When one thinks of ethics, what comes to mind often includes something along the lines of doing the right thing, having morals, or following the law. Yet doing the right thing is a fairly vague goal to reach for, and many would argue that the law is not always ethical. So where does that leave one in modern society?

As a hopeful future journalist, I’ve questioned the idea of journalistic ethics more times than I care to remember. I want to be one of those “good” journalists: a journalist who tells it like it really is, hiding nothing from the public, yet respecting the wishes of the sources used. Unfortunately, this isn’t as easy in practice as it is in theory. As news coverage is constantly under public scrutiny, ethics are often a major focus. The Society of Professional Journalists even has an Ethics Week in late April, during which programs across the country will consider ethical issues such as acting independently of corporate media constraints, the role of blogging in media today, and the conflicts raised by living in a “freebie culture.” Clearly ethics are a key issue in journalism—but unfortunately not everyone agrees on what ethical reporting is.

One recent case of journalism ethics is connected to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Samantha Power, formerly an advisor to Obama, resigned in early March after an interview with Gerri Peev, a reporter for The Scotsman. Power made several comments in her interview that she then asked Peev to take off the record, including a remark describing Senator Clinton as a “monster”. Peev was presented with one of the toughest ethical questions in journalism today, one that requires a decision between her source and her public. Is it fair to repeat an “off the record” comment in print?

Often journalists make the decision needed to keep good standing with the source. This could be due to the ethical decision to uphold their promises to honor on and off the record requests. However, it seems much more probable that this option is more often chosen not because it’s more closely aligned with the “right” decision, but because it is the easier route. If a journalist preserves a source, they can return to this source in the future amicably. It’s easier to tell the public a little less of the threadbare truth than to deal with one angry, and perhaps important, individual.

Peev made the decision to honor the public and the truth—all of it. When questioned about her bold choice to print something that was off the record, Peev’s response was that “we are not in this business to self-censor ourselves; we are in this business to print the truth.” She also defended her article’s validity by pointing out that the entire interview was technically “on record,” and thus she could choose to disregard Power’s request. Editor Mike Gilson of The Scotsman agreed with this approach, commenting that “our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.”

Many journalists, however, disagree with Peev’s view on this approach to ethics. The counterargument is that instead of being in accordance with the truth, Peev’s decision was greatly in contrast with the accepted practice of ethics in journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists includes in its code of ethics that “journalists should be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information.” This ethical code also notes the tendency of journalists to “oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.” One could say that Peev fell into the trap of oversimplifying Power’s statement out of context and that she was unfair in her interpretation of the interview.

Yet in the midst of all the criticism, the underlying conflict is overlooked. The greater issue isn’t whether Peev should’ve kept the “monster” in the closet or not. It’s how other journalists have reacted to this breach of the journalist-source relationship. Yes, it’s important to maintain good relations with those who could provide classified news in the future, but if it’s at the expense of truth, is it worth it? A journalist is supposed to be committed to “content of the highest quality and integrity,” as the New York Times ethics handbook states. Sometimes getting that high quality content requires some treading on toes, and, personally, I don’t want to be reading news from journalists who are afraid of that.

So in going back to the good journalist versus bad journalist idea, it’s not quite as black and white as one might hope. There are a lot of well-intentioned journalists out there who get caught up in this ethical dilemma or who corporate struggle. Eventually all journalists need to make a lot of sticky decisions, and there are no right answers. Thus, it seems to me that the most important requirement when seeking to report ethically is to be able to stand up, as Peev did, in front of whatever criticism is thrown at you and truly believe that you made an ethical choice. With a topic as broad and bewildering as ethics, there will always be adversaries, no matter the side.

The author is a Columbia College first-year. She is a Associate Editorial Page Editor.