Journalistic Ethical Issue: Sanjay Gupta and the Limitations of Journalism

In April of 2003 CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta performed one of the most legendary (or infamous depending on your stance) acts in the history of journalistic morality. Lauded by many of his co-workers and higher-ups but questioned by many of his colleagues, Gupta became the center of a maelstrom of debate about what sorts of limitations burden the journalist in the field. This debate is still today largely unsettled.

It all began in south central Iraq at a U.S. military checkpoint requiring all vehicles to stop for inspection. Things would move along in typical military fashion; orderly, smooth, and by the book. However, things got messy quickly when a taxi cab whose driver did not understand the directions tried to go through the checkpoint without stopping. Not given much choice, U.S. Marines opened fire on the car. Gunfire killed the two men in the front seats and badly wounded two other in the back seats, an Iraqi woman and her small 2 year old son. The woman and her son were quickly transported via helicopter to a nearby U.S. Military medical facility where a group of doctors known collectively as "The Devil Docs" were treating anyone who arrived; Marines, insurgents and Iraqi citizens alike. The wounded boy arrived at the installation and it was found that either a bullet or a piece of shrapnel had penetrated his skull and entered his brain, among other serious injuries. The problem was, of all the incredibly skilled and gifted doctors that comprised "The Devil Docs" not one of them was a neurosurgeon capable of performing brain surgery. Hopes for the boy's survival fell rapidly until it was discovered that a CNN reporter embedded with the unit was also a licensed and respected neurosurgeon at Emory University School of Medicine. His name is Sanjay Gupta. Gupta sprang into action and without a second thought began preparing for surgery.

Those who were there would say Gupta acted heroically and although his actions proved in vain that he should be applauded for his bravery in the line of duty. They believed this so firmly and were so impressed by Gupta's clarity that the commanding officer of the unit he was embedded with made him and honorary member of The Devil Docs.

Can there be any debate then about Gupta's objectivity being compromised? A very clear cut and widely understood rule in journalism says that a reporter should never report on a situation involving a group to which they belong. Whether he even accepted this honorary membership or not is practically a non-point. Merely his presence in the area where the stories are taking place has the potential to alter the events as they unfold. Members of the team may act differently knowing he's there, perhaps wishing to win his praise or friendship. After the surgery, if he was to return, the devil docs may even alter their own procedures knowing that if need arises for a neurosurgeon, they need not have one on staff because if all else fails they always have one of the nation's most respected brain surgeons at their beck and call. In this case at least, the ethics are very clear from a journalistic stand point. There is no way Gupta could remain an objective observer while these events unfold before him. He has already proven that he has no intention of remaining an onlooker under certain circumstances. This is a case where ethical decisions made in that moment (i.e. whether or not to perform the surgery) are somewhat secondary to decisions made afterward. So while it may be said that Gupta did the right thing, it becomes slightly more sticky when considering whether or not to put him back on that assignment. It is one issue when a reporter steps out of his reporting shoes to become part of the story. It is another one entirely if he is knowingly allowed to remain part of the story. It was this aspect that prompted the director of the ethics program at Poynter Institute for Media Studies to comment.

"'I'm hoping and trusting that he and CNN set some thresholds,'' Steele said. ''I think it's problematic if this is a role that he's going to be playing on any kind of frequent basis. I don't think he should be reporting on it if he's also a participant. He can't bring appropriate journalistic independence and detachment to a story.''

On the flip side of things, the medical community sees Gupta as a shining example of how a surgeon should behave in the world outside of the OR. In true Hippocratic fashion the vast majority of doctors do not see how Gupta had any other alternative. Even to the point of garnering agitated almost angry responses from some medical practitioners. Sydney Smith a doctor and blogger is among them. In response to Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism say that Gupta's decision was, "a bad career move more than it is some great ethical breach." Smith responded,

"It's only a bad career move for a reporter to be so entrenched with a foreign government that he can't objectively distance himself from their propaganda, but it's a breach of journalistic ethics for reporter to attempt to save a life. Is it any wonder that people trust the media even less than they trust politicians?"

With this type of statement in mind it becomes abundantly clear that journalists and medical professionals have two completely separate ethical codes that in their basest forms simply cannot intersect at any point. Journalistic ethics preaches objectivity and distance, where as the Hippocratic viewpoint requires doctors to become involved if there is a situation where they are able to help. This realization raises another rather significant question related to the topic. Is duality even an option in the life of a journalist? Is it possible for a journalist to be something else besides? It should definitely be possible for a journalist to achieve in their lifetime beyond the newsroom, but anyone who chooses to do so should be made to understand that their duties as a journalist and their duty to the public supersedes anything else if they accept an assignment.

This was not an opportunity afforded to Frank Whelan, who writes a history column called "Ask Frank" as well as a society column for newspaper The Morning Call, in the mid-sized Pennsylvania city of Allenstown. Whelan was suspended for his participation as the co-grand marshal of the city's gay pride parade. It was said that he violated the paper's policy of showing partisanship on an issue. Adding that it could be seen by readers that he was supporting gay marriage or any number of other issues related to homosexuality. This instantly sparked a major debate between old school journalists holding on to their similarly old school ethical codes with a hawk-like-death clutch and the gay community. The journalism professionals would say that he violated the basic rule, remain objective. "A newspaper's responsibility is trust as much as it is news and information." Hilliard said, "To ensure the credibility and independence of The Morning Call, it is paramount that our journalists guard against conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict,"

More liberal interpreters of the ethics code and the gay community give the retort that nobody, journalists included, should be punished for celebrating who they are. For example a parallel can be drawn between a Pride parade and a St. Patrick's Day parade. While they are both overt celebrations of heritage, journalists across the country have never been punished or even second guessed for participating in Saint Patty's day celebrations.

The mere fact that articles and expositions such as this are necessary and entire classes are devoted to instilling good morals is a sign that something is wrong in the industry. All too often writers taking the easy way out are said to be operating under vagaries in perception and an ethical opinion. The most important task facing journalists today is the establishment of an official ethical code that all working professionals are encouraged if not required to follow. A lax in ethicality could be a reason that the reputation of the media suffers at times in the public eye while the reputation of doctors has remained stalwart for centuries. The Hippocratic Oath that must be followed in order to gain the title of "M.D." keeps standards and expectations for doctors high and thus trust and status similarly lofty.