Archive for the ‘SPJ Code of Ethics’ Category


The Power of Words

Screen capture of President-elect Donald Trump’s first press conference since winning the November 8 elections – as viewed from CSPAN.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?,” President Donald Trump reportedly asked Thursday at a White House meeting discussing immigration policies and protections for people from Haiti, El Salvador and the African continent.

The president’s remark made news organizations around the world decide how to handle words that are viewed by many as offensive. In this case, news organizations needed to engage with their audiences on how they would print or broadcast the word.

In their reporting of the meeting and the president’s remark, ABC and CBS did not utter the word on air, while NBC did, prefaced by a warning from anchor Lester Holt. NPR initially didn’t use the word but then changed its mind, and had its standards and practices editor, Mark Memmott, on Friday’s All Things Considered to discuss why.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s publisher asked journalists there to remove the language from the AP lede. No explanation was immediately available.

The utterance of that word was an element necessary to reporting the story because it was said by the president.

SPJ’s Code of Ethics encourages journalists to seek truth and report it, but they must also minimize harm. It’s also essential that news organizations explain their actions as to why they did or did not use the word – as part of the call to be accountable and transparent.

While many news organizations were upfront as to how they were treating the language, some, like The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, were not, and owe their readers an explanation as to why the language was removed.

If this occasion has any lessons, let it be this – honesty always is the best policy. The more transparent a journalist is, the more credible they are. In this age of information, credibility is essential, and the act of transparency is something news organizations must keep in mind in their pursuit of the truth.


Alex Veeneman is a freelance journalist in Minneapolis, and a member of SPJ’s Ethics and FOI Committees. You can interact with him on Twitter @alex_veeneman.

The views expressed 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, nor its members.

Transparency a Must During Harassment Investigations

Garrison Keillor (via Michael O'Brien/Flickr Creative Commons)

Garrison Keillor (via Michael O’Brien/Creative Commons)

Minnesota Public Radio should follow the lead of other news organizations in dealing with harassment allegations.


Minnesota Public Radio journalists are seeking answers from their company after it severed ties Wednesday with Garrison Keillor, who is accused of “inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him.”

Keillor announced his own departure and communicated with journalists from a number of news organizations. MPR management has not granted interview requests from its own journalists, however. A program director for MPR say they’ll keep looking for answers.

 

 

While the news organization should be commended for allowing its journalists to report the story like any other without fear of repercussions, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics says journalists should be accountable and transparent and “abide by the same high standards they expect of others.”MPR and its parent company should be held to this standard, too.

Transparency is not unheard of in these types of situations. Similar work has been done at NPR, where Mary Louise Kelly interviewed CEO Jarl Mohn about the firing of former news chief Michael Oreskes.

Angie Andresen, MPR’s spokesperson, told MPR News that the organization’s commitments to transparency and confidentiality are often in conflict, and acknowledged the frustration that was felt. I reached out to Andresen for clarity on the policy and its relationship with the station’s journalism, but did not hear back prior to publication.

The news of Keillor’s firing came hours after NBC News fired Matt Lauer, the longtime co-host of Today because of allegations of sexual harassment. NBC said at the time that it was committed to being as transparent about the issue as possible. Though it is a difficult subject, and confidentiality must be honored, MPR should make the same commitment as NBC. They owe that transparency to their listeners.

They also owe that same respect to their journalists, who helped make MPR known for honoring the principles of SPJ’s Code of Ethics.


Alex Veeneman is a freelance journalist in Minneapolis and a member of SPJ’s Ethics and FOI Committees. You can interact with him on Twitter @alex_veeneman.

The views expressed 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.

Journalists Must Be Held Accountable

Charlie Rose in 2006. (Flickr Creative Commons/Thomas Hawk)

Journalism organizations and institutions should not shy away from holding people accountable for their actions.


CBS News, Bloomberg and PBS cut ties with Charlie Rose on Tuesday after numerous reports of sexual misconduct. The allegations, which were first reported in The Washington Post, are the latest to strike a major figure in the world of journalism.

Unlike most of the previous journalists recently accused of sexual misconduct, Rose presents an awkward position for several organizations and institutions that honored him with awards to recognize his long career.

The Radio Television Digital News Association honored Rose with its lifetime achievement award in 2016. The Society of Professional JournalistsDeadline Club inducted him into its hall of fame in 2015. Arizona State University awarded Rose with its excellence in journalism award in 2015. Other organizations undoubtedly honored him over the years, too.

ASU’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication announced on Friday it is revoking Rose’s award in an “unprecedented action.” The Deadline Club is reportedly considering revoking its award.

Rescinding awards is often a divisive conversation, but it shouldn’t be in cases such as the one involving Rose, who apologized for his “inappropriate behavior” but said not all allegations against him were “accurate.” Organizations and institutions established to support and better journalism must not shy away from holding the field’s most powerful practitioners accountable.

