

Results

Almost half of those who responded - 48% - voted for the third option: Don't tell anyone about the threat.

Thirty-four per cent would have told their wives of the threat and promised to ask for a transfer to a less dangerous assignment once the investigation was completed.

The remaining 18% would have bowed to the threat and stopped the investigation.

This case was prompted by a question asked of me by an investigative reporter in Asunción, Paraguay, following a speech I had delivered to a group of journalists and students.

I told him of interviewing the top investigative reporter of La República in Lima a few years earlier. The man was ecstatic that day: 'El Vaticano,' at the time Peru's leading drug trafficker, had just been arrested in Bogota. Many of his investigations had dealt with 'El Vaticano.'

The Peruvian journalist told me that he had received so many death threats that he constantly altered the route he took between his home and the newspaper. His wife finally tired of the threats and left him, taking their young children.

There is no right or wrong answer, but I believe that those who responded had their priorities in order, placing the public's right to know above their own personal safety.

The case

Over a period of several years as an investigative reporter you have received several threats of death if you continued your investigations. You continued them and nothing happened. Now you have two small children and it's your wife who says that you should seek a safer beat or she will consider leaving you and taking the children. You're involved in an investigation of drug trafficking. You receive a warning to stop the investigation or you run the risk of being killed.

What do you do?

1 Bow to the threats and abandon the investigation.

2 Tell your wife of the threat and promise to ask for a transfer after you finish the investigation.

3 Don't tell anyone about the threat.

To print or not to print?

By John Virtue

Results

Most of the respondents -52%- said they would return the check given to them by the football team's publicist and publish a story denouncing the attempted bribe. That's exactly what the newspaper El Diario de Hoy of San Salvador once did. It not only published a story but reproduced the check with the following caption:
"The manifold ways in which persons or organizations interested in publicizing their activities will pressure a journalist range from gifts to offerings of money. The managers and owners of news media and the journalists should help erradicate this practice."

Another sizeable portion -31%- said they would return the check and advise the editor of what had happened.

Another 10% would return the check and not advise the editor. Just 4% would keep the check and not say anything.

The case

During a meeting with a soccer team's executives, a PR man distributes envelopes to all the sports writers present.

Afterwards, one of the journalists finds the envelope contains 100 dollars. Back in the newsroom, he tells his editor, who proposes to publish the incident.

The journalist considers the possibility that his colleagues in other media, who may have kept the money, will ostracize him, and that his sources with the team may dry up if he denounces the attempted bribery.

What would you have done?

1 Not tell the editor and return the envelope, without publishing the incident.

2 Tell the editor and return the envelope, without publishing the incident.

3 Return the envelope and publish the incident.

4 Keep the envelope and not say a word.

Professional courtesy?

By John Virtue

Results

If the son of the owner of a competing television station tried to commit suicide and you taped his remarks before knowing who he was, most of you would transmit the item on the grounds it was news: 55%.

Exactly one-third would have asked the competing station to see what treatment it was going to give and would have followed suit.

When the competing station called, 5% would have not taken the call and used the item.

Just 4% would not have used the item and 2% would have told the station the item would not be used and would have put it on the air anyways.

A good question to ask yourself is: would I use the item if I didn't know the relationship of the would-be suicide to the competing television station? If the answer is yes, then you should use the item. If you're using the item to embarrass the owner of the other station, then you're not motivated by the news content.

We have noted a tendency in some countries to protect colleagues, on the grounds they would protect us is we're involved in an embarrassing situation, such as being arrested for drunk driving. If we do that, then we're giving our loyalty to our colleagues and not to the public.

The case

You are the news director of a local TV station and your reporter just came in with a story about a young man who tried to kill himself by driving off the road into a river bed.

The reporter has taped the statement made by the man after he was rescued, in which he says he wanted to kill himself because his family doesn't love him. It's all on tape.

The next minute you get a call from one of the higher-ups at another TV station across town. It turns out your would-be suicide is the youngest son of that station's owner, and they are asking for your discretion in handling the news. Not too subtly, they are asking you not to air the piece.

Take into account that they, the competition, also covered the accident, but they didn't get the man's statement on tape. Only your reporter got that.

What would you do?

1 Tell the man who called not to worry, that you won't air it, and then put it on anyway.

2 You tell him this is news and you can't make distinctions for anyone's relative, and that you will broadcast it.

3 You ask him how they are going to treat the story, and you treat it the same way.

4 You tell the man not to worry, and shelve the tape.

5 You tell your secretary to say you are not in the office, and you broadcast the story.

Professionalism or compassion?

