Анна Галютина
Варвара Сетямина
Карина Клинских
Кристина Голыничева
Софья Бочканова
Варвара Сетямина
Карина Клинских
Кристина Голыничева
Софья Бочканова
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN TRUTHFULNESS
AND MINIMIZATION OF HARM:
A JOURNALIST’S PRIORITIES
IN ETHICALLY CHALLENGING SITUATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The truth has a dual power: it may reveal problems and facilitate solutions, while simultaneously carrying the potential to cause harm. Therefore, the question becomes of particular importance: where should the boundary
be drawn between the open disclosure of facts and ethical responsibility for their effects on people?
For the media, this issue becomes crucial in the context of socially significant crises. When human lives and public safety are at stake,
the consequences of a journalist's decision become substantial.
In such situations, the question arises: is it ethically acceptable
to disclose harsh facts in full, or is it justified to limit information
in order to prevent harm? Should data be published immediately,
or is a preliminary assessment of potential consequences necessary?
be drawn between the open disclosure of facts and ethical responsibility for their effects on people?
For the media, this issue becomes crucial in the context of socially significant crises. When human lives and public safety are at stake,
the consequences of a journalist's decision become substantial.
In such situations, the question arises: is it ethically acceptable
to disclose harsh facts in full, or is it justified to limit information
in order to prevent harm? Should data be published immediately,
or is a preliminary assessment of potential consequences necessary?
The article explores the choice between minimisation of harm
and truthfulness through three cases of journalistic practice. These examples demonstrate how journalistic language can have a direct
and profound impact on people’s lives. The first case dates back
to the late 1980s in the Soviet Union, where the discovery of HIV
infections among Soviet citizens was met with a widespread belief
that the disease was exclusive to "Western" societies and could
not exist within the country.
and truthfulness through three cases of journalistic practice. These examples demonstrate how journalistic language can have a direct
and profound impact on people’s lives. The first case dates back
to the late 1980s in the Soviet Union, where the discovery of HIV
infections among Soviet citizens was met with a widespread belief
that the disease was exclusive to "Western" societies and could
not exist within the country.
The selected cases demonstrate how the ethical principles
of journalism work in conditions of real risk and uncertainty
and illustrate the consequences of the adopted decisions.
of journalism work in conditions of real risk and uncertainty
and illustrate the consequences of the adopted decisions.
→
→
→
The second example focuses on the media coverage of the
Beslan terrorist attack in 2004, where the attempt to downplay
the information contributed to the escalation of the crisis.
Beslan terrorist attack in 2004, where the attempt to downplay
the information contributed to the escalation of the crisis.
The article concludes with a case of the experiences
of Western journalists who revealed the existence
of a network of secret CIA prisons.
of Western journalists who revealed the existence
of a network of secret CIA prisons.
PANIC INSTEAD OF EMPATHY:
AIDS IN THE USSR
The 1988 Elsta tragedy was the first case of mass HIV infection
in the USSR, with 75 children and 4 women infected in a children's
hospital due to the reuse of a single syringe. In autumn, the central
TV program "Vremya" reported on the outbreak, which met with
the principles of truthfulness. However, the broadcast had severe
and unforeseen consequences.
Materials about tragedies often attract increased attention from the audience. In the situation with Elista, for the first time in the USSR, journalists spoke about the real threat of HIV, fulfilling their duty,
but they did it too directly, without mitigation, without preparing
people for shocking information.
in the USSR, with 75 children and 4 women infected in a children's
hospital due to the reuse of a single syringe. In autumn, the central
TV program "Vremya" reported on the outbreak, which met with
the principles of truthfulness. However, the broadcast had severe
and unforeseen consequences.
Materials about tragedies often attract increased attention from the audience. In the situation with Elista, for the first time in the USSR, journalists spoke about the real threat of HIV, fulfilling their duty,
but they did it too directly, without mitigation, without preparing
people for shocking information.
Investigations into the situation revealed a systemic problem
of Soviet medicine — a shortage of disposable syringes and a lack
of basic sanitary standards. However, television focused on the fact
of infection, not on its cause. As a result, instead of condemning medical negligence, society saw children as "AIDS carriers."
The truth about the outbreak instantly created discrimination. Residents with posters reached out to the hospital of Elista:
"AIDS lives here", "Let's wash the Homeland of AIDS".
The victims and their families faced social isolation, job dismissals,
and the rejectionby relatives. The parents of the infected
were bullied. There were cases of suicide attempts. Children,
victims of a medical error,became social outcasts.
of Soviet medicine — a shortage of disposable syringes and a lack
of basic sanitary standards. However, television focused on the fact
of infection, not on its cause. As a result, instead of condemning medical negligence, society saw children as "AIDS carriers."
