New ethics code draft is REALLY final, for now
On Aug. 20, the SPJ national board met by Skype to consider endorsing the Ethics Committee’s third and final proposal for updating the SPJ Code of Ethics.
The board voted 11-4, with one abstention, to endorse the draft, after agreeing that a newly added reference to coverage of suicide should be stricken.
The board also directed the Ethics Committee to go back over its latest draft and clean it up, eliminating typos and changing passive constructions to active.
On Aug. 28, the board got a copy of that reworked draft. A copy also was posted on the Ethics Committee’s blog.
However, unlike the document distributed to the national board on Thursday afternoon, the version posted on the blog doesn’t indicate what final changes were made.
The marked-up versions of each draft have made it much easier to follow what changes were made.
Since only a handful of passages were changed in this final editing process, I’ll paste them here, highlighting the changes that were made since the committee’s third draft was released. (On the other hand, some people might prefer seeing and absorbing the clean version.)
Here are the final edits (bold indicates additions, strike-through indicates deletions):
Under “Seek Truth and Report It”
• Question sources’ motives before promising anonymity, reserving it for those who may face danger, retribution or other harm. Do not grant a
Anonymity should not be granted merely as license to criticize. Pursue alternative sources before granting anonymity. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious reporting methods unless
except when traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we
are seldom hear d.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual news content. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
Under “Minimize Harm”
• Consider the implications of identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes, and criminal suspects before they face
are legal charges d. Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. be informed.
Under “Be Accountable and Transparent”
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain
Cc orrections and clarifications should be explained carefully and thoroughly.
For the first time in any of the Ethics Committee’s four drafts, a disclaimer has been added:
The SPJ Code of Ethics is a living document, a statement of principles supported by additional explanations and position papers (at spj.org) that address changing journalistic practices. It 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. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.
This doesn’t exactly qualify as a minor edit for typos or verb construction, but it is not entirely new. It takes pieces of the current disclaimer:
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of “rules” but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.
About four years ago, the Ethics Committee wrote the current disclaimer to address frequent, inappropriate attempts, particularly by lawyers, to frame the code as “law” or “rules” that journalists had to follow. That distorts the code’s actual purpose, as a set of guidelines and considerations for journalists before they make decisions. I’ve seen the disclaimer cited many times; I think it has been effective.
On Thursday, when I saw the new version of the disclaimer added to the committee’s final draft, without any references to the current disclaimer, I asked that it be given the markup treatment like everything above it. I hope that’s done before delegates review it in Nashville next week.
Remember that everything in the final draft is subject to change at the convention, under scrutiny of the delegates (of which I am one). Here are suggestions I recently made for further edits.