Archive for the ‘Social media’ Category


Facebook Tackles Fake News

Jason Howie/Flickr Creative Commons

Facebook announced last Wednesday changes to its trending topics section, which is the box of subjects users see on the top-right corner of the screen. The social network’s software will only recognize subjects covered by multiple credible sources, according to The Wall Street Journal. The subjects won’t be adjusted to user preferences.

The new announcement is a step forward when it comes to digital media literacy and the relationship between Facebook and its users. More work is needed, particularly around its trending topics algorithm, which has been the subject of controversy because of the sources that are cited when it comes to certain subjects. Nevertheless, this change shows Facebook is taking seriously its role as a gatekeeper. The social network is adapting to ensure the public receives the most valuable information possible – no matter the subject.

The move is also positive for journalists, who continue to disseminate information ethically on a platform fundamental to the future of the industry. Facebook is a necessary platform for journalists and news organizations to engage with audiences.

The rules for producing ethical journalism for journalists remain the same regardless of the platform, be it through a social media or something more traditional like newspapers. The Society’s Code of Ethics reminds journalists that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy when it comes to informing your audience.

Overall, these changes implemented by Facebook are a win-win for the members of the public who seek news and information 24 hours a day, and for the journalists who continue to seek truth and report it – their most important task.


Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and a contributor to the SPJ blog network. He also is a member of SPJ’s Ethics Committee.

Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is a Managing Editor and contributing writer for Kettle Magazine, an online publication in the UK. You can interact with Veeneman on Twitter here.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Committee, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.

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

Social Media Ethics Must Be Taught

Jason Howie/Flickr Creative Commons

Social media remains at the center of news consumption for audiences. The platforms have become ubiquitous with news consumption, as they become publishers and media companies in their own right. They also have been ingrained in how audiences see and perceive the news.


Oxford Dictionaries announced last month that post-truth is its international word of the year. Post-truth, an adjective, is defined as: “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The decision by the Dictionaries comes as Facebook is under scrutiny for promoting inaccurate or fake news articles, and people question the information and facts spread on social media during U.S. and UK political votes. Though Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media are new to the market, it does not excuse journalists using those platforms from the evolving rules and ethics of journalism.

The Society’s Code of Ethics calls for journalists to seek truth and report it, and that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. Seek truth and report it presents a two-fold role in the social media age – informing audiences with the most up-to-date information but also using it to get the facts, verifying user generated content and help it tell the most accurate and impartial story possible.

In a time where relations between audiences and journalists in the U.S. continue to be strained, it is quintessential that a particular emphasis be made on ethics in the social media age, an emphasis that should be made not just in newsrooms here and around the world, but also journalism schools.

While ethics is a cornerstone of the journalism curriculum, it needs to adapt to meet the needs of the student looking to have a career in 21st Century journalism. They need to know that Twitter is more than an opportunity to build one’s brand in 140 character messages, and that Facebook and Instagram are more than just platforms to talk about food or popular culture.

Social media curriculum should include how to be thorough, and how to make the best possible contribution to the public good. That includes the importance of verification and newsgathering in the social media age, why audiences continue to be important as the platforms change, and that it isn’t about trying to one up a competitor, but about educating and engaging anyone who is looking for information on a certain story.

Most of all, they need to know how social media can help journalists tell the best story possible.

Social media platforms, in spite of their faults, are important to the business of journalism, and will help shape the idea and role of journalism in the years ahead. As such, everyone needs to be aware of how all of that correlates with the practice and production of quality, ethical journalism.

Ethics in journalism is something that must not be taken for granted, no matter the platform being used. Neither the evolution of technology, nor journalism ethics, take a holiday.

We as journalists are educators – education is in our DNA – to help inform, engage and do the most good for the public. We are educated by educators, and colleges, universities and newsrooms are doing a disservice to the journalism community without properly incorporating ethics training on these social media platforms.

More of that must be done, so the individual, be it in journalism school or starting in a newsroom, looking to achieve a career in the industry can continue the traditions so paramount to journalism’s objective in enriching a democracy.