 


The SPJ Code of Ethics ends with the principle that journalists should “abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” If journalists fall short, there should be appropriate ramifications as would be expected in any other profession. In this case, there is no debate that sexual harassment is completely wrong and unacceptable.

Some people argued on social media in response to ASU’s decision that these honors are typically awarded for the journalism a person produces – not for the lives they lived. A person’s career does not occur in a vacuum, however. The journalism a person produces cannot be separated from the pain and damage they may have caused along the way.

Organizations must also consider the people these awards promote and hold up as the profession’s role models. Does the award honor people who created a safe and educational environment for other good people wishing to enter the field? Or, does the award honor people regardless of the work environment they created and the talented people they turned away as a result? The correct answer should be obvious.

Lastly, the element of power cannot be ignored in many of these cases of sexual misconduct. If power and prominence contributed to these actions, the profession must be proactive in removing those as catalysts.

The Washington Post, The New York Times and many other news organizations – including CBS News – must be commended for reporting on these types of behaviors in journalism and other industries. Those reporters and editors are living up to the SPJ Code of Ethics, which says journalists should “be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.”

The journalism industry and profession turned a proverbial blind eye to sexual misconduct for too long. These past few weeks of revelations present an opportunity to change that culture and create a better present and future.

Ultimately, these debates come down to the question: How much sexual misconduct is acceptable? The answer is none.


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

Video: The Balance Between Necessary and Excess

Photo illustration of an antique television set.

(via Flicker Creative Commons/cpkatie)

Journalists and news organizations have been intensively covering Sunday’s shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas. At least 58 people were killed and over 500 were injured as spectators enjoyed a festival of country music.

At the core of the coverage has been user-generated content – eyewitness footage of the shootings. The sounds of gunfire and the anxious screams of the festival goers have been replayed on cable and network news broadcasts.

These videos played a significant role on Wednesday’s CBS Evening News. The footage was aired continuously without any advisory warning of their graphic nature.

The Society’s Code of Ethics reminds journalists to seek truth and report it, but also minimize harm. There are arguments for and against the replaying of this footage.

On one hand, the footage underscores the gravity of the situation and emphasizes the scale of what happened on Sunday night. On the other hand, the repetition of such videos can be seen as sensationalism – a way to utilize drama and to encourage viewers to stay tuned to the broadcast.

Striking the right balance between the necessary and the excess is tricky. Journalists and news organizations usually exercise discretion when it comes to how much of that footage will make up the eventual coverage.

The Code encourages journalists to consider the public when it comes to broadcasting graphic footage. “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort,” the Code reads. “Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”

There are three goals to keep in mind when covering these types of events:

  1. Verify the footage before it goes to air.
    If the video is submitted by social media, take the time to interview the creator and after determining the authenticity how it will help your story.
  2. Consider the public when broadcasting footage – and ask this question: “How much is too much?” as you plan your coverage.
  3. Be forthright with your audience.
    If the video is graphic or may upset a viewer, please state that the footage may be disturbing to some audiences, instead of just putting it on the air.

Graphic elements are sometimes necessary to tell stories. It isn’t done to scare people or to put them off. Instead, it is to help understand the story and the scale of events. An undue reliance on the footage has an impact on the public – and their relationship with the media.

Journalists should – as a result – think twice about using the footage and how it is presented, and be honest with the audience. You’ll ensure credibility and promote quality ethical journalism.


Alex Veeneman is a freelance journalist in Minneapolis and a member of SPJ’s Ethics and FOI Committees. The views expressed 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.

Puerto Rico’s Situation Is Not up for Debate

Radar image of Hurricane Maria on September 19, 2017. (via NASA)

Radar image of Hurricane Maria on September 19, 2017. (via NASA)

A majority of Puerto Rico’s 3.4 million residents are without electricity and clean drinking water more than a week after Hurricane Maria tore across the island.

The mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico’s capital and largest city, asked for help on national television in the wake of Hurricane Maria. Instead of aid, Carmen Yulín Cruz’s pleas were met with criticism and false accusations from President Donald Trump.

As often happens when these back-and-forth arguments arise, journalists and news organizations engaged in public discussions over the merits of the president’s claims. Puerto Rico’s situation is not up for debate, however. Basic and life-sustaining supplies are scarce and the U.S. territory is in dire need of help.

CNN offered its viewers on Saturday an argument among five people about the war of words between the president and mayor, for example.

In addition to implying that this story is up for debate, these on-air yelling matches waste valuable screen time that could be spent showing viewers what is actually happening in Puerto Rico.

While conditions make reporting and broadcasting difficult, it’s not impossible. Most major news organizations have people on the island and the capabilities to get stories, images and sounds back to the mainland.

The Society of Professional JournalistsCode of Ethics tells journalists to give “voice to the voiceless.” News organizations should use those resources to show and tell viewers, readers and listeners what’s happening in San Juan and across the island. Transmit the devastation. Talk to residents, first responders, doctors and anyone else who is able to articulate what their daily lives are like in the wake of the hurricane.

