Like a paramedic’s duty is to help give immediate care to people, like a construction road worker’s duty is to ensure the safety of the roads, our job as journalists is very clear—we are taught to collect, write and/or distribute news and other relevant information to the public.

One of the most procedural duties that journalists have recently have had to be reevaluated—the ethics we adhere by.

Ethics and being completely objective have been the fundamental pillars of journalism taught to us from the beginning. The last election cycle has challenged those pillars and has affected the core of the industry because the field itself is being seen as dishonest and biased.

But what does this mean for journalists?

Although even being remotely biased in writing is a big no-no for journalists, this election cycle has made it difficult to present the facts without seeming one sided. For example, The New York Times often gets called out for being leftists when they report on Donald Trump’s actions, even though they do nothing more than report the facts.

Before this election, one would write stories as representatives of the publication they worked for. For example, reporters working for a conservative paper wouldn’t write an article highlighting abortion as a fundamental right because it’s not what they believe. Now, it seems as if reporters write as individuals, expressing their opinions and beliefs through their stories. Every publication seems to have a slant when it comes to politics.

Although there are overwhelming facts that shine a negative light on someone, it seems unfair to try and counter those facts in order to be fair.

How do we make situations clear without discrediting our work for coming off as too one sided? Our aim as journalists should always be to get both sides, but we should be wary about inflating one side of the argument for the sake of parity.

Another factor that impairs objectivity is advertising. Obviously a publication cannot pay workers without selling advertisements or sponsorship packages. It’s a very delicate matter, especially when both paths cross, or worse, the journalistic side caves in and sells out to better cater to the advertisers.

Former Mayor Oscar Leeser is a prime example of this conflict.

Before, the mayor said that he would not use the advertising budget from his Hyundai dealership to influence media coverage, as long as the coverage was  “professional and honest journalism,” he told the El Paso Times.

However, during his mayoral campaign, Leeser pulled all his Hyundai of El Paso advertisements from the Times because he thought a story that was written was “biased and without merit,”  as was reported by the Times.

It was regarding a story where Fort Bliss officials questioned his campaign propaganda mail, which included a picture of Fort Bliss Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard. Ft. Bliss officials pointed out that the four-page flier, which was sent to 40,000 homes, featured photos that had not been allowed for publication.

He called the coverage from the Times “biased,” but assured pulling the advertisements was not a matter of getting back at the paper.

“If I felt that they ran biased stories that had no merit, and they were trying to hurt me deliberately, I would think I would not advertise with them any longer,” Leeser told the Times. “It’s not leverage or anything, but if they’re trying to hurt me, then I don’t need to do business with them.”

It was evident that this was an important subject for the Times to cover, but it was also pretty clear that Leeser wanted to get back at them the only way he could. From an advertising standpoint, it probably hurt the publication financially being that his advertisements would sometimes take up entire spreads.

Examples such as this are what create conflict for journalists when writing stories. Remaining integral to the fundamental principles of journalism ethics is what we should stand by. But how do we do that while maintaining the respect and attention of readers?

It is not up to us to change the rules of ethics we’ve been taught. The meaning of journalistic integrity seems to wither away as time passes, and the current administration’s predatory views on the profession and the content being reported does not serve as any help when it comes to trying to figure out the state of the industry. However, the dogmatic notion of a balancing act to defend a party that at times is not defendable counteracts the elements of competence and directness that the news is predicated upon.