Legal Definitions - New York Times rule

Term: New York Times rule

The New York Times rule is an informal ethical guideline that encourages individuals, particularly those in positions of public trust or visibility, to evaluate their actions by imagining how those actions would be perceived if reported prominently on the front page of a major newspaper. It serves as a personal test to determine if a particular behavior, whether public or private, is appropriate and defensible, or if it might lead to public scrutiny, embarrassment, or damage to one's reputation or organization. If one would be uncomfortable or ashamed seeing their actions detailed in a widely read publication, the rule suggests reconsidering that behavior.

• A corporate executive considering a controversial business decision:

  An executive at a pharmaceutical company is debating whether to approve a new drug for market that has shown promising results but also has a very rare, severe side effect. While the company could legally proceed, the executive applies the New York Times rule. They imagine a headline detailing the drug's approval alongside a story about a patient suffering the rare side effect, sparking public concern.

  This illustrates the rule because the executive uses the hypothetical newspaper report as a lens to assess the ethical implications and potential public backlash of their decision, even if legally permissible. The discomfort with the imagined headline prompts a deeper review of the risks and ethical responsibilities, leading them to consider additional safety measures or clearer patient warnings.

• A public official engaging in personal conduct:

  A city council member is invited to a private, exclusive party hosted by a lobbying firm with significant interests before the council. While attending the party might not be illegal, the council member considers the New York Times rule. They envision a news story on the front page describing their attendance at a lavish event with lobbyists just before a crucial vote affecting those same interests, raising questions of undue influence.

  This illustrates the rule because the council member uses the potential for public exposure to evaluate the appropriateness of their personal conduct. Even if no laws are broken, the imagined negative public perception and potential for a conflict of interest story guide their decision to decline the invitation, protecting their reputation and the integrity of their office.

• A university professor handling student data:

  A university professor is working on a research project and has access to anonymized student performance data. To speed up a particular analysis, they consider briefly using a small subset of the raw, identifiable data on their personal, unsecured laptop, intending to delete it immediately afterward. Applying the New York Times rule, the professor imagines a headline stating, "University Professor Exposes Student Data on Personal Laptop," even if only for a short time.

  This illustrates the rule because the professor uses the hypothetical news report to recognize the significant ethical breach and potential harm, even if they believe their intentions are good and the risk is low. The imagined public scrutiny highlights the importance of adhering strictly to data privacy protocols, leading them to abandon the idea and use secure, approved methods.