It also guarantees one other thing – the goal central with journalism and democracy, seek truth and report it, can continue, and not be in vain.


Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and is a contributor to the SPJ blog network. He also is a member of SPJ’s Ethics Committee.

The views expressed in this blog post unless otherwise specified are that of the author’s, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPJ Ethics Committee, the board and staff of the Society of Professional Journalists, or its members.

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

Canary in the Coalmine: Trust in Media Hits New Low

untitledLess than a third of American adults trust the media at least “a fair amount,” according to a new Gallup poll. The finding is the most dismal since Gallup started taking the poll in the 1970s.

More than any other measure or metric, Gallup’s new report should be a proverbial coalmine canary for the media and democracy.

The research company writes that trust in media reached a peak in 1976, when almost three quarters of American adults believed what they read, watched and heard. As Gallup notes, 1976 followed a number of iconic investigative reports on the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

In its most recent years, the poll’s findings appear to be cyclical with trust falling most during presidential election years and rebounding slightly during the following three years. The result is a steady decline over several decades.

No single factor explains people’s declining trust in the media. Though, a lot of it – in my opinion – is due to the internet pulling back a curtain on the media starting in the early 2000s. Like food, media is much more palatable when people don’t know what goes into it or how it’s made.

The quantity of media produced also makes the prevalence of mistakes, errors and offenses in media appear greater than in the past. People may have heard about major mistakes or scandals at newspapers or broadcast organizations prior to the internet, but today every piece of media can be picked apart and put on a stake for the world to see.

Another of the many factors influencing trust in media is the current U.S. political climate. People – especially conservatives – feel the media is largely working against their best interests.

While about half of self-identified liberals trust the media at least “a fair amount,” Gallup found trust among conservatives fell to 14 percent – from 32 percent a year ago.

There are no easy remedies to the media’s trust drought, but it needs to be addressed – especially within journalism – for altruistic and business purposes.

First, there is no democracy without a strong and independent press. There is also no democracy if the vast majority of people don’t believe its strong and independent press.

Second, journalism is a business, and truth is its product. If people don’t view stories and reports from the press as the truth, the product is little or no value to consumers and advertisers.

One of the key moves the media must make to build trust is to educate people about itself. People don’t trust what they don’t understand. People in media, media companies and the U.S. education system need to teach people to be educated and critical consumers of media.

Another equally large move that needs to be made specifically within the journalism community is to stop trying to reinvent the core mission of the profession.

As the 2016 presidential election enters its last few weeks of life, critics and commentators continue to call on journalists to invent entirely new approaches to journalism in an effort to cover what is universally seen as unprecedented events.

Journalism does not need a reinvention, however. The profession needs its practitioners to recommit themselves to its core principles, which are outlined in the Society’s Code of Ethics.

The call to commit to those principles may seem out of touch, but at some point people must realize the core mission of journalism is largely unchanged since the dawn of communication.

“While tastes have ebbed and flowed and news has been at times more and less serious, historians have discovered that the basic news values have remained relatively constant throughout time,” write Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in their book The Elements of Journalism.

What changes in journalism is not the underlying mission or principles, but the delivery systems – from print to broadcast to digital.

Journalists need to be advocates for the truth and shun speculation, innuendos, rumors partisanship and lies. Once reported, it’s up to the public to use that information to make decisions in their daily lives and in voting booths.

The road to rebuilding trust between the media and Americans is long, but it’s a journey journalists, news organizations and media companies must start on if they want to continue doing their work beyond the next few decades.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chairperson of the Society’s ethics committee.

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

What Should Journalists Learn From Gawker’s Demise?

image1Gawker launched in 2003, but didn’t come into my orbit until three years later during my first year of college. I don’t remember the first Gawker post I read, but the website quickly became one of my daily sources of entertainment and – yes – information.

Now, Gawker is closing up shop after its sale to Univision, which purchased the website’s parent company at a bankruptcy auction earlier this week. The company’s downfall was instigated by a judgment that awarded $140 million to Terry Bollea, who is better known as Hulk Hogan.

