Ethical issues and employment

There are stereotypes and then there are stereotypes. It's a well-established perception that journalists are cutthroat, backstabbing and amoral. They will do anything to get a story, exploit, deceive, lie, steal and threaten.

Even the film "All the President's Men" — considered the best representation of journalists — portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as willing to do whatever it takes to get the story, including bullying sources.

Recently I wrote a story about a man who is the appointed president of the local conservation district. An attorney, he also represents a developer who wants to build 20 single-family homes on a 9 acre parcel that abuts the conservation district property. Moreover, the proposed development is uphill and upstream from two rare fens on conservation district property. An official from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources told me that the project will likely have a negative impact on the conservation district property and will likely drive off two endangered bird species. A DePaul University ethicist told me that the attorney was acting unethically and had a clear conflict of interest. And if that's just not enough, the attorney is also the local head of the majority political party in the county. He was appointed by county board members of his own party to head the conservation district.

The story ran last week. A couple of days later, the general manager and the publisher approached me and said that they didn't think the story mattered and that it shouldn't have been printed in "our newspaper."

This isn't the first time I was either told to back off a story or give a public official a pass.

The $107 million contract for new schools paid for by bond revenues was awarded to a construction firm without bid because "they were already repairing the schools" and this new construction will just be added onto the original contract. Three days before the story was to run the general manager had lunch with the superintendent. The GM came back from that meeting and told me to let the story go and there wasn't a reason "to upset anyone" with publicizing the contract extension.

In June, while reporting on the city manager's annual performance evaluation, I was told that I was being too aggressive, we didn't need to FOIA anything at this paper.

I'm in a pinch though, I'm getting married in the spring and I need to work. I've tried to get other jobs, but no one will even interview me let alone give me a shot.

If I want to stay in my chosen field, I have to compromise what I see as basic ethical standards. Of course compromising those ethics means I shouldn't be in this profession.

Should a journalist quit journalism to support the ethics of journalism? Or should a journalist dismiss ethics in order to continue practicing the profession? What would Redford or Hoffman do?