When a secret is leaked… benefit or drawback?

A media professional is responsible for the information he/she obtains. Being responsible means that they have to determine when it is necessary that the information be made public. Along with the information we may also discover secrets and that is when we must look into our code of ethics and really determine if the public has the right to know this secret or if is in the best interest of the public to keep it secret. In my opinion, if revealing the secret will have a positive effect on the community then it should be shared. A positive effect would be saving lives or preventing deaths, a negative effect would be anything that may harm the community. It doesn’t matter if the secrets we encounter involve a person, a group of people or a whole country it is the way we handle the information that becomes a matter of ethics.

In some cases it is not just the media professional who may encounter these secrets, it may be a person working in a facility that may hold sensitive information and it is that person’s choice whether or not to share the information. Such is the case of Porter Fischer a former employee of Biogenesis a Coral Gables anti-aging clinic. Mr. Fischer leaked documents linking various MLB players to the clinic. The reason behind the players visit was to obtain performance enhancement drugs. According to NY Daily News, Porter Fischer leaked documents he obtained from the Biogenesis offices to the Miami New Times. He did this after having a dispute over money with the biochemist that operated the clinic. It was later known that the MLB offered Mr. Fischer money for a signed affidavit and the rest of the documents he took from Biogenesis. This person knew how valuable the information he obtained was. Furthermore he knew the MLB players needed to keep their visits to the clinic a secret because it is illegal to use performance enhancement drugs in the MLB. In this case we can see that the person who obtained the information decided to make it public, most likely for personal gain rather than for the public’s interest or right to know.

There are many talented athletes in the MLB although it is true that in the past years there have been a number of players that have used performance enhancement drugs to improve their game. In the Biogenesis leaked documents case, the players involved in the case are the ones who were affected. Does the public have the right to know about the activities athletes are involved in? Athletes today are public figures some may even be considered celebrities, they appear on magazine covers, cameos in movies and are still considered role models. I do believe that the public has the right to know whether an athlete is “cheating” to improve their game by using performance enhancement drugs.

There are two ethical dilemmas in this case, first the athlete that went to the clinic and second the person who knew about it and leaked the information. The ones hurt by the release of the information were the athletes. The one who benefited from it was the Biogenesis employee. If I were the journalist who received this information I would consider the ethical perspective of Communitarianism for this case, because it seeks social justice. There should be fairness for all players and they should all have the same starting point and equal playing field. And although this may be true for the physical field in which they play, it is not fair that some players have an advantage over others. As a journalist I would interview the players in light of the evidence and let them be the ones who tell their own story, this way they feel in control and not necessarily hurt by the information leaked.

Article about investigators who met with Porter Fischer about leaked documents: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/mlb-meets-biogenesis-whistleblower-article-1.1388707

In 2007, MLB player Alex Rodriguez (who was affected in the Biogenesis case) agreed to a 10-year, $275 million contract with the NY Yankees. This contract was the richest in baseball history, but “worth it” for an athlete like Rodriguez. He is the youngest player ever to hit 500 home runs and he has received many awards and honors for his many achievements. But now those achievements become questionable if he was using drugs to enhance his performance. Was he really worthy of a ten-year contract of $275 million? If we consider Kant’s Categorical Imperative and focus on the action, what Rodriguez did was illegal. If the action was universal law and every player did it, then there would be no problem in letting the public know about it, it wouldn’t need to be secret. After an arbitration hearing, Alex Rodriguez was suspended for 162 games, he may be off the field for the entire 2014 season. This is the consequence of his action, his secret made public.

Alex Rodriguez, MLB player affected by leaked information

As a professional using the media to share previously secret information may have some negative effects as well as positive ones. When secrets are revealed an investigation may take place and there are a lot of questions from the public and until it is confirmed, the professional’s credibility may be at risk. If the secret is very personal to the ones affected by it’s revealing, the one responsible for leaking it may even get served with a lawsuit. On the other hand, if a secret is revealed and there is a benefit to the public then that is a positive outcome.

I believe that as a media professional it may be a little difficult to avoid getting entangled in secrets, just because of the nature of the job or workplace. Each professional should take into consideration their own values as well as their code of ethics when making the decision to share secret information. If I was working for a place where I know I may encounter secret information, I would think of Mill’s Utility Principle and focus on the outcome. If the outcome is positive according to my values and code of ethics, and it would benefit the community, then I would consider sharing the secret information.