SPJ’s Code and Social Media

In an effort to bring some sense of ethical standards to the unbridled spirit that often accompanies social media, people have traditionally reverted to the default settings of the legacy mediums for a sense of guidance. These codes, based on traditional media practices, can serve as a centrifuge by taking new, technologically driven media and breaking it down into its simplest components of journalism. These components are universal for all media. In SPJ’s ethics code they are truth, fairness, harm, independence and accountability.

The Society of Professional Journalists relies on its current ethics code to be a standard-bearer that can be applied to the varied mediums, rather than addressing social media specifically. This has been a source of debate from external influences, as well as from within SPJ.

The debate comes down to a singular focus – Does the code require rewriting to directly reflect the new technologies, specifically digital and social media, or can it serve this new journalism through a more overarching interpretations of its existing standards? To put it another way, is the code about functionality or inspiration? The answer for SPJ can be both.

To complicate this debate is the code’s existing language. The code does offer specifics as it relates to broadcast news and other times with print. It mentions news teases for broadcasting and headlines for newspapers. It talks about readers, listeners and viewers in a time when newspaper, radio and television were the three legacies. Today we might reference crowd-sourcing where the public provides integrated collaboration with the media. The question that arises is, if the current code was written to take into account specifics in 1996, why is there a resistance to do that same today to acknowledge the differences between old media and social media?

The retort then is to fairly ask why the current language doesn’t serve the ethical concerns of these new mediums sufficiently and provoke the pragmatic question: Must the code need revised every time technology advances and introduces another form of journalism? If we rewrite it today to address the ethics of Twitter, what happens if Twitter disappears? Do we rewrite it to address Twitter’s replacement?

The real test of the current code’s value comes from reading it line by line. For instance, Under Seek Truth and Report It, the first instruction is “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” Does this mandate speak clearly enough to the use of reporting via social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Four Square, Tumblr, blogs? Is there a discernible difference between testing the accuracy for a newspaper or TV news cast and doing the same for Twitter?  If the answer is yes, then that needs to be explained in a forthright and logical manner. In short, a case needs to be made for how it’s different and why the current code should be changed.  If no, then the code has provided sufficient advice.

In addition:

Identify sources whenever possible. Are the rules the same for all mediums or does it need to change for social media?

What about promising anonymity?
Using undercover tactics?
Differentiating between news and advocacy?
Labeling analysis?
Giving others the opportunity to respond to allegations before publishing?
Showing sensitivity with interviews?
Promoting good taste?
Being judicious about naming criminal suspects, victims?
Disclosing conflicts?
Identifying yourself as a journalist?
Denying favorable treatment?
Showing a reasonable guarding of a person’s privacy?

If these questions cannot be specifically applied to social media reporting practices, then more viable, directed solutions are in order.

As always, the most sensible way to producing a strong code of ethics is to field test it repeatedly. If it comes up short in providing you with reasonable solutions or guidance, then it’s not doing its job.

To that end, my advice is to give the code a chance; at the very least, when in doubt, use it as the default setting. If you are looking for the solution to a social media ethics question and you have any doubts about what is ethical, always err on the side of applying the same standards as those used in other mediums. It may not please you or jibe with your reporting style, but it will almost certainly put in a group with others who follow these standards and give you a defendable position.


Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditPin on Pinterest

Defending the First Amendment and promoting open government are more crucial now than ever. Join SPJ's fight for the public’s right to know — either as an SPJ Supporter or a professional, student or retired journalist.

  • Pingback: Code Words » Blog Archive » SPJ's Code and Social Media | 99Covers Blog()

  • Page Grossman

    This blog post brings me to question, just because the way we present news changes, does it mean that we change the way that we report news? I don’t think so. Just because the medium of publishing changes, doesn’t change the expected integrity of reporting. In actuality, I think that with new technology we should expect more thorough and factual reporting from our journalists. Technology can make the job of reporting easier and faster, we should make use of that, while still upholding our integrity to the highest standards.

  • Pingback: The SPJ Garden Center » Blog Archive » To opine or not to opine: Social media proves fertile ground for a discussion about journalists and social media()

  • Cailey D.

    Although the SPJ ethics code does not mention Facebook or Twitter specifically, I believe the guidelines presented are applicable to these sites as well as other social media sites and means of publication. Regarding journalists being ethical when using social media, I think it is important to always seek information from the most direct source possible and to ask user’s permission before publishing their status update or “tweet”. It’s no different than asking someone if they are willing to talk to you on camera, just ask if the person is willing to let his or her online posts be used on the record. And most importantly, as a journalist, when reporting and obtaining information from social media sites, if it feels like your actions could possibly be perceived as unethical in any way, avoid it.

  • Lawrence White

    I have been posting anonymous blog comment on a newspaper website for several years. This is a small but highly influential regional paper that does not pre edit blog comments. They only respond to comments that have been “flagged.” As a result insulting, threatening and intimidating comments often remain online for days before being removed. This lends to a hostile environment that drives more thoughtful bloggers away.

    Because a progressive voice is rarely heard on this blog I felt it important to provide that perspective to an otherwise far right blog domination, particularly on the issue of gun controls. I did not mind the hostility toward my anonymous ID but then the blog editor allowed my name to be revealed in several online comments earlier this week.

    I feel that the editor’s willingness to allow my name to be known to those who have posted such hostile comments was a huge breach in confidentiality and ethics. When I asked that my name be removed the editor flatly refused. Their reasoning was that my name is evident on another newspaper’s blog so they have no obligation to keep my name private on their blog.

    When I further explained that the other paper where I write a blog column was in a different county and that we pre edit every comment to ensure that insults and threats were not part of the equation, they still refused to remove my name from their more hostile blog.

    I now feel that I am in danger and I am actually considering moving out of the area because of this exposure.

    Am I correct that the willing and ongoing exposure of my real name was unethical and that the newspaper that did so has picked up a considerable amount of liability do their willing breach of confidentiality?

  • this is interesting topic and blog as well, cheers 🙂

  • Pingback: best builders()

  • Pingback: try caralluma fimbriata()

  • Pingback: african mango diet()


Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Instagram Pinterest Pinterest LinkedIn

© Society of Professional Journalists. All rights reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center, 3909 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789 | Contact SPJ Headquarters | Employment Opportunities | Advertise with SPJ