Sports Journalism: Professional Values and Ethical Challenges
Part I – Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value of My Chosen Profession
My chosen profession is to become a sports journalist and reporter. I am especially inspired by figures such as Sara Carbonero, who represent professionalism, sensitivity, and credibility in sports media. Journalism is not just a job where you communicate information; it is a profession that shapes opinions, influences society, and builds trust between the media and the public. For this reason, reflecting on the intrinsic and extrinsic value of this profession is essential to understand both its ethical responsibility and its personal meaning for me.
Intrinsic Goods of Sports Journalism
The intrinsic goods of sports journalism are those that belong to the very essence of the profession. One of the most important intrinsic values is the search for truth. A journalist has the moral duty to inform accurately, honestly, and transparently. Another intrinsic good is the service to society, as journalism allows people to understand what is happening in the world of sports beyond entertainment. Through sports, values such as effort, teamwork, discipline, perseverance, and fair play are transmitted to millions of people.
A third intrinsic value is the development of critical thinking, both for the journalist and for the audience. Reporting is not only about giving facts but also about offering context, interpretation, and responsible judgment. Finally, sports journalism also carries the intrinsic value of giving voice to athletes, allowing their personal stories, struggles, and achievements to be seen and understood.
Extrinsic Goods of Sports Journalism
The extrinsic goods of this profession are external rewards such as salary, public recognition, fame, social status, and professional opportunities. Being a well-known sports reporter can mean traveling, attending major sporting events, gaining media visibility, and earning a good income. These goods are not negative in themselves, and they can be legitimate motivations to some extent. However, they should never become the main reason for practicing journalism.
If a journalist focuses only on success, money, or popularity, there is a risk of losing moral integrity. For me, professional recognition and financial stability are important, but they should always be subordinated to credibility and ethical responsibility.
Growth and Societal Contribution
Both intrinsic and extrinsic goods contribute to my personal and professional growth. Intrinsic goods help me grow as a responsible, critical, and committed person, while extrinsic goods allow me to develop economically and professionally. At an organizational and social level, ethical journalism strengthens democracy, freedom of information, and public trust in the media.
Core Moral Values and Professional Rules
From these goods arise the core moral values and professional rules that must guide my conduct as a journalist:
- Truthfulness: Never manipulating information or deliberately misleading the audience.
- Independence: Not allowing economic, political, or personal interests to influence reporting.
- Respect for Human Dignity: Especially when dealing with vulnerable people or sensitive situations involving injuries, scandals, or private life.
- Responsibility: Recognizing that words have real consequences on people’s lives.
- Professional Integrity: Coherence between what I believe and what I do.
A good journalist is not only technically skilled but also morally committed to these values. Only through ethical behavior can I become not just a successful journalist, but a truly good professional.
Part II – Ethical Dilemma in My Future Profession
Elaboration of the Ethical Dilemma
In relation to my future profession, I can imagine facing complex ethical dilemmas. One possible dilemma could occur if I were already working as a sports reporter for a very influential sports television channel. During an important international football tournament, I could receive exclusive information from a trusted internal source revealing that a star player from the national team is playing despite suffering from a serious injury that could permanently damage his career. According to this source, the medical team is hiding this information to avoid scandal and pressure him to continue playing.
At the same time, my editor could pressure me to publish the news immediately, since it would be a massive exclusive that would significantly increase audience ratings and media visibility. If I decided to publish the story, I would be acting in favor of transparency and the public’s right to know the truth, but I could seriously harm the player’s physical health, emotional well-being, and professional future. If I decided not to publish it, I would be protecting the athlete’s dignity and health, but I would be hiding relevant information from the public and betraying journalistic transparency. Both options seem ethically defensible and problematic at the same time. This creates a real ethical dilemma with no perfect solution.
Deliberation Process
Identification of Impacts, Stakeholders and Moral Goods in Conflict
In this situation, several stakeholders would be directly affected by my decision. The injured football player would be the most vulnerable one, as his physical health, emotional stability, and long-term career would be at serious risk. The medical staff and the club would also be involved, since their credibility and professional responsibility would be questioned. Fans and the general public would be affected as well, because they have the right to be informed truthfully, but at the same time they can contribute to harmful media pressure. My media organization would be another key stakeholder, as it seeks reputation, audience, and economic success. Finally, I myself would be deeply affected, as this decision would shape my professional identity and personal values.
Consequences Analysis
If I chose to publish the information, the positive consequences would be that transparency would be preserved and the public would receive truthful and relevant information. My media company would gain prestige and visibility, and my professional career could advance thanks to this exclusive. However, the negative consequences could be extremely serious:
- The player could suffer irreversible physical damage.
- His privacy and dignity would be violated.
- The psychological pressure of public exposure could seriously affect his emotional stability.
- Future sources might stop trusting me, damaging my long-term credibility as a journalist.
If I chose not to publish the story, the main positive effect would be the protection of the player’s health and dignity. I would be acting with empathy and responsibility, avoiding unnecessary harm to a vulnerable person. However, the public would remain uninformed about a relevant situation, my media company would lose an important exclusive, and I could be accused of lacking professional courage. Therefore, the moral goods in conflict are clearly truth and transparency versus human dignity, health, and protection from harm.
Identification of Moral Rules and Ethical Limits
Several moral rules apply to this dilemma. Truthfulness is a fundamental principle of journalism and strongly supports the idea that relevant information should be published. However, this principle is limited by another equally important rule: respect for human dignity. Revealing sensitive medical information without the consent of the individual involved can seriously violate this dignity. Professional responsibility also requires journalists to evaluate not only whether information is true but also whether publishing it causes disproportionate harm. According to many journalistic codes of ethics, the duty to inform must always be balanced with the duty to minimize harm.
From a deontological perspective, publishing the news purely for audience impact would cross a moral red line. From a virtue ethics approach, I must act with prudence, compassion, and justice. A good journalist does not seek success at any cost but instead tries to act rightly even when the decision is professionally inconvenient. Chasing exclusivity without considering the human consequences would show a lack of moral character.
Prudent Deliberation, Golden Mean and Final Decision
The golden mean in this dilemma lies between irresponsible sensationalism and absolute silence. The most ethically balanced decision would be to avoid revealing the player’s identity and specific medical details, while at the same time addressing the general issue of health pressure and medical risks in elite sports. In this way, the public interest would be partially preserved, but the direct harm to the individual would be avoided.
This decision reflects practical wisdom because it does not prioritize fame, money, or media impact over human dignity. It allows me to remain faithful to my professional values while protecting someone’s life and career. It also helps shape me into the kind of journalist I aspire to be: responsible, credible, and morally consistent. I could ethically justify this decision to my editor, to my colleagues, and to society by explaining that journalism is not only about revealing facts but also about acting with justice and responsibility. This decision would better resist public scrutiny than a sensationalist publication.