Minimising Harm in Journalism

When an individual with no professional journalistic training becomes a journalist, ethical guidelines are simply absent. In today’s digital landscape, one can instantaneously create and spread content. The ability to publish has never been more accessible, and consequently, the responsibility that comes with it has never been more diluted. Journalism has to seek the truth, elevate unheard voices, and publish well-tested facts. However, the average person does not understand the weight of addressing a large audience.

Nonetheless, blaming only citizen journalists would be redundant. Media companies are facing unprecedented structural pressure. The digital revolution has transformed the news production process. Now, news must be produced consistently without interruption. Editorial objectives are increasingly driven by profit and engagement. In this race to stay relevant, accuracy and objectivity are left behind, accountability is lost, and autonomy is diminished.

The principle of minimising harm is staggeringly affected. Minimising harm exists in a more nuanced space. Its boundaries tend to overlap with other principles, making it difficult to enforce or measure. “Minimising harm” is one of the elements of the professional codes of ethics. It states that sources, subjects, colleagues, and members of the public shall be treated as human beings deserving of respect as well as showing heightened sensitivity toward juveniles, victims of sex crime, and individuals who are inexperienced or incapable of consenting. Minimising harm poses essential questions: do we disclose information simply because it is interesting?

The ethics of journalism are something journalists are required to consider with every story they produce. It is not a duty of journalism to share videos in which people are harmed or suffer. At no point should any news organisation intend to invade an individual’s privacy, defame the activities of a person, or mislead others into harm.

A journalist's duty is to inflict as little harm as possible. They must remain careful when looking for or using pictures or conversations with those who encountered tragedy. They must understand that obtaining and publishing information can cause pain. They must avoid catering to morbid curiosity, show caution in identifying sex offence victims or juvenile suspects, and avoid naming criminal suspects until legal charges are filed. Furthermore, they must strike a balance between a suspect’s right to a fair trial and the public’s right to be informed.

Think of a local paper that says in a bold headline, “ICE is here,” even if the article then subsequently specifies that the operation may only affect a few people. Only a handful get past the headline. Such framing causes panic and fails to reduce harm.

The consequences of journalistic harm, even if unintentional, are dire. In harassment cases, a small group of people are responsible for the abuse while most remain unaware. However, wide media coverage can magnify the problem. This is why the phrase “don’t feed the trolls” exists. While people become more aware, the number of people engaging in harassment also increases, causing victims more agony. By exposing wrongdoing, journalism may polarise and exacerbate the harm of the act.

Journalists will often present two opposing views as equally valid, even when the evidence strongly supports one side. For instance, placing a climate scientist and a climate denialist in the same article and providing credence to both sides by presenting their perspectives as carrying the same weight is misleading. The conclusions drawn by a scientist are backed by research, data, and peer review, while the denialist relies on opinion. Portraying the two as balanced viewpoints is harmful to the public understanding.

Similarly, giving extremists a platform under the guise of debate can disseminate harmful ideas to impressionable audiences. Newspapers were the main entry point for public discussions in earlier times. Today, the Internet is already providing extremists with notable visibility. When mainstream media raises these voices further “for the sake of balance”, they risk allowing the louder voices to dominate. Religion, immigration, and minority coverage are affected by this distortion. When the media concentrates more on extremist elements, it skews public perception away from reality.

Newspapers must acknowledge the enormity of the harm produced by the way they function. They may not have caused the harm, but they play a significant role in perpetuating and supporting the damage. Newspapers do not exist in a vacuum anymore, given the fact that there are now multiple means through which an individual can express themselves and dominate public discourse. It is no longer enough to "bring every side to the table," especially when some sides are already overpowering others.