(Phnom Penh): When a journalist violates the code of ethics—by publishing defamatory content, humiliating the dignity of another person, or abusing the public trust—there are always voices that rush to defend the offender. Some claim: “His reporting once helped the nation,” or “He exposed corruption,” or “He has served the public.”

Such emotional appeals reveal a dangerous misunderstanding of what true journalism is.
Recently, the Ministry of Information revoked the press identification card of Svay Rieng–based journalist Khann Saroth, placing him on a blacklist preventing him from working in any media-related business. The Ministry’s decision followed the discovery that he had used inappropriate language and gestures toward a female suspect—an act caught on video while Vietnamese inmates were being transported to the provincial court.

Yet, instead of supporting the Ministry’s effort to protect public dignity and uphold professional standards, some individuals intervened, appealing for leniency on the grounds that the journalist had contributed to society through his previous reporting.

* Good Deeds Cannot Shield a Journalist From Accountability
As a veteran journalist with over 40 years of experience, allow me to reiterate a fundamental truth: journalism ethics are non-negotiable. They cannot be overridden by emotional appeals, personal loyalty, or claims of past service.
The ethics chapters that guide journalists make no provision whatsoever for forgiving or overlooking misconduct simply because a journalist once “helped the nation,” “exposed corruption,” or “served the public.”

Journalism is not protected by sympathy. It is protected by ethical standards and professional integrity. A profession that claims to serve the public must also accept responsibility when its actions harm the public—whether that harm is legal, moral, or reputational.
If society allows journalists to evade responsibility because they performed good deeds in the past, the entire foundation of trustworthy journalism will inevitably collapse.

* Good Actions Do Not Grant a License to Commit Wrongdoing
Journalism rests on universal values: truth, independence, fairness, accountability, respect for human dignity, and accuracy. These are not optional. They do not fluctuate with seasons or depend on personal history. And they cannot be suspended simply because someone once did something admirable.

The principle is the same in all professions:

• A teacher with decades of service still cannot abuse a student.
• A government official who once helped society still cannot misuse authority.
• A doctor who has saved many lives still cannot violate medical ethics.
And journalists are no exception.
Past achievements cannot erase present misconduct. No journalist can claim immunity from ethical responsibility simply because of past contributions.

* International Standards Reinforce This Principle

As stated in the IFJ’s Global Charter of Ethics, a journalist’s responsibility to the public is permanent and unconditional.
Likewise, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) emphasizes that journalists must:

• “Minimize harm,”
• “Act independently,” and
• “Be accountable and transparent.”
None of these principles offer exceptions for past accomplishments, emotional pleas, or patriotic narratives.
A journalist who claims to serve the public must also accept accountability when harming the public. Excusing ethical violations on the basis of past good deeds destroys professional integrity, weakens public trust, and undermines every honest journalist who works to uphold the credibility of the profession.
This is why international journalism standards place responsibility above sympathy:
Ethics do not protect the journalist who commits wrongdoing; ethics protect the public from abuse.

* Press Freedom Does Not Mean Freedom to Harm
Press freedom is essential. It ensures transparency, accountability, and public access to information.

But press freedom does not mean the freedom to:

• Spread falsehoods,
• Humiliate others,
• Manipulate narratives, or
• Violate public trust.

When supporters defend unethical behavior by saying, “He once helped the country,” they confuse freedom with impunity.
True press freedom exists only when media practitioners uphold ethical standards—not when they evade responsibility.

Conclusion:
A journalist’s duty is to serve truth, not personal ego.
A journalist does not become a hero by violating ethics; a journalist becomes a guardian of society only by protecting the truth.
When journalists violate ethical standards, they must be held accountable—not to punish them, but to protect the integrity of the profession itself.
A profession that cannot discipline itself will inevitably lose the trust of the very society it claims to serve.
In the end, sympathy cannot replace ethics, and the media cannot survive without both truth and responsibility.