Archive for the ‘Journalism Ethics’ Category


How to be a journalist and a human being in five easy steps

As the Society of Professional Journalists is vigorously combing through its Code of Ethics for revision, I am left pondering the deeper meanings of the Code.

I know, so intellectual of me. But, honestly, I think sometimes journalists forget in the craziness of deadline-meeting and note-taking and other juggling to throw in a little humanity. This is what I think SPJ’s Code of Ethics should be: A guide for the human journalist.

Yes, a feeling, compassionate, news-hound with a mission, but also a heart. The only problem is I kind of lied in my headline, because I don’t think there are five easy steps for the Code of Ethics to line up with this humanness. This is the journalist’s (aka human’s) job.

I’m not the only one in the SPJ family with some ideas swirling about regarding this long-overdue revision. Our Executive Director, Joe Skeel, wrote a great blog post outlining his feelings about the project and his conclusion that the Code of Ethics should be broad, rather than detailed in nature.

I agree.

In that post, he also spoke about the first time many journalists come in contact with the Code of Ethics, which mirrored my own experience with my first ethics code run-in.

I stumbled upon SPJ’s Code of Ethics in the mass amounts of papers I was handed for a media ethics class that I took at Purdue during my junior year. I spent my entire semester writing papers, having discussions and arguments, and simply sorting out how to take this Code of Ethics and apply it to real-life journalistic ethical problems.

There wasn’t ever a right answer, and it drove me crazy.

As a journalist I am used to absolute truth. Either the house caught on fire or it didn’t, and it is my job to find out which happened and report it. Not: Well it did catch on fire but it’s really up for interpretation. No! I don’t like this answer, nor what the Code of Ethics made me do:  think.

As I spent a year as opinions editor at The Exponent, I actually had to apply this thinking and decision-making process on a daily basis. Unbeknownst to me when I took the position, you can’t publish any opinion you feel like or are sent by readers. There is this whole minimize harm notion that applies. And, of course, libel. I learned this the hard way when I published a letter to the editor that made false claims about members of Purdue’s administration.

Oops. Big oops, actually.

I learned my lesson though, as every college journalist can relate at some point in their schooling, and started weighing the costs and benefits of publishing opinions that could be harmful in the future. That is what SPJ’s Code of Ethics taught me.

I started thinking like a human and a journalist, rather than just a journalist. And I think that’s the key to this whole ethics code revision “debate.”

It’s like running to the scene of a car accident to cover it and not helping the person bleeding inside the car when you are the only one there. If journalists put away the keyboard sometimes and remember how it feels to be on the other side of the computer screen, maybe just maybe whatever the Code of Ethics is revised to say can be interpreted fairly by human beings.

Some might believe that SPJ is not ethically revising its ethics code (ironic). Others won’t like it when it is revised, probably just like there are many who already don’t agree with its current incarnation. But, if it starts newsroom discussions, even just one, where the balance between printing and holding information is weighed in order to minimize harm or report the truth, then it has done its job.

The code could stay the way it is now and be fine, but as journalism is changing the code is too, and so should the journalists interpreting that code.

Make it detailed, make it broad, make it behind closed doors with everyone blindfolded and tied to chairs. I don’t so much care how the Code of Ethics revision process is done. Just interpret it as humans once it is complete.

Taylor Carlier is the communications coordinator at the Society of Professional Journalists. She is a 2014 Purdue University graduate of Mass Communication: Journalism and previously was the special projects editor at The Exponent. She can be reached at tcarlier@spj.org or interact on Twitter: @Taylorcarlier.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

Notes on the news, Twitter and public hunger for accuracy

There was a lot of bad.

The bombings — tragic.
A city gripped by fearful uncertainty — terrible.
News media spewing inaccurate information — beyond disappointing.

Much has already been said about the journalism mistakes: the impact on the industry, the misuse of social media and what to consider the next time big news breaks.

Among those valuable takeaways, it’s important to highlight news consumers’ reactions to media blunders.

More than ever, they’re not having it.

That’s my unscientific observation. In my year with SPJ, I’ve monitored the social media reactions to the SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., damage caused by superstorm Sandy, the Newtown, Conn., school shooting and now the Boston Marathon bombings and the manhunt that followed. (There was the U.S. Presidential election, but that went smoothly. Did I miss anything? Probably.)

As big breaking-news events occurred, news consumers became increasingly intolerant of inaccurate reporting. Via Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, they ask for verification and urge news deliverers to exercise patience and ethical judgements.

Setting aside the inaccuracies churned out on those same platforms, it’s wonderful to see a hunger for quality journalism. Plenty of journalists got it right, but the ones that didn’t must take note of their audiences’ reactions. People want — they demand — informative, accurate reports.

Give the people what they want.

___

FYI, the SPJ Code of Ethics is a great reference » http://spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Christine DiGangi is the communications coordinator at SPJ headquarters. She graduated from DePauw University and has worked in journalism and communications. Connect with Christine through email, cdigangi@spj.org, or Twitter,@cdigang.

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

What’s your personal journalism code of ethics?

SPJ’s Code of Ethics is among the most cited codes for journalism professionals, but there are certainly more from other organizations and news outlets. These codes are mostly starting points to guide ethical decision making. Often the gray areas of journalism ethics require your own additional thought process.

So, we ask, what’s your personal code of ethics? Are there more points you use to steer your own work? What, in addition to SPJ’s Code or other institutional rules, do you follow?

This is a question we pose in the upcoming issue of Quill magazine, the annual ethics issue.

Share your personal code of ethics in the comments below, on Facebook, or email to me. Keep it relatively short — 50 to 150 words or so. We’ll highlight some in a future issue and online.

As an example, we asked Steve Buttry, digital transformation editor at Digital First Media and a frequent writer on journalism ethics topics, to give us his personal code of ethics. (Steve has previously written on his blog and for Quill about the need to update the SPJ Code.)

Steve Buttry’s Personal Code of Ethics

A journalist’s job is pretty much like a witness’s oath in court: to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This goes deeper and broader than the call in codes of ethics to seek and report the truth. We must tell the whole truth about our reporting: showing our work and linking to our sources (including the competition). We must tell the whole truth about connections and experiences that might influence our reporting. This means acknowledging that we are humans with biases and opinions, not insisting that we’re objects. We must tell nothing but the truth. This means that we don’t settle for the faux balance of he-said-she-said journalism, but dig for verification and learn who is telling the truth. We must fact-check and call out the liars who too often use media as megaphones.

That’s Steve’s take. What’s yours?

Scott Leadingham is SPJ’s Director of Education and editor of Quill. Interact on Twitter: @scottleadingham

 

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Reddit

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