The truth about the outbreak instantly created discrimination. Residents with posters reached out to the hospital of Elista:
"AIDS lives here", "Let's wash the Homeland of AIDS".
The victims and their families faced social isolation, job dismissals,
and the rejectionby relatives. The parents of the infected
were bullied. There were cases of suicide attempts. Children,
victims of a medical error,became social outcasts.
According to a 1989 survey, 13% were in favor of "eliminating"
the infected, and 24% were in favor of their complete isolation.
the infected, and 24% were in favor of their complete isolation.
Journalists faced a classic conflict of professional ethics: truthfulness against minimisation of harm. The publication saved thousands
of lives: the government launched the creation of AIDS centers throughout the USSR and established the production of disposable syringes,
but at the same time destroyed the lives of specific families.
This story shows that the ethical choice is not limited to the equation
"to report or to remain silent." It's a choice of how to inform.
of lives: the government launched the creation of AIDS centers throughout the USSR and established the production of disposable syringes,
but at the same time destroyed the lives of specific families.
This story shows that the ethical choice is not limited to the equation
"to report or to remain silent." It's a choice of how to inform.
In such a situation, journalists should focus not on the shocking wording
of the fact, but on its context and explanation. Instead of an isolated
report about the number of cases, it was important to immediately
identify the causes of what was happening and emphasize that this was not a spontaneous threat, but a systemic problem within the medical institution. An expert assessment on the central TV program,
with the participation of a specialist who could explain the mechanism
of infection and reduce anxiety, could play a significant role. Delayed publication of key details would also be a more cautious strategy, with priority given to containment of the situation and informing about
security measures rather than immediately spreading potentially frightening information.
A journalist should be able to predict the consequences of their words.
A real professional priority in an ethically difficult situation is not
to absolutize one principle, but to find a balance that allows one
to tell the truth without turning it into a weapon against those
it is formed to protect. Elista’s tragedy showed that the truth without context is more dangerous than lies. Publicity saved the country from
an epidemic, but destroyed the lives of 75 children as individuals.
of the fact, but on its context and explanation. Instead of an isolated
report about the number of cases, it was important to immediately
identify the causes of what was happening and emphasize that this was not a spontaneous threat, but a systemic problem within the medical institution. An expert assessment on the central TV program,
with the participation of a specialist who could explain the mechanism
of infection and reduce anxiety, could play a significant role. Delayed publication of key details would also be a more cautious strategy, with priority given to containment of the situation and informing about
security measures rather than immediately spreading potentially frightening information.
A journalist should be able to predict the consequences of their words.
A real professional priority in an ethically difficult situation is not
to absolutize one principle, but to find a balance that allows one
to tell the truth without turning it into a weapon against those
it is formed to protect. Elista’s tragedy showed that the truth without context is more dangerous than lies. Publicity saved the country from
an epidemic, but destroyed the lives of 75 children as individuals.
At the same time, there is an opposing view in the professional
community, according to which it is not the open reporting of facts
that harms journalism, but rather their omission or distortion.
As part of our work on this topic, we spoke with Yulia Strelets,
a special correspondent for the news department at the St. Petersburg
TASS News Bureau, who shared her perspective on the relationship between truthfulness, harm, and professional limitations
in the editorial process:
community, according to which it is not the open reporting of facts
that harms journalism, but rather their omission or distortion.
As part of our work on this topic, we spoke with Yulia Strelets,
a special correspondent for the news department at the St. Petersburg
TASS News Bureau, who shared her perspective on the relationship between truthfulness, harm, and professional limitations
in the editorial process:
"If we tell the truth and provide as much factual information
as possible, there is usually no harm. We report on causes
and effects of events without making value judgments, just presenting the facts. If an official has stolen something, we write about it directly.
The problems arise when information is withheld or distorted. In this case,journalism's core mission — to reflect reality — is undermined.
However, the absence of pre-censorship does not mean that there
are no restrictions. In journalism, there has always been a filter
for information. Today, this filter takes the form of self-censorship,
which is the awareness of legal and ethical boundaries.
This is not a ban, but a professional measure of responsibility".
as possible, there is usually no harm. We report on causes
and effects of events without making value judgments, just presenting the facts. If an official has stolen something, we write about it directly.
The problems arise when information is withheld or distorted. In this case,journalism's core mission — to reflect reality — is undermined.
However, the absence of pre-censorship does not mean that there
are no restrictions. In journalism, there has always been a filter
for information. Today, this filter takes the form of self-censorship,
which is the awareness of legal and ethical boundaries.
This is not a ban, but a professional measure of responsibility".
