DPHU1001 Chap.3 Ethical Decision Making in Journalism
Ethical Decision Making in Journalism
The Week 4 workshop sends you to the MEAA Code of Ethics and asks which principles matter most, how journalists tell public interest from public curiosity, and how they weigh the public interest against privacy and the right not to be offended.
The code rests on honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others, and it includes a guidance clause: only a substantial advance of the public interest, or a risk of substantial harm to people, justifies overriding a standard.
Two moral theories frame the reasoning. Deontology asks what duty applies, whatever the result; consequentialism asks which action produces the best overall outcome.
The workshop's charity embezzlement scenario shows the two converging on a decision while disagreeing on what else the story must contain. The chapter turns the discussion points from Weeks 1 and 4 into a five-move method: state the conflict, check the facts, run both theories, look for a third option, and justify the decision against the code.
Practice scenarios cover conflicts of interest, misinformation, undercover reporting and plagiarism.
The scenarios repay repetition. The confidential source, the conflict of interest, the graphic footage, the leaked medical records and the false viral story each test a different pair of values, so working through all of them gives you a ready stock of reasoning for Learning Blog answers and podcast critique.
What this chapter covers
- 01
MEAA Code of Ethics: the professional standard for Australian journalists, built on four values
- 02
Guidance clause: a standard may be overridden only for substantial public interest or to prevent substantial harm
- 03
Deontology: judging an action by the duty it fulfils or breaks
- 04
Consequentialism: judging an action by the outcomes it produces for everyone affected
- 05
Conflict of interest: a personal tie that could shape, or seem to shape, a story
- 06
Third option: an alternative such as delay, anonymising or reassignment that reduces harm
Worked example · free
Deciding on a confidential source
- +1Name the conflict: the public interest in exposing corruption against verification and the anonymity promise.
- +1Consider the source's motives and whether an on-record source could confirm the same facts.
- +1Verify the documents independently of the source, through records or other officials.
- +1If you promise anonymity, keep it; if you cannot verify, keep reporting rather than publishing.
- +1Justify the decision against the code in one sentence that names the public interest.
Key terms
- Code of ethics
- A published set of professional standards that journalists commit to follow.
- Deontology
- An ethical approach that judges actions by duties and rules rather than results.
- Consequentialism
- An ethical approach that judges actions by the outcomes they produce.
- Confidential source
- A person who provides information on condition that their identity is protected.
- Undercover reporting
- Gathering evidence while concealing a journalist's identity or purpose.
- Plagiarism
- Presenting another writer's words or work as your own.
- Guidance clause
- The part of the MEAA code that explains when a standard may be overridden.
- Conflict of interest
- A personal or financial tie that could influence, or appear to influence, a journalist's reporting.
Ethical Decision Making in Journalism FAQ
What are the core values of the MEAA Code of Ethics?
Honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. The code turns them into standards on accuracy, attribution, conflicts of interest, privacy and grief, fair means of obtaining material and correcting errors.
When can a journalist break a standard in the code?
The guidance clause allows a standard to be overridden only when doing so substantially advances the public interest or prevents substantial harm to people. A strong answer names that interest or harm specifically instead of assuming it.
What is the difference between deontology and consequentialism?
Deontology asks which duty applies, such as telling the truth or keeping a promise, regardless of results. Consequentialism weighs the likely outcomes for everyone affected and chooses the action with the best overall result.
How should I answer an ethical scenario question?
State the conflict between values, check what facts you would rely on, reason through both theories, look for a third option that reduces harm, and justify your decision against the code. Naming a theory without applying it earns little.
How do I handle a conflict of interest in a reporting scenario?
Disclose the personal connection to your editor before going further. The independence value means readers must be able to trust that no relationship shaped the story, so the editor may reassign it or add a second check on sources and framing.
Assessment move
Make a one-page summary of the MEAA code in your own words, grouped under its four values. For each Week 1 and Week 4 scenario, write a five-move answer of no more than two hundred words, then swap with a classmate and challenge each other's third option. When you watch news, note one decision you would have made differently and the standard you would cite.
These notes double as Learning Blog practice and as material for podcast critique.
Working through Ethical Decision Making in Journalism in DPHU1001? Sia is AskSia’s AI Media and Communications tutor — ask any DPHU1001 Ethical Decision Making in Journalism question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how DPHU1001 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