Gawker posted secretly recorded video in 2012 of Bollea having sex with a friend’s wife. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who Gawker reported as gay in 2007, bankrolled Bollea’s lawsuit as revenge. He openly offered to do the same for other people wronged by Gawker.

A quick Google search will show that the Society of Professional Journalists had an interesting and strained relationship with Gawker during its existence. Last year, the Society stood with the website as it battled a $79,000 bill to fulfill a Public Information Act request. Less than two weeks later, I wrote a post for this blog criticizing Gawker for publicly outing a married man with children for no specific reason.

As the Society’s ethics committee chairperson, I shouldn’t like Gawker. Many of its actions stood in direct opposition to what the Society considers ethical and moral behavior for people in the media. Yet, I rooted for Gawker and that made its missteps all the more painful.

Gawker was bold and brave, but it wasn’t smart enough to save it from itself.

Over the past few months, I gave a lot of thought to what lessons people should take away from Gawker’s legal troubles. Now, I wonder what people should learn from its demise.

Looking back on the events that led to the shuttering of the website, I think the message is that responsible journalism is a good investment.

While people can place blame with Bollea and Thiel for dealing the deadly blow to the website, the truth is that Gawker died from a thousand self-inflicted cuts.

The website shrugged and recoiled time and time again at journalism’s best practices. Time is the only thing that stood in the way of Gawker acting outside the bounds of the law, too.

For example, anyone taking a basic journalism ethics course could see it was an unacceptable act for Gawker to out Thiel in 2007. The post was not illegal, however.

As a jury decided earlier this year, its posting of Bollea’s sex tape in 2012 was illegal. Obviously, posting a sex tape irrelevant to the public is unethical in the eyes of the Society’s Code of Ethics, too.

The bottom line is that Gawker likely would still be publishing next week if it adhered to at least some basic journalistic principles.

Those principles are not meant to make media organizations play it safe. Instead, they’re to show which fights are worth the battle. When journalists follow those principles, the journalism community will rally around their cause. Publishing irrelevant rumors and sex tapes fall outside that realm, however.

This post is not meant to kick Gawker or its employees while they’re down. Instead, it’s to remind other media organizations to use Gawker’s rise and fall as an education. Being bold and brave is not enough. Media organizations need to be responsible, too.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chairperson of the Society’s ethics committee.

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

The Daily Beast Wins Nothing At Olympics

image1 (6)The Daily Beast sent a reporter to cover the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Instead of a story on the numerous important issues affecting the region, the website decided to publish a report that is journalistic trash, unethical and dangerous.


Nico Hines, of The Daily Beast, spent part of his Tuesday night using several mobile dating apps to arrange dates and liaisons with Olympic athletes. He reportedly secured three dates within an hour. The resulting story explains those interactions and the numerous athletes who were also using the apps.

The aim of the report was to answer whether the average person could join the “bacchanalia” of the Olympic village, which is stocked with condoms and virile athletes.

While Hines apparently used a range of dating apps, he was most successful with those catering toward men who have sex with men, such as Grindr. The story has been updated, but the first published version included details that could be used to identify athletes.

There are several major ethical issues with the story, including the fact that this type of reporting is dangerous and can cause needless harm.

For example, many Olympic athletes come from countries where being gay or bisexual is – in some way – punishable by law. Furthermore, some athletes may not be in a position in their personal lives to reveal their sexual orientation.

The reasonable person can argue that people using dating apps give up their expectation of privacy. The Society’s Code of Ethics argues that access to information does not equal the ethical justification to publish or broadcast, however.

Additionally, the pseudo-surreptitious reporting methods used by Hines were completely unnecessary and unjustified. The Society’s Code of Ethics suggests undercover and other surreptitious methods may be used on two conditions. Other reporting methods must have failed. Also, the information must be vital to the public’s interest.

The Daily Beast story does not say whether Hines attempted other reporting methods. Also, there is no reason any person needs to know whether an Olympic athlete is having sexual relations with other people during competition – other than lurid curiosity.

