Code of Ethics

I. Preamble:

While we cannot philosophically or metaphysically ever be sure that absolute truth is attained, it should be the duty of all journalists to operate within realist, pragmatist, and conceptualist frameworks to present the closest thing to truth available. Those journalists who use multimedia and the Internet, who have the ability to use any and all types of communication to share the truth as they learn it, should use their vast options to portray truth in the most informative way possible. Fairness, integrity, independence, and a desire to share truth with the world should be the defining characteristics of all journalists, and should guide them in all decisions and phases of the journalism process.

As an aspiring all-platforms journalist, those are philosophies by which I plan to live by. I caution against the statement of absolute truth with the knowledge of philosophy that one might say is jading, but is in fact freeing. I believe seeking and sharing the truth is the first and most important tier of journalistic ethics, in new media or any other kind. The other two tiers come from the needs of the public. They are accountability and respecting sources or subjects. Throughout the definition and execution of these ethics I intend to mingle my understanding of metaphysics and epistemology with the journalistic drive to learn and share.

II. Seek the truth and report it

• Truth

As I’ve already mentioned, truth is an elusive thing. Reporters must therefore use verification and citation whenever they are dealing with objective facts from sources. When dealing with subjective facts, journalists should be sure to provide fair and accurate representation of all sides of the issue.

A dilemma may arise within those guidelines of objective or subjective truths if deadlines and other business considerations push journalists to release a story before it can be verified. This speed versus accuracy dilemma should always be resolved by this simple rule: Never publish if doubts remain. Speaking about this dilemma, Ed Tribble, reporter at KVOA News in Tucson, Arizona, said this:

“There’s an old saying I remember from college: Get it first, but more importantly, get it right. You can’t sacrifice your integrity just to get something on the air. For example, last night. Marana police found some bones in the Santa Cruz river. It happened about 9PM. Our instant thought was that they are the remains of a guy who got swept away during the Monsoon. The police wouldn’t confirm it, and we knew they hadn’t had a chance to contact the family. So we just reported they found bones in the river. Obviously, today’s story is about how it could be the missing man, but we didn’t want to rush it on the air… because we had absolutely zero confirmation. We could have speculated that they are the remains, but it just seemed too wishy-washy.” (Ed Tribble, 2009, March 16)

Steve Buttry, Information Content Conductor of Gazette Communications, and journalism ethics lecturer, elaborated on how truth may eventually be updated in real time on the internet, doing away with deadlines all together. “Our standard for completeness changes dramatically (one sentence or one fact can be worth a new post). Our standards of fairness and accuracy don’t change.” (Steve Buttry, 2009, March 26)

In cases where a journalist is reporting events from the first person, verification is not necessary unless facts are in dispute. A journalist should never rely on memory alone however, and should always use a notebook, camera, or audio recorder to capture the moments they want to report about. These will ensure the utmost accuracy in reporting the objective facts of events. And if another side of the story should appear after the publication of the original story, journalists are obligated to update and correct. Ed Tribble added, “It’s our job to try and decipher the truth and present it in a fair and balanced manner and try and find those other sides.” (Ed Tribble, 2009, March 16)

• Fairness

Truth is elusive in many situations and as Ed Tribble notes, journalists must be evenhanded when they report the truth they’ve found. Subjectivity can never be part of the news, whether that subjectivity is of the reporter or of the source. All information that reporters gather and publish should be on behalf of the public’s right to know, and it should present all of the applicable opinions in their proper context and without bias. Further, as Steve Buttry suggests, any error or bias warrants an immediate change or apology from the journalists.

Another important aspect of fairness is in relation to legal proceedings. There are numerous examples in legal history of when Judges have to balance the Press’s 1^st amendment rights with a Defendant’s 6^th amendment rights. These cases, including Sheppard V. Maxwell, Murphy V. Florida, and Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart, (Carter, Franklin & Wright, 511-547) gave the legal explanation of when and how the press can be turned away from a legal proceeding. This can only be done if there is no other way to ensure a fair trial. Ethically, journalists are obligated to report the truth about a trial, but they must tread carefully in order to respect the 6^th amendment. Journalism should never be prejudicial.

• Integrity

Integrity for an all-platforms journalist is working diligently to avoid error, but to freely admit one if it occurs. It is transparency about methods used in gathering information, and an elimination of artistic license from the retelling of stories. Integrity is also the reporter’s freedom from outside influence. Elisa Cohen writes about both issues in her article, “Online Journalism as Market-Driven Journalism.”

About the temporal pressures of constant publishing, Cohen compares the web to 24- hour news networks saying the industry push to get fresh content out to consumers constantly. She concludes her comparison by warning, “The journalistic concepts of newsworthiness and accuracy may be reexamined in this accelerated temporal environment.” (Cohen Pg 12)

About the issue of independence from financial or political influence, Cohen has a rather negative opinion:

“Given that media firms compete for investors, firms seek to convince potential investors of the profitability of their programming, and specifically of their relationships about their relationships with advertisers… control over news content at the macro-level of analysis is a profit-motivated struggle between the media firm and corporate, legal, cultural, and technological influences.” (Cohen Pg 3)

It is every journalist’s ethical mandate to avoid the turmoil of influence and remain objective. Leave the company’s financials to the company’s managers. Chris Anderson, Founder of Momenta Group, suggests that there may be a way to neutralize this issue all together: switch to a model and includes non-profit news.

