BROOKE GLADSTONE: So, it turns out journalists are better than average at untying ethical knots. But some of those knots require extra help. So, a few years ago, the Chicago Headline Club and the Center for Ethics and Social Justice at Loyola University Chicago launched a service called the Ethics Advice Line. Reporters could dial 866-Dilemma for ethical help in a hurry. But what journalist is going to outsource a decision that could break a career? In fact, how would they even know that they could? So, for the advancement of ethics in journalism, we offered this promo for OTM's ethics hotline. [MUSIC]

CLIENT: I was confused. I needed direction.

SEXY WOMAN: The Ethics Hotline.

CLIENT: I didn't know who to source, I didn't know when to footnote, and I didn't know where to turn.

SEXY WOMAN: The Ethics Hotline.

CLIENT: Then, I called The Ethics Hotline.

ANNOUNCER: Don't trust those other so-called ethicists. The Ethics Hotline has ethics experts standing by 24 hours a day, to help you with all your ethical needs.

CLIENT: Hello. Ethics Hotline? I've been a very naughty journalist. I have the urge to blow this story all out of proportion.

SEXY WOMAN: Sorry. We're not that kind of hotline.

WOMAN: Hello. Ethics Hotline? I've picked up a murder plot on my baby monitor. Can I report it?

SEXY WOMAN: Ethics Hotline can help.

WOMAN: I have evidence that exonerates Puffy Combs. But I hate his music. What should I do?

SEXY WOMAN: Ethics Hotline can help.

CLIENT: Hello. Ethics Hotline? I've plagiarized the Bible. Am I going to hell?

SEXY WOMAN: Yes.

CLIENT: Thanks, Ethics Hotline.

OTHER MAN: Thanks, Ethics Hotline.

THIRD MAN: Thanks, Ethics Hotline.

WOMAN: Thanks, Ethics Hotline.

CLIENT: Damn you, Hotline. I'm taking you down with me.

ANNOUNCER: Ethics Hotline - five dollars the first minute. 99 cents each additional minute.

DAVID OZAR: [LAUGHS] That's a hoot.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Dr. Ozar, would you say it's unethical to make fun of a service without actually talking to the people who launched it?

DAVID OZAR: It depends on your purpose.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So if we were unfair then, we're going to rectify it now. David Ozar is an ethicist and professor of philosophy at Loyola Chicago University, and co-founder of the Ethics Advice Line for Journalists. David, welcome to the show.

DAVID OZAR: Thank you very much for having me.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: So, even though that study I referred to found that journalists were highly ethical, a 2004 Gallup survey showed that only about 20 percent of Americans said they thought that journalists had high or very high ethical standards.

DAVID OZAR: Well, when I came to this, I expected journalists in general to be less ethically sensitive and less skilled at doing the ethical thinking, but I think I'd say my committee's universal impression of the people we deal with is that they're very conscientious, they care a lot, and the reason they're calling is that they either are really puzzled and want a little coaching about how to think through a hard issue, or they're pretty sure of the answer, but they want to get some confirmation, or they're pretty sure of the answer, and they've got somebody above them in the system who is, shall we say, less sure, and they want a little advice about what to do about that. But, most of the people are calling out of their sense of professionalism.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: What news organizations are these callers calling from?

DAVID OZAR: Well, most of them are from print media. I would guess that more than a third of the calls are coming from mid-sized journalist organizations, mid-sized cities; about the same amount are coming from small operations - people out, so to speak, in the sticks who don't have somebody at the next they can even talk to. And the remainder, maybe 20 percent, from freelancers. We have had very, very few calls from people from the big organs, and I suspect that's because many of the big organizations have their own ethics advice system internally. At least, I hope so.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: What do people typically ask for help in?

DAVID OZAR: Well, about half of the calls we get are in conflict of interest issues, and about 40 percent of them are on people weighing, to put it simply, benefits and harms of doing a story or taking some other sort of journalistic action.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Can you give me an example of the benefit versus harm?

DAVID OZAR: Investigative reporter has found out some real dirt on a politician that the investigative reporter thinks is a real sleazebag. This particular politician is about to run for state office against another politician that the reporter thinks is a sleazebag. Let's call them Sleaze A and Sleaze B. The reporter's got really good dirt on Sleaze A. He could probably undo him, he thinks. But he thinks Sleaze B is even worse than Sleaze A. So if he undoes Sleaze A with this revelation, he's afraid Sleaze B will win the election.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: [LAUGHS] That's a tough one.

DAVID OZAR: Yeah. So, exactly. His worry is that if he does the journalistic thing and tells the truth as he's found it, he's going to hurt the public by enhancing the position of a worse sleazebag.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: But to not do the story is to deprive the public of information that would be useful.

DAVID OZAR: Exactly.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Even if he doesn't have equivalent information on Sleaze B.

DAVID OZAR: Exactly. And, in a sense, this guy has to trust the voters. It's not his job to elect people and un-elect people. You know? The benefit that the public knows these things outweighs the potential harm that the public might make a mistake.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Your website says that the service is for (quote)"professional journalists who are seeking the 'correct' course of ethical conduct when covering the news." Isn't a right choice versus a wrong choice subjective?

DAVID OZAR: Depends on how you mean the word subjective. If subjective means there is no correct answer that anyone could ever come to - it's just, you know, a flip of your gut thing - well, I mean there are people who take that view, but particularly within a profession, it's not a very viable view. I mean, journalists have made a set of commitments to a set of standards that they intend to live by, and they present these to the community as how they intend to live, and the community accords them authority and access, and most importantly, believes them, most of the time, in proportion as they live that integrity commitment. And the community believes they're living it.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Do you ever find a situation when somebody wants to do the right thing for the wrong reason?

DAVID OZAR: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, here's a story. Fellow calls in and says I'm a freelancer. I write for a lot of local newspapers, and I've just written a book, and I really want to sell it, and I bought a self-help how-to-market-your-wares book, and it says what I should do is write letters to the editor and op-ed pieces to tout my book. And my question to you is - can I do this for the very same newspapers that I freelance in? And I said to him, well I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you could do this for any paper you want to. And the bad news is that, since you're a journalist and you know what op-ed pieces and letters to the editor are for, you know that they're not for touting products. So he said, so I can't do it at all? I said, well, sounds like it. [LAUGHTER]

BROOKE GLADSTONE: David, thank you very much.

DAVID OZAR: Thank you.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: David Ozar is the director of the Center for Ethics and Social Justice at Loyola University Chicago and co-founder of the Ethics Advice Line for Journalists. [MUSIC]

BOB GARFIELD: Coming up, our endless fascination with Deep Throat - both of them.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: This is On the Media, from NPR. [FUNDING CREDITS]