Hines, who is straight, writes that he didn’t lie to the athletes and identified himself as a journalist when asked. Yet, he apparently set up dates and liaisons with athletes for no other reason than to write the story.

Assuming a news organization wished to spend its resources on a story about the sex life of Olympic athletes, it could be easily done with much more tact. For example, a reporter could use dating apps to contact athletes to arrange interviews instead of fake dates. They could also include relevant details about how the various Olympic organizations provide or don’t provide sexual health services to the athletes.

The Daily Beast’s story is a failure that should prompt a review of editorial practices and oversight within the organization. The athletes adversely affected by the story also deserve an apology.

Such a story has no place in a modern media organization.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chairperson of the Society’s ethics committee.

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

Ethics Week: Are Social Media Ethics Codes Needed?

Jason Howie/Flickr Creative Commons

Jason Howie/Flickr Creative Commons

The Online News Association announced April 1 that it was introducing an ethics code for newsgathering practices on social media.

The ONA Social Newsgathering Ethics Code – whose founding supporters included CNN, Agence France-Presse, The Guardian and Storyful – was designed to give guidance on social newsgathering practices, from rights and verifying information, to the safety of sources and journalists themselves.

Eric Carvin, the social media editor for the Associated Press and a co-founder of ONA’s social newsgathering working group, wrote in a blog post announcing the code that it was in response to the growing trend of newsgathering by social media, and had been made available after three years of development.

Carvin wrote that recent incidents, including the attacks in Brussels earlier this year, served as a reminder of why the practices were important.

“Moments like these challenge us, as journalists, to tell a fast-moving story in a way that’s informative, detailed and accurate,” Carvin wrote. “These days, a big part of that job involves wading through a roiling sea of digital content and making sense out of what we surface.”

The introduction of the code comes amid a continuing conversation about the role social media has in journalism today, from the business aspects prompted by features on Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, to how news organizations can engage audiences and uphold the same standards of journalism on these new platforms.

This code has the only specific mention of social newsgathering of any journalism development organization. The SPJ’s Code of Ethics, which itself was revised in 2014, does not mention social media platforms specifically, but the Ethics Committee advises to apply the four principles of the code (Seek truth and report it, Minimize harm, Be accountable and transparent, and Act independent) to all types of journalism, irrespective of platform.

Yet, what does the introduction of this code mean for ethics in social media journalism, and how have these principles impacted how journalists think about journalism in the age of Facebook and Twitter? Additionally, should other organizations, like SPJ, follow ONA’s lead and add specific ethics requirements to social media journalism?

Randi Shaffer, a social media assistant with the Chicago Tribune, says while the ONA guide can be helpful for younger journalists, no other guides, including SPJ’s, should be changed.

“It’s important for social media managers to keep ethics in mind when posting, but for our line of work, it does not differ from traditional journalistic ethics,” Shaffer said in a telephone interview. “Ethics have always had a huge part in journalism. Just because social media presents new ways to tell stories does not mean you can throw them out of the window.”

Shaffer says that journalists should be aware of the ethics that surround social media newsgathering, and there should not be an issue when it comes to the technology.

“If you remain true to the heart of journalism, if you understand the ethics, there shouldn’t be an issue when it comes to tech,” Shaffer said.

Laura Hazard Owen, the deputy editor for Nieman Lab based at Harvard University, says although ethics in social media newsgathering is an open and ongoing debate, it would not hurt for organizations to include provisions on social newsgathering and raise issues of discussion to members.

“There is a general understanding of a need for ethics but it is not agreed on what those ethics should be,” Hazard Owen said in a telephone interview. “I would be interested in seeing a revised Ethics Code, but it would be difficult to take different situations into a one size fit all approach.”

Indeed, Shaffer says, social media has influenced how content is presented in the public interest. The case is true surrounding a graphic video released late last year by the Chicago Police Department of the shooting of African-American teenager Laquan McDonald, which later saw the firing of the city’s police chief and increased calls for the resignation of Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

At the time the video was released, the Tribune posted disclaimers and warnings surrounding the content, and while criticism of the release of the video came, Shaffer says the Tribune made the right call in publishing it in that sense.