By John Virtue

Results

This case study was originally published by the Toronto Star, in Canada. The newspaper invited its readers and 21 editors to reply.

65% of the editors and 23% of the readers said they would publish the story. 35% of the editors and 46% of the readers said they would wait for the wife's condition to improve. Finally, 31% of the readers and none of the editors would have spiked the story, giving the man the opportunity to make good on his promise to make restitution.

Why is there a marked difference between the opinions of the editors and those of the readers? The editors are guided by their professional judgement of what constitutes legitimate news, whereas the readers may invoke a number of other considerations which, in this case, makes them appear to be more compassionate. That difference is something that we journalists should always keep in mind.

What did Pulso readers say?

46% would have published the story, 34% would have waited for the wife's condition to improve, and 20% would have withheld publication, giving the man an opportunity to make restitution.

What would I have done? I'd have published the story.

The case

The newspaper of which you are the editor has exclusive proof that a man considered a pillar of society has embezzled 50 thousand dollars from a charity fund. He has not been charged. When confronted by a reporter, the man promised to return the money. He begged the newspaper not to publish the story because his wife is in the hospital in serious condition and he fears that the scandal would kill her.

What would you do?

1. Publish the story.

2. Speak to the doctors and wait for the wife to get better to publish the story.

3. Give the man an opportunity to return the money and, if he does so, spike the story.

Let the editor decide?

By John Virtue

Results

The respondents were equally divided between two possibilities, numbers 2 and 4, that is, telling the editor and returning the 50 dollars. They both received 42% of the replies. Fifteen percent would have called the diplomat's assistant while only one per cent would have kept the money.

Probably the question I ask most often at ethics workshops is, "Did you discuss this with your editor?" The answer is usually, "No."

I then tell the journalist that one of the reasons his boss makes more money than he does is because he has the responsibility to make difficult decisions and set an example of high ethical standards for the newsroom. "Let him earn his money."

I'm always surprised at the number of reporters who make key decisions themselves without consulting their editors. "Why?" I ask them. The usual answer is they know more than the editor.

I've asked a lot of journalists about this and have come to the conclusion this belief has much to do with a generational change in the newsroom. Young reporters who have university degrees in journalism have editors who are self-educated. Some of the world's great journalists have been self-taught, so that's not an excuse for not consulting.

Maybe the ideal solution was one not included in the options: return the money and tell the editor why you did it.

The case

The foreign editor sent one of his reporters to interview the ambassador of a friendly power passing through the country on official business.

After the journalist finished the interview, one of the diplomat's aides walked him to the door. "I hope it was a good interview," he said, and asked him to publish it the next day, before the ambassador left the country. The journalist said he would try. When they shook hands, the diplomat's aide slipped him a 50 dollar bill.

The journalist felt offended, and asked why he was given the money. The aide told him not to take it the wrong way, that it was a "diplomatic gesture" commonly given to journalists in the countries they visited.

On the way back to the newsroom, the journalist thought about the situation. On the one hand, he was upset because it seemed like a bribe. On the other, this was an official of a friendly country who maybe didn't have ulterior motives. Besides, if he chose to, no one needed to find out about the incident.

What would you do?

1. Keep quiet, write the story and try to get it in the next day's paper.

2. Tell the editor what happened and let him decide what to do with the money and the interview.

3. Phone the aide and let him know how indignant you were.

4. Write the story and later return the 50 dollars.

A misunderstanding with a source?

By John Virtue

Results

Public officials and members of Congress should realize that a journalist is a journalist 24 hours a day, and act -and talk- accordingly. If they don't want something to end up in the media, they shouldn't divulge it, even at a social event. When the official learned that the journalist had written an article which had not yet been published, he said he had been talking as a friend and not as an official. I am reminded of a comment by Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times : "A friendship between a reporter and a source lasts only until it's convenient for one to betray the other".

Was this story of such importance that the journalist would risk his friendship with the official? Should a journalist be friends with a source in the first place or should he keep the relationship on a professional basis? Should a journalist routinely seek confirmation of a story from a second - and even a third - source?

If the story was so important that the journalist was prepared to rupture his relationship with the official by publishing it, then it was a story that needed confirmation by other sources.

The majority of respondents -65%- chose, in my opinion, the correct option, No. 4: "Find more information and additional sources".

However, 21% would have canceled the article and apologized. I fear such a course would mean the journalist was putting the friendship ahead of the public's right to know.

Another 13% would have published the article without quoting the official, and 1% would have published the article as written.

Should a journalist become friends with a source? Each person in such a relationship wants something from the other: the journalist wants a story and the source usually wants that story to be positive. That's hardly the basis of a solid friendship.

