I had this fancy new manifesto prepared to display here only a few short hours ago. But despite my best intention, today’s Critical Issues in Journalism lecture and its subsequent discussion ruined what surely would have resulted in a new dawn of journalism ethics. Instead, you’ll have to settle for another set of flawed (but hopefully somewhat more of a realistic application of) ethics in investigative reporting.

My basic rules to follow as a reporter:

1. The central premise remains unaltered for me: A journalist’s obligation is to the truth first and foremost. As Professor Duy says, “What is your intent?” If it’s obscures the truth, then prepare for consequences.
2. Yes, it’s cheesy and Google-esque, but a journalist should strive to leave this place a better world than when they first found it.
3. Reporters should begin their investigation using the strictest moral standards available i.e. don’t lie or conceal that you’re a reporter to hopefully glean information from a reluctant source. If you can do it, without lying, you should. Aim VERY high at first, as it’s a long and slippery slope afterwards.
4. A reporter should not be deterred from adopting more aggressive tactics, as long as the reporter’s intent is to report as accurately as possible what they believe is a verifiable truth. I say verifiable using a scientific connotation. A well-reported story, in my meager opinion, is one whose outcome can be reproduced under similar circumstances.
5. I find sympathy for my opinion from the Heisenberg Principle as it relates to journalism. If you reveal yourself to be a journalist to a source, then you have most likely altered what (and how) that source will reveal to you. My brittle yardstick to handle this dilemma is: If you believe that be revealing yourself to be a journalist you will greatly distort what the source will say to you than had you not, then it is permissible to not reveal that you are a journalist – you may engage in subterfuge. Why would the fact that I am a reporter alter your response to my question? Another way to put this is: You’re first goal is to report the truth. If revealing your identity as a journalist prevents you from reporting the truth, you may consider not revealing your motivations behind the reporting.
6. The free market will reward those who abuse investigative journalism in pursuit of an agenda other than that of reporting a verifiable truth. If your reporting sucks or violates rule number two, then we won’t trust you. Readers, advertisers and publishers should reward brands that follow these rules as best as possible.
7. The process of your work shouldn’t result in causing yourself or anyone else physical harm or death. (If however, your death or detriment is less than the good you’ll cause by reporting your work, then you may consider moving ahead. This one is up to you. But please keep in mind those others affected by your dangerous work and that your best stories may be ahead of you, not behind.
8. Don’t knowingly report work that would directly result in harming others i.e. X of guerrillas/troops will be here at Y time. I’m sort of old fashioned, when it comes to this one.
9. This one is just pure frustration and perhaps even laziness, it’s okay to use someone’s original work if you properly credit it.

What are your rules?