“Readers have the right to see it from their own eyes,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer adds ultimately that no matter the platform, the ethics still apply.

“Social makes it easier to get to the tip of the iceberg, but it does not give any insight to below the water,” Shaffer said. “Journalism is still journalism. No matter the medium, the message is the same.”

However, Hazard Owen says it’s a good idea to stay on top of new platforms and changes in technology, and to think about the ethics of working on those platforms.

“The new platforms will keep arising,” Hazard Owen said. “It’s good for organizations to be thinking about these things and have an updated list of standards or guidelines. It doesn’t ever hurt to tell your members you’re thinking about this.”


Alex Veeneman, a Chicago based SPJ member, is SPJ’s Community Coordinator and founder of the SPJ Digital community. He blogs for Net Worked, SPJ’s digital journalism blog, on social media’s role in the future of journalism. Outside of SPJ, Veeneman is Long Form Editor and a contributor to Kettle Magazine, an online publication based in the UK. You can interact with him on Twitter @alex_veeneman.

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

Ho, ho, hoax – Marie Christmas

@JewyMarie's Twitter Posts

@JewyMarie’s Twitter Posts

Social media is a proverbial gold mine for journalists, but it’s also filled with landmines.


A number of eyewitness accounts were sent out on Twitter as news about the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, emerged on Wednesday. One post that caught my eye on Twitter was from the handle @JewyMarie, who is also known as Marie Christmas.

“I saw the shooter shooting people in San Bernardino,” @JewyMarie posted. “I’m scared for my life at the moment in hiding.”

In the end, accounts of the shooting from @JewyMarie made it into reports from the AP (and The New York Times as a result), the International Business Times and an on-air interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

There is obviously a person behind @JewyMarie’s Twitter account, but the person’s accounts of events are fake.

While embarrassing, the ordeal is a reminder that a person’s word is not proof. People lie. Anonymous people on the Internet lie – a lot.

Steve Buttry, director of student media at Louisiana State University and tireless blogger of journalism practices, uncovered the fabrication while following up with @JewyMarie. You can read his full account (and a few of my comments) here: http://bit.ly/1ItAb4C

As Buttry’s post points out, I had my doubts about @JewyMarie.

Specifically, the account itself is anonymized. The profile picture is of a cartoon. There are no messages or descriptions that explain who the person is or where they live. The existing messages aren’t anything of substance either.

Additionally, @JewyMarie responded to people asking for interviews by saying they didn’t have a phone and was using wireless Internet to post. “I can’t do audio interviews,” they posted.

For that to be true, the person would likely need to be using an Internet-connected iPad or tablet for Twitter updates, which the @JewyMarie account had been doing right before the post about seeing “the shooter.” The other option is the person fleeing the scene was using a laptop.

Taken together, these facts alone should make journalists doubt the person is an eyewitness. Admittedly, it’s not impossible they’re an eyewitness, but it’s unlikely.

Without additional verification from a person that proves they are an eyewitness, journalists should move on. Stories about mass killings are too big and too important to the public for journalists to blindly trust an anonymous Internet user, who apparently gets their kicks from making light of mass murder.

If journalists are often told to investigate their own mothers’ love, they should apply that standard to random people on the Internet.

As for organizations that fell for the ruse, the newsrooms shouldn’t waste time scolding anonymous Twitter users with questionable consciences. The best path forward is for the journalists to admit the mistake, correct the record and implement strategies to prevent these occurrences in the future.


Andrew M. Seaman is chair of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists.

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

ONA Unveils Ethics Project

unnamed (1)The Online News Association (ONA) unveiled this week its much-anticipated project that allows people to “Build Your Own Ethics Code.”


ONA’s website features a tool that allows people to add specific “building blocks” to a group of fundamental principles that should apply to all journalists. The build-your-own approach is meant to create unique codes for people and organizations.

The project “recognizes that no single ethics code can reflect the needs of everyone in our widely varied profession,” according to ONA’s website. “We believe the best hope for convincing all journalists to adopt and live by an ethics code is to give them ownership and flexibility in creating one.”