The case

A journalist has a conversation with a government official during a social function. The official mentions some item of interest, but apparently innocuous, about a government plan. The journalist decides that the information, which does not seem to be scandalous or damaging, is of public interest and writes an article quoting the official as his source. The journalist thinks the article is so harmless that he does not think it necessary to notify the official.

The official, however, finds out about the article and calls the journalist to ask him not to publish it. He accuses the journalist of using something said in confidence, told him as a friend, not as a journalist. The journalist then realizes that the information may not be as innocuous as it originally appeared.

What would you do?

1. Spike the article and apologize to the official.

2. Publish the article as written.

3. Find more information and additional sources.

4. Publish the article without the official's name.

Loyalty to colleagues or to the audience?

By John Virtue

Results

We believe there is only one correct option in the case involving the National Electoral Board and payments made to journalists: publish an article giving the names of the journalists involved. That was the recommendation of 38% of those who replied.

An equal percentage of participants voted to turn the matter over to the newspaper guild for resolution.

Another 18% would have written a letter to the National Electoral Board denouncing the payments, but they would not have published an article.

Eleven percent would have published the photocopy, which would have indicated the National Electoral Board had committed an irregularity, but they would have crossed out the names of the journalists who accepted the payments.

Finally, 3% would not have done anything.

Why do we say that the only correct answer is publishing all the details? That's the answer we get when we ask ourselves to whom we'd be giving our loyalty in the five options mentioned. The answer in the other four options, in varying degrees, is the guild. We'd be protecting our colleagues. But if we published all the details, we'd be giving our loyalty to the public, our readers, listeners and viewers.

That was what the editor in this case did, earning the enmity of many of her colleagues, one of whom made a death threat against her. The editor explained her position: "The fact that we are in charge of the media does not mean that we should keep silent to hide or protect colleagues who mislead the public with false or manipulated information, whether because they get paid or because they are themselves compromised."

The case

You are the editor of a newspaper. One day, a reporter comes into your office. He is furious, because the National Electoral Board has included his name on a list of journalists who will receive a check for "professional services." The reporter has a copy of the list that someone left on a copier. He says he has never worked for any government institution and that he considers it offensive to be included in the list. He thinks the newspaper should denounce the payments, but warns that he's heard that some of the journalists on the list could react violently if their names are published.

What would you do?

1. Thank the reporter for his honesty and do nothing, because you don't want to bring disrepute on the profession.

2. Use the photocopy in an article denouncing the payments, but omit the names of the journalists.

3. Write a letter to the National Electoral Board stating the newspaper has a policy forbidding journalists to accept payments from the government, but not publish an article.

4. Publish an article with the names of the journalists on the list.

5. Turn the matter over to the Newspaper Guild for resolution.

A photocopy before deadline

By John Virtue

Results

The majority who responded to the case of the reporter unable to get a copy of a document can be considered ethical journalists. Fifty-one percent said they would take notes, while 11 per cent said they would seek more time to complete the assignment.

However, 29 per cent said they would put the document in their briefcase and presumably return it the following week, while 9 per cent would have bribed someone to make a copy.

The reporter involved in this incident came up to me after an ethics workshop and asked me if she had acted ethically. She had bribed someone to make a copy and was so pleased with herself that she told her editor about it as soon as she entered the newsroom. To her great surprise, the editor scolded her and said he was not going to reimburse her for the bribe. "We do not permit our reporters to accept bribes, so we certainly don't offer bribes ourselves," he said.

So what did I tell the reporter? I said she used ingenuity in getting a copy of the document, "but don't do it again."

I agree with the decision of the 51 per cent who would have taken notes.

The case

You are a reporter for a magazine and have been given two weeks to produce an article on how two young men turned a $5,000 investment into an electrical power company worth millions of dollars, all in the space of a few months.

You have all the facts you need to write the article except one: the way the pair legally constituted the company. One day before deadline a government official gives you the file number of the document.

Armed with this information, you go the appropriate government archive and find the document minutes before closing time on a Friday afternoon. There's a copying machine, but the person in charge says he cannot make copies without the authorization of the director, who has already left for the day.

You're left with several options. Which one do you choose?

1. Slip the document into your briefcase, make a photocopy elsewhere and return Monday to replace it.

2. Tell your editor you can't make the deadline and run the risk of losing the exclusive because you can't get the photocopy made.

3. Take all the notes you can before the office closes, even though this means you won't be able to illustrate the article with a copy of the document.

4. Bribe the person in charge of the copying machine to make a copy.