→
Yulia Strelets,
a special correspondent for the news department at the St. Petersburg TASS News Bureau
a special correspondent for the news department at the St. Petersburg TASS News Bureau
MARGARITA SIMONYAN'S
REPORT ON BESLAN
In the logic of television news, downplaying the scale of the tragedy and refusing to voice demands is a choice of a cautious information strategy,
a way to avoid inciting panic, intensifying fear, or provoking radical reactions from the audience. In a peaceful situation, such
an approach might indeed work. However, the situation in Beslan
unfolded under conditions of a direct threat to people's lives.
Furthermore, as Yulia Strelets notes, in situations of violence and terror attacks, editorial boards consciously limit the level of detail, guided
not only by ethical but also legal considerations.
a way to avoid inciting panic, intensifying fear, or provoking radical reactions from the audience. In a peaceful situation, such
an approach might indeed work. However, the situation in Beslan
unfolded under conditions of a direct threat to people's lives.
Furthermore, as Yulia Strelets notes, in situations of violence and terror attacks, editorial boards consciously limit the level of detail, guided
not only by ethical but also legal considerations.
One of the key factors was that the terrorists had access to a television
and were monitoring the news. This was confirmed in numerous subsequent investigations and interviews. For them, the news story
served as an indicator of the public interpretation of events.
When information contradicting the real state of affairs aired,
it was perceived as intentional distortion.
and were monitoring the news. This was confirmed in numerous subsequent investigations and interviews. For them, the news story
served as an indicator of the public interpretation of events.
When information contradicting the real state of affairs aired,
it was perceived as intentional distortion.
According to the testimonies of surviving hostages, after this report aired, the atmosphere inside the school changed. The terrorists began controlling people more harshly, stopped providing water, and increased pressure and threats. Any movement provoked a sharp reaction. The informational "smoothing," conceived as a way to reduce tension, ultimately intensified
it where the consequences were most dangerous.
This episode shows that in conditions of a hostage-taking and violence, journalism ceases to be a neutral observer. Every report becomes part
of the unfolding events. An attempt to shield the viewer from
shocking truth can turn into a threat for those at the epicenter.
In the case of Beslan, the distortion of information not only failed
to minimize harm but became a factor influencing the behavior
of the terrorists and, consequently, the safety of the hostages.
it where the consequences were most dangerous.
This episode shows that in conditions of a hostage-taking and violence, journalism ceases to be a neutral observer. Every report becomes part
of the unfolding events. An attempt to shield the viewer from
shocking truth can turn into a threat for those at the epicenter.
In the case of Beslan, the distortion of information not only failed
to minimize harm but became a factor influencing the behavior
of the terrorists and, consequently, the safety of the hostages.
The case of the NTV report remains one of the most complex and painful examples of an ethical dilemma in Russian journalism.
It demonstrates that the principle of minimizing harm cannot exist separately from the principle of truthfulness. When reality is already
a catastrophe, an attempt to make it "softer" on air does not reduce
the level of violence but only distorts the picture and creates new risks.
In such situations,truth becomes a condition for safety.
It demonstrates that the principle of minimizing harm cannot exist separately from the principle of truthfulness. When reality is already
a catastrophe, an attempt to make it "softer" on air does not reduce
the level of violence but only distorts the picture and creates new risks.
In such situations,truth becomes a condition for safety.
"In situations of terror attacks and violence, it is impossible and unacceptable to describe what is happening in detail. We do not
write about what specific injuries a particular child sustained,
we do not give names, and we do not reproduce scenes of death.
This is not only a question of ethics but also of the legal framework:
a journalist does not have the right to disclose personal data.
Softening the presentation is achieved through generalized
wording—without unnecessary details that could traumatize
the reader and the relatives of the victims."
write about what specific injuries a particular child sustained,
we do not give names, and we do not reproduce scenes of death.
This is not only a question of ethics but also of the legal framework:
a journalist does not have the right to disclose personal data.
Softening the presentation is achieved through generalized
wording—without unnecessary details that could traumatize
the reader and the relatives of the victims."
→
Margarita Simonyan
In one of NTV's reports, reporter Margarita Simonyan stated that around 350 hostages were being held in the school. This figure quickly spread across news feeds and was perceived by viewers as confirmed. However, the residents of Beslan and the relatives of the hostages standing outside the school knew that significantly more people were inside. The school was overcrowded: many had come to the assembly as whole families with young children, grandparents. The discrepancy between the official television version and what was actually happening became noticeable almost immediately.
The same report contained an assertion that the terrorists were not making any demands. This wording created a sense of a deadlocked but relatively "stable" situation, where there was no active dialogue and, consequently, no immediate reasons for escalation. Later, it became clear there were demands, but hiding or changing them made negotiations much harder.
