Keeping secret or not, that's the question

I have been working like journalism for almost 8 years.  Personally I never had to face a big dilemma about heard or learn “secret information” that becomes known to me and perhaps I could release to the public. Nevertheless, everyday reporters, editors journalism and PR professionals has to deal with that kind of challenges.

 Often, when you face dilemmas, like everything in life, you have multiple choices. Decisions, decisions, decisions. The big difference about dilemmas, like reveal or not secret information that could cause harm for some people, is that sometimes all choices look wrong. It does seem like either one or another possible solution could be a mistake for someone else. The problem with ethics decisions is that often is not about find the right answer, in contrast is more about ask the correct questions, like Plaisance  argued: 

“People are frustrated because, by its nature, ethics is more about questions that is about answers. More specifically, ethics is about getting good at asking the right questions, which in turn clarify the problem and enable us to explore effectively possible solutions or acceptable compromises”.

I read the case of CNN and Eason Jordan and I really felt identified with him in some ways. Jordan was the chief news executive for CNN during the 1990’s. At that time CNN had access to Saddam Hussein’s government. They could report from Baghdad like anyone else. But that access came with a price. They could not report the “reality” of the awful and horrible things that they saw and heard. Jordan said that when news made the government unhappy, the regimen threat them, some journalism were ejected from the country, a cameraman was abducted and torture, and if Iraqi citizen spoke to reporters they later disappeared. After the war, Jordan reveled all that and argued that he did the right thing.

 In Venezuela is not a war or anything like that. However, more than 130 citizens die every weekend in the capital, Caracas. That fact is reveal for some fragment of the media. Other portion of newspaper, radio station or TV Channels, don’t cover that kind of information which could make the government unhappy. I am not talking just about the official media, also private media that have been threatened by the government for years.

Some private media enterprise  did not do the same thing. But some of them were shutdown by the regimen.  I worked for a broadcasting TV station, RCTV, that was one of the more important TV stations of Venezuela. The fought the government and report the bad things. Finally, were closed, arguing that its concession to use the airwaves had expired. More than 2000 persons lost their job.

Consequences of telling truths that made the government  unhappy

Also radio station were shut down.

What would you do if you were the owner or Chief next executive of RCTV at that time? Some people in my country argue that they should do the same thing that Jordan did with CNN during the Irak War. Others think that they did the right thing, because RCTV could not avoid journalistic values such as truth telling, access, and independence. It’s a tough call indeed. They might change their editorial line a little be, keep broadcasting, and perhaps RCTV could get out some news , about the situation of Venezuela to the world, and no news at all.

I lost my job, I was threat for some government supporters during my work as a reporter. Some colleagues were even beaten for people who supported the regime. And perhaps that was one of the reason that I decided to travel abroad to study and trying to find another life. However, I think that RCTV did the right thing, report and tell the truth, no matter what.

In that case, I had a conflict between my personal and professional values. I might prioritize one value to keep working and reporting the truth no matter the consequences. But that decision to uphold one value doesn't necessarily mean that I abandoned the personal site. When we have to face dilemmas, and our personal or professional life, we are constantly required to evaluate our "value systems".