There are obviously differences between the approaches of ONA and the Society, which continues to endorse a single document of abiding principles as its ethical code. However, comparing the two approaches is a futile exercise.

The committee responsible for revising the Society’s Code of Ethics was conscious of the fact that it should represent journalism presented in any media: print, broadcast and digital. From the small newspaper without a Twitter account or website to the Huffington Post, the Society’s Code needs to provide guidance.

To accomplish its goal, the committee avoided language specific to any media. After all, journalism is essentially unchanged since the dawn of time: something happens and people tell each other about that something. Journalists now just tell people about events in different ways.

Also, the Society’s Code “is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium,” according to the document.

ONA, on the other hand, took a much different approach by allowing people and organizations to create very specific codes. The project is reminiscent of a common project employed by college journalism professors, who often encourage their students to create personal ethical codes.

The ONA approach also mirrors that of large news organizations that create unique ethical codes. Those organizations include the New York Times, NPR, Reuters and AP.

What’s interesting is that many of the people who worked on ONA’s project also helped last year to revise the Society’s Code. The common origin shows there is room in the world for both codes from ONA and the Society – along with the dozens of codes from other journalism and news organizations.

In general, every person – whether he or she is a journalist or not – has an innate sense of right and wrong that will not be perfectly captured by an ethical code. What’s wonderful is that there are more and more resources to provide people with guidance as they wrestle with the unique challenges of being a journalist.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the Society’s Ethics Committee. He’s also a journalist in New York.

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

#SPJ4ALL

Andrew M. Seaman standing in Times Square.

Seaman standing in Times Square.

After days of deliberation, I sent off a $350 check to the small private college that I thought would be my home for the four years following high school.


A large envelope from the college arrived a few weeks later in the mail. Inside were the usual forms about financial aid and housing, but there was also a form I didn’t expect – a “covenant.”

The school required students to sign a document that forbid several activities, including “homosexual behavior.” The joy I felt as a soon-to-be undergraduate quickly evaporated. My “behavior” wasn’t welcome there. The folder was tucked away, and I sent a check to another school.

While I wasn’t open about being gay at the time, attending a school where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people are accepted was important to me. Fortunately, I found that place. The school – and myself – are better, because of that accepting environment.

In the wake of Indiana’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” and several similar bills pending in U.S. state legislatures, the Society is making it known today that it is also a welcoming place for all.

As the Society’s Membership Committee Chair Robyn Davis Sekula writes on her committee’s blog, “SPJ is open for everyone, no matter the person’s race, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor. If you’re a journalist, you’re welcome here, and always will be.”

To show the Society’s acceptance of all journalists, it’s asking members to post selfies on social media with the hashtag #SPJ4ALL.

As someone who is gay and involved in a fair amount of the Society’s activities, I can attest that Robyn’s words are very true. I also support the #SPJ4ALL campaign, but it brings me back to a personal struggle I endured when I first entered journalism. Specifically, is it OK to be openly gay in a newsroom?

The question may sound silly at a time when the majority of states allow same-sex marriage and public support for legal recognition of those unions are at an all-time high, but it’s one that I – and I assume many other people – struggled or struggle with from time to time.

I’d sometimes avoid writing about LGBTQ issues out of fear that people would claim those stories were biased or driven by an agenda. The words of the Society’s Code of Ethics echoed through my head: “Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”

After a couple years, I realized that I was doing a disservice to myself, peers and readers. Also, to focus on that specific principle within the Society’s Code misrepresents the entire document.

Openly LGBTQ journalists enrich stories with unique perspectives. For example, LGBTQ journalists may pay special attention to issues often unconsciously ignored or overlooked by others. They are also resources to their colleagues, who may not understand certain concerns, topics or terminology.

As for the Society’s Code, focusing on the principle regarding conflicts of interest results in people losing the proverbial forest for the trees. “The code should be read as a whole,” it says. “Individual principles should not be taken out of context.”