The same report contained an assertion that the terrorists were not making any demands. This wording created a sense of a deadlocked but relatively "stable" situation, where there was no active dialogue and, consequently, no immediate reasons for escalation. Later, it became clear there were demands, but hiding or changing them made negotiations much harder.
The morning of September 1 2004 in Beslan began like an ordinary school celebration. Pupils, parents, and teachers gathered
at a ceremonial assembly at School No. 1. Within minutes, the place turned into a hostage zone. Armed militants forced people into
the gymnasium, mined the premises, and told the hostages
not to talk, move, or cry.
Television news became the main source of information for the entire country during those days. Broadcasts went on almost without interruption. Journalists worked under conditions of scarce verified data, pressure from editorial boards and the state, as well as acute emotional involvement. Such circumstances demand responsibility from journalists for every word spoken on air.
at a ceremonial assembly at School No. 1. Within minutes, the place turned into a hostage zone. Armed militants forced people into
the gymnasium, mined the premises, and told the hostages
not to talk, move, or cry.
Television news became the main source of information for the entire country during those days. Broadcasts went on almost without interruption. Journalists worked under conditions of scarce verified data, pressure from editorial boards and the state, as well as acute emotional involvement. Such circumstances demand responsibility from journalists for every word spoken on air.
THE CIA’S SECRET PRISONS
In 2005, journalists of The Washington Post received information
about a network of secret CIA prisons where people suspected
in terrorism were held illegally without formal judicial procedures.
The authenticity of the information was verified, and therefore,
it became an issue of public interest, as it pointed to possible
human rights violations.
From the point of journalistic truthfulness, the situation seemed straightforward. The public has a right to know that such prisons exist. Staying silent would have meant abandoning one of journalism’s
core roles: defending the public interest and human rights,
and exposing abuses by government authorities. That is why
The Washington Post chose to publish its investigation.
about a network of secret CIA prisons where people suspected
in terrorism were held illegally without formal judicial procedures.
The authenticity of the information was verified, and therefore,
it became an issue of public interest, as it pointed to possible
human rights violations.
From the point of journalistic truthfulness, the situation seemed straightforward. The public has a right to know that such prisons exist. Staying silent would have meant abandoning one of journalism’s
core roles: defending the public interest and human rights,
and exposing abuses by government authorities. That is why
The Washington Post chose to publish its investigation.
WHEN NOT ALL THE TRUTH SHOULD BE PUBLISHED:
Ultimately, the editors reached a compromise. The Washington Post reported that the secret prisons existed and explained how the system worked, but deliberately withheld precise locations and country
names. This made it possible to deliver the essential information
to the public without creating additional risks to people’s safety
or to international stability.
This Washington Post case clearly shows that truthfulness
in journalism is not about listing every detail exhaustively,
but about accurately reflecting reality. It also illustrates how
an editorial strategy can balance the public’s right to know
with responsibility for potential harm.
names. This made it possible to deliver the essential information
to the public without creating additional risks to people’s safety
or to international stability.
This Washington Post case clearly shows that truthfulness
in journalism is not about listing every detail exhaustively,
but about accurately reflecting reality. It also illustrates how
an editorial strategy can balance the public’s right to know
with responsibility for potential harm.
However, the news agency faced a serious ethical risk. Publishing exact prison addresses, coordinates, or names of specific countries could have endangered intelligence personnel, triggered diplomatic conflicts, and created broader security risks. For example, it could have provoked attempts to forcibly free detainees or enabled extremist groups to exploit the information. In this case, the principle of minimizing harm came into direct conflict with the duty to inform the public openly.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSEQUENCES
IS THE FOUNDATION OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Tension between truthfulness and harm minimization is a common journalistic dilemma. Case analysis suggests there is no single universally "correct" answer, because the best choice depends on the situation.
These principles cannot be separated: trying to «protect» the audience from the truth by distorting or withholding it can lead to misinformation, loss of public trust, and danger for those at the center of events.
But absolute, exhaustive transparency can also undermine security
and harm specific individuals. Journalists need to stay one step ahead—carefully analyse what happened, verify sources and information, choose their words with precision, and think through possible consequences
in advance.
It is extremely crucial to find balance between these principles
and make a responsible decision about "what" and "how"
to report —preserving truthfulness while protecting human safety.
These principles cannot be separated: trying to «protect» the audience from the truth by distorting or withholding it can lead to misinformation, loss of public trust, and danger for those at the center of events.
But absolute, exhaustive transparency can also undermine security
and harm specific individuals. Journalists need to stay one step ahead—carefully analyse what happened, verify sources and information, choose their words with precision, and think through possible consequences
in advance.
It is extremely crucial to find balance between these principles
and make a responsible decision about "what" and "how"
to report —preserving truthfulness while protecting human safety.
