It starts out simple enough: someone posts on Nextdoor asking why the sirens are going off or why their water pressure just dropped. Others chime in with what they’ve seen, and before long, speculation and rumors start spreading.
On Instagram, local meme accounts, once known for funny posts, now share videos showing a house fire, a bar fight and arrest, a plane making an emergency landing on the beach. They post the videos with no context, letting commenters fill in the blanks.
This is the reality of today’s information ecosystem. Anyone can witness, record and share and in doing so, anyone can commit an act of journalism. Each of us has a front-row seat to not just witness history but contribute to how people remember it. I love that technology and social media have made it easier to hear from more people. We now can see stories, perspectives and communities that were once invisible or undercovered in mainstream media.
It also means we’re navigating an information ecosystem that’s far more complicated. There’s more content and almost no shared standards for what it means to be “responsible” when we post or share. Some may argue it’s better that way – they are purposefully trying to get away from standards and “the media.”
I understand that. There are elements of journalism and news that are broken and a lot that needs fixed. But, the basic principle of providing people with accurate information is important. Information is essential to people’s lives. They need it and will continue to find it, even if it’s not from “news.”
All of this content being shared by creators, influencers, our friends, brands, etc., will fill people’s need for information. But how will we know if it’s accurate? And what harm, unintentional or not, might it cause?
As a former Ethics Chair and current member of the Ethics Committee for the Society of Professional Journalists, I’ve answered hundreds of ethics questions and trained hundreds of journalists on how to produce accurate, responsible and ethical information. In every one of those conversations and trainings, I emphasize that the act of sharing information will always cause some degree of harm.
Sometimes, the harm caused is easy to make sense of. For example, a local restaurant receives multiple health code violations and you post about it on social media with a link to the reports. Potentially, people avoid the restaurant, which negatively impacts the restaurant’s bottom line, but people should know if the food they are being served is safe, so the public’s right to know outweighs the harm to the individual restaurant.
Sometimes, the harm caused is not as easy to make sense of. Imagine finding out that a teacher at your child’s school is accused of wrongdoing and put on leave. You confirm the details of the investigation, but there are no charges filed and the investigation is ongoing. Do you wait until the investigation is complete to share this information? Also, there is a substitute in the classroom, and parents have questions. In this case, it would make sense to provide information about what is happening, but the teacher’s reputation could still be damaged no matter what the outcome of the investigation is or the amount of care you took in telling the story.
Minimizing harm is hard, but if we want a healthier, more constructive information ecosystem, everyone who creates or shares content should embrace it. In all cases, the goal is to balance the harm sharing and publishing causes against the public’s right to know.
According to SPJ’s Code of Ethics, “Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.”
It goes on to say journalists should:
- Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort
- Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage.
- Recognize that just because you can publish something doesn’t always mean you should.
- Realize that private people have greater rights to control information about themselves than public figures.
Minimizing harm means asking questions like:
- Who could this hurt if I post this information?
- Does the public’s right to know outweigh the potential harm?
- Is there more context I can add to make this fair or accurate?
- Should I be editing photos or video to protect anyone’s privacy?
Keeping “minimize harm” front and center matters because most harm from shared information isn’t malicious, it happens when we don’t stop to think about the ripple effects of what we share or publish.
For example, a neighborhood post about “suspicious activity” could end up spreading unfounded fear about a person who did nothing wrong. Or, a viral video of a protest could expose participants’ faces, putting them at risk of retaliation. Or a video of a tragedy shared without context, could retraumatize victims or spread misinformation.
Professional newsrooms struggle with this balance. Should a station show a mugshot? Name a victim? Publish graphic video? These are difficult judgment calls and they all come back to minimizing harm.
It’s also worth remembering that what’s legal isn’t always ethical. You may have the right to record or share something publicly, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. As the SPJ Code reminds us, “Legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish.”
So what does this look like for creators, community messengers and everyday sharers? It starts with a conscious awareness of the impact behind each piece of content. Then, before posting, take a moment to ask yourself:
- Why am I sharing this? (To inform, to help or just to get engagement?)
- Could this cause someone harm (emotional, reputational, physical?)
- Is it accurate? Does it include enough context?
- Am I considering privacy and consent, especially if private individuals are involved?
Minimizing harm doesn’t mean avoiding difficult or uncomfortable stories or content. It means being thoughtful and compassionate in how those stories are shared.
At protests, for example, people have the right to record what happens. But if we plan on sharing the video or images, we also have an ethical responsibility to treat people with dignity, to provide context and to weigh what publishing and sharing that content might mean for those involved. The answer isn’t to stop reporting, recording or sharing. It’s to do it responsibly, with fairness, accuracy and respect.
Every post on social media, video on YouTube or newsletter published contributes to the larger information ecosystem. Every time we post or share, we participate in shaping what others see, think and believe.
The principle of minimizing harm gives us a human-centered framework for sharing information. It asks us to be mindful and compassionate and to remember that behind every story, image and post there are real people with real lives.