When someone takes a broader look at the Code, it says that ethical journalism treats “sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.” What’s more, it says that journalists should “consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.”

The Society and its Code don’t tell people to hide who they are in newsrooms or while reporting. More than anything, the spirit and words of the Code tell journalists to be themselves while understanding and accounting for their personal beliefs and biases.

While it may not always be easy – or safe in some places, being open about being LGBTQ will add to newsroom diversity and ultimately benefit everyone.

#SPJ4ALL


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

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

Transparency, Civility and Respect in Ethical Debates

Photo courtesy Flickr Creative Commons (http://bit.ly/1GRn5wn)

Photo courtesy Flickr Creative Commons (http://bit.ly/1GRn5wn)

Journalists who joined the Society’s conversations about ethics last week noticed some interesting posts popping up on Twitter.


Many of the posts were links to articles about gaming, some were links to graphics and some posts were links to other Twitter posts.

The posts were from an online community known as GamerGate, which generally claims to be people interested in game culture concerned about ethics in journalism that covers the gaming industry. Others often point to the movement’s history and notoriety as a roving gang that engages in sexist, homophobic and threatening online attacks.

I – along with some other people in the Society’s leadership – decided to abandon the Twitter hashtag #SPJEthicsWeek, which we planned to use throughout the week, to minimize noise for people who wanted to engage in a broader conversation about journalism ethics.

I also urged people not to address the chorus of posts for the protection of the Society, its leaders and its members who would engage with each other over the Internet throughout the week. After all, the week’s theme was “minimize harm.” I did not want to take the risk of exposing anyone within the organization to harassment or threats. All other Ethics Week activities and engagements went on as planned.

This post is not meant to legitimize or endorse GamerGate, but I’d like to address the people who posted to the Twitter hashtag with engaging and lucid thoughts. I don’t want those people to think their contributions to our conversations about journalism ethics went unnoticed.

In fact,  some of those people were the most active and contributive during the Society’s two Twitter chats last week.

Abandoning the Twitter hashtag was simply the best course of action once the posts became sexist, homophobic, threatening, pornographic and – frankly – disgusting. I received some concerning messages, which were mostly deleted within a few hours. One person told me on Twitter, “man have you seen the giant mudslide of reckage[sic] we know as your (expletive) wake?”

As the chair of the Society’s ethics committee, I hate shutting out any people who want to have a discussion about journalism ethics. The point of the committee I lead is to teach people about the Society’s Code of Ethics.

Over the past year, I received several emails about the GamerGate movement. In fact, I’m quoted in a Nieman Reports story sparked by the movement about handling so-called “Twitter storms.”

Most of the emails I received dealt with getting permission to use the Society’s Code of Ethics to “score” gaming journalists on their ethics. In each case, I responded that it’s not possible to score a person’s ethics.

Some emails – and Twitter posts – called for gaming journalists to be fired. The Society is a professional organization that supports journalists and journalism. It does not have the power to fire journalists. Also, I do not comment on whether people should be fired.

Many of the emails – and Twitter posts – were also from anonymous accounts. In general, calls for transparency in journalism are not effective when they come from people who are anonymous.

This is not limited to GamerGate. I receive emails every now and then from people who – according to Google searches – do not exist. Sometimes I also receive emails from people who appear to misrepresent themselves. I’m very cautious and hesitant about responding to those emails.

People – journalists and non-journalists – who want to interact with others about the topic of journalism ethics should be transparent, courteous and civilized. One person should never harass, threaten or demean another.

Also, people in the U.S. are not forced to read, view or listen to stories from news organizations. If a person believes the information from a certain organization is inaccurate, they’re free to find other sources. People can support and encourage good and ethical journalism with subscriptions, views and listens – not harassment or threats.

The Society and its ethics committee will continue to work toward educating journalists about the Code of Ethics. We will also encourage its use. As is the tradition in U.S. journalism, I hope readers, viewers and listeners hold journalists to those standards, but through a transparent and civil dialogue.


Andrew M. Seaman is the chair of the Society’s ethics committee.

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

Connect

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