“Non-profits providing content to news services, and allowing the news services to analyze the content in greater news context is fundamentally no different than a press release with photos. I just argue that NGOs and non-profits should be savvy enough to produce high quality content that gets them the best possible placement and effect…if you say that Amnesty Int. shouldn’t be allowed to provide informational coverage on Darfur, I’d say horseshit. They are probably better positioned to report than any news service, and probably BBC et al is using information from Amnesty, Red Cross, MSF, and many others to generate content with a thin veneer of news objectivity on the content to render it ‘safe as news.’” (Chris Anderson 2009, March 17)

While it seems unlikely that the non-profit model will replace all of the current journalism for profit, it does seem that Anderson is pointing toward an ideal that we should all work toward; the independence from monetary issues, and the integrity to know when the story is accurate and ready for publication.

• Independence

The independence of a journalist is primarily an obligation to ones self, that benefits the public. Throughout the history of journalism, independence has been key to the unbiased gatekeeping role that media assumed. That gatekeeping was a task undertaken by journalists to work in the public interest. Chris Anderson points out that in recent times, perhaps, media have strayed from the independence that they owe to themselves and to the public:

“Increasingly, media sources make content choices more on a model of popularity and audience engagement than on socio-political needs. What’s even more interesting is the role of PR. Even in a bygone era, news was still influenced by public relations operations, but in this day and age, it has taken on a much more pervasive role. I would seriously question at this point how much actual ‘enterprise’ news we actually consume in normal media channels…Just remember that many stories you read every day did not originate with a reporter going out and being a reporter. They originated with a paper sent to a reporter about some event.” (Chris Anderson, 2009, March 17)

A truly independent journalist, in any medium, will exercise their own news judgment, and resist the pressure to cover news that gets promoted by persons in public relations.

III. Accountability

Whereas integrity is a personal matter of the all-platforms journalist who is seeking the truth, much of accountability is the public’s perception of that journalist’s integrity. The independence of the journalist will also contribute. A journalist who has followed the rules of integrity and independence will already be half-way to accountability. Accountability is any journalist’s duty to the public.

I have already said that philosophically, absolute truth is never attainable, and I’ve also said that this is freeing. It is freeing because it allows for journalists to do the best reporting they can, and to still get things wrong. Accountability to our users, however, is much like integrity. It is the willingness of the outlet to admit their errors, and explain how they occurred, whenever they become apparent. This should be standard in all journalism.

Online journalism, however, brings up new issues. Hyperlinks in the product can direct users to an infinite amount of related information, but the journalists cannot control the information on those sights. Whereas within the pages of a newspaper or the minutes of a newscast, the journalists can control all of what they report, linking to other pages on the web can lead to content outside of our control. Accountability in online journalism has to include not just what we present to users, but also what other content we direct them to. A journalist who hyperlinks to another site is conferring his reputation and the reputation of his organization to the linked page. These are all questions asked by Steve Buttry in a handout he uses when lecturing on ethics for the online journalist.

Another point that Cohen brings up in this area is the fact that not all websites are created equal. Not all journalism outlets are going to be equally visible on the web because search engines and directories evaluate based on hits or links and not validity of content. “In this context, the relationship between commercial interests and news interests (and the Web sites that are nominating certain news stories and sources to be heard) come into conflict.” (Cohen Pg 9) It is the journalist’s obligation to the business and to the public to answer only to the public’s need to know. Business profitability or the number of web hits may be a point of professional pride, but should never be a journalists’ concern.

IV. Respect sources and subjects

Respect in journalism will rely on many of the point of fairness that an all-platforms journalist seeking the truth will follow. Respecting ones subjects and sources will require the journalist to use sensitivity when dealing children or inexperienced people, and to act sensitively when a news event involves tragedy or grief. While the public’s right to know may warrant coverage of an event, it should never allow the journalist to wield the mighty power of the mass media haphazardly.

Respect also means choosing carefully the subjects we cover and granting the most coverage to those that are in the greatest public interest. We do this to avoid pandering to curiosities that have no cultural or societal benefit, and also because it is the nature of any organization with limited resources to need to spend them wisely. As gatekeepers we need to choose wisely the subjects we spend our resources on so that our trusting public gets the information they deserve.

Further, we must be careful not to abuse our privileged position in the media to abridge the rights of citizens. Our work is protected by the 1^st amendment so that we may operate in the public’s interest. To violate their rights or their right to privacy would leave a negative stain on the reputation of all journalists. It is our job to be sensitive to these issues, but to weigh them carefully against our gatekeeping obligations.

Many of these rules are flexible and involve individual judgment calls. They cannot be hard and fast rules because any given situation may require many different considerations. A good journalist weighs these considerations carefully and works toward the public interest at all times. That is my goal in my future career.

References:

Anderson, C. (2009, March 17). Re: Questions from your visit to S.U [Personal email, chris@momentaworkshops.com]. (2009, March 17).

Burgess, J. (n.d.). M/C – Media & Culture. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.media-culture.org.au/

Buttry, S. (2009, March 26). RE: A OJR Comment [Personal email, Steve.Buttry@gazcomm.com]. (2009, March 17).

Carter, T. B., Franklin, M. A., & Wright, J. B. (2008). The First Amendment and the Fourth Estate, The Law of Mass Media. Mineola, New York: Foundation Press.

Cohen, E. L. (2002). Online Journalism as Market-Driven Journalism. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4), 532-548.

Online Journalism – Ethical Issues – M/Cyclopedia of New Media. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Online_Journalism_-_Ethical_Issues

Online News Association. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://journalists.org/

RTNDA – Ethics – Code of Ethics and Personal Conduct. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2009 from http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct48.php

Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode

Tribble, E. (2009, March 16). RE: Thanks and Questions [Personal email, etribble@KVOA.com]. (2009, March 16).

Johnson, M. (1998, April 9). Bunker Hill Site Remediation Plans [personal email]. (1998, April 12). [Note: the first date is the date sent; the second is the date accessed.]