Situation

At the beginning of January, days before the inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th President,
Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith published a dossier of scandalous yet unverified allegations about the
incoming president. Goldengate, as it was called, was based on unsubstantiated claims that
Russian intelligence had incriminating recordings of Trump that be could used as blackmail.

Was it ethical for BuzzFeed to publish the reports about Trump?

Values

This is a case where transparency and minimizing harm come into question. In acknowledging
that the report was not verifiable, BuzzFeed’s intentions were clearly not deceitful. More so, in
Smith’s view, it was a matter of transparency to publish information that was already circulating
in government circles (https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/818978955965464580).

This is where the minimization of harm comes into play. If the allegations in the dossier were
true, there is no doubt that they would’ve been a harmful weapon left in the hands of a
historically adversarial foreign government. However, given that this is not the case, the relevant
question is whether or not the spread of unverified information is harmful in and of itself. The
Hutchins Commission Report and Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics encourages
journalists to “show good taste” and to “avoid pandering to lurid curiosity” precisely on these
grounds (http://www.charleswarner.us/HutchinsRptandSPJCode.ppt. March 2017).

Principle

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act on that maxim which you will to become a universal law.”

To many, BuzzFeed acted against a categorical imperative in publishing unverified information.
Despite including explanations and acknowledging the dubious nature of the claims made in the
dossier, Smith disregarded an ethical maxim in journalism. The Washington Post’s Margaret
Sullivan makes the case for her colleague “plunging down a slippery ethical slope,” when “it’s
never been acceptable to publish rumor or innuendo” (http://wapo.st/2iG6amW. March 2017).

While it is true that traditional maxims have been challenged by the digital media landscape, it is
still the practice of respectable institutions to draw the line on what is worthy of attention and
what is not. Cases like the dossier are treated at most as leads, not as worth publishing
(Christians, Fackler et. al. 2012. P. 63).

Loyalties

When acting as a digital newspaper, BuzzFeed has a duty to its professional colleagues and a duty
to society. To quote Walter William’s creed: “I believe that advertising, news and editorial
columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth
and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of
its public service” (http://www.charleswarner.us/WalterWilliamsCreed.htm. March 2017).

Ideally, these responsibilities come before a duty to the firm.

Judgment

BuzzFeed’s handling of the dossier was of disservice to the already waning credibility of
journalism during the latest electoral process. A firm’s unilateral decision on what is or is not “the
public’s right to know” should not be an excuse to ignore ethical maxims. While publishing the
dossier on the grounds of transparency might be defensible in isolation, it did little to serve the
public.

The online newspaper neglected its duty to professional colleagues, as well as its duty to society
by enabling the spread of misinformation. In the current political context, focusing on verifiable
issues would be a path of lesser harm and of greater service to the public.