From a utilitarian perspective, for example, majority interests must be considered, thus the majority claimants must be recognized as a group. For example, if, as a reporter, you are obligated by the duty of fidelity to honor your implied contract with the public to give them the news you want to read, that reading public must be listed as a claimant on your decision. At this point, conflicts will begin to show up among your various claimants and your obligations to them. At this stage you must step into the shoes of the various claimants and try to determine, honestly, what they would prefer you do in this situation. One of the hardest tasks in ethical decision making is this.
Many philosophers say that to be able to see a problem from anther's perspective is a great gift.
The key here is to try your hardest to see the problem from their perspectives. It is extremely important to list at least three. As Aristotle noted, there are always at least two, and these two often represent the extremes. Nothing is ever either black or white, and you must be forced to think in terms of compromise, even if that compromise doesn't exactly conform with your personal notion of what is the right thing to do. It bears the marks of that internal struggle already begun above, and is the result of hard thinking.