The president will likely continue throwing around the term “fake news” every few hours, but those claims can’t stand up to the very real images of destruction from across the island.


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

Journalists Should Speak Out Against Discrimination

The Academic Village at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The Academic Village at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. (via Phil Roeder on Flickr Creative Commons)

Objectivity is correctly cited as an elemental trait of good journalists, which is exhibited in their ability to separate fact from fiction regardless of their personal biases. Some people unfortunately confuse that trait with the concept of equivalence that suggests all points of view are inherently equal. Objectivity and equivalence are not the same.

People and journalists in the United States are asking a lot of questions in the wake of the deadly protests, riots and attacks that occurred over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Those questions grow more complex as the White House continues to issue conflicting statements.

For journalists covering Charlottesville, its effect on their communities or similar events, the question may be: How can I objectively cover people who spew racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and other outdated and repugnant beliefs?

The answer is that we objectively know that discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and other inherited traits is wrong. Journalists should feel free to say so and forcefully challenge people who believe otherwise.

The Society of Professional JournalistsCode of Ethics takes a hard line against discrimination in several ways. The Code says ethical journalism boldly tells the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience and doesn’t stereotype. The document also says ethical journalism “treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.”

The profession would also be hypocritical to promote diversity in newsrooms in one moment and then suggest discriminatory views inherently deserve an equal airing in another.

Journalists and news organizations can’t ignore people with those hateful views, however. The events and horrors that occurred in Charlottesville can’t go unnoticed. In those cases, journalists must remain professional and civil. They and their news organization must be especially cautious not to inflate situations or make matters worse.

Additionally, journalists and news organizations need to be on the scene to record the events and send them to people in their homes. Those who disagree should read Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff’s The Race Beat.

“If it hadn’t been for the media – the print and television media – the civil rights movement would have been like a bird without wings, a choir without a song,” civil rights icon and U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA5) is quoted as saying at the end of the book.

Conversations about racism and discrimination are uncomfortable, but unavoidable in a country that has slavery and oppression in its genetic code.

Journalists and news organizations can’t make this problem go away by ignoring it. Fortunately it’s a problem with a well-known and proven answer. Journalists should tell and lead by example by promoting that answer: discrimination is wrong.


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

CNN Source Agreement Odd, Not Blackmail

Screenshot of President Donald Trump's Twitter message.

Screenshot of President Donald Trump’s Twitter message.

Post updated Monday July 5 to include CNN’s statement.


CNN announced an unusual anonymity agreement with a source Sunday.


After tracking down the source of a video posted on Twitter by President Donald Trump, CNN said it agreed to keep the person’s identity a secret since he is a private citizen, showed remorse for his online activities, removed his online posts and promised not to repeat his past behavior.

“CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change,” according to the story reported by Andrew Kaczynski.

CNN’s Oliver Darcy posted a statement from the news organization Monday on his Twitter account about the matter.

Journalists and news organizations offer sources anonymity for various reasons, but the specifics of CNN’s agreements with its source makes it unusual.

Specifically, what would CNN do if the source breaks the agreement by once again becoming an online bully? Would CNN specifically write a story about the person breaking the agreement? Would it retroactively add his name to Sunday’s story?

Journalists should support the open and civil exchange of views, but their role is debatable when they try to police good conduct on other platforms.

Additionally, where would these types of agreements with sources end? Would journalists agree not to identify a thief because he or she promised never to steal again?

In general, concealing the identity of this specific source would not go against the spirit of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

The Code says journalists should consider a “sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.”

Additionally, it says journalists should “realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.”

In the case of CNN’s source, he appears to be a private individual who made offensive posts online that somehow made their way to the Presidents of the United States. He’s apparently sorry for his actions. Little is gained by identifying the person. The key is getting information explaining how such a post made it from an online forum to the President of the United States.

All of those goals can be accomplished without CNN turning into an online version of Emily Post.

CNN’s agreement with its source should not be interpreted as blackmail, however. Anonymity agreements between journalists and sources should be detailed and often include qualifying statements. The specific qualifying statement in this agreement is not something that should be common practice, though.

Of course, CNN needs to keep its promise now that it’s agreed upon by both parties.

Journalists should “be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make,” according to the Society’s Code.


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

Give up on the President, Not the American People

Screenshot of President Donald Trump's Twitter message.

Screenshot of President Donald Trump’s Twitter message.

President Donald Trump is not going to change how he treats the press.


President Donald Trump continued his attacks on the press Sunday when he posted a short video to Twitter showing him wrestling a person depicting CNN. The post is the latest in a string of messages over the past few days – and past few years – targeting news organizations.

Journalists and news organizations must realize at this point that President Trump will not tone down his rhetoric. He used his pulpit to attack the press when he was a rising star in the political world. He harassed and taunted news organizations and journalists when he was a candidate. He continues these behaviors 163 days into his presidency.

Instead of fruitlessly hoping the president changes his behavior, the press should immediately focus a large portion of its attention on educating the public about journalism.

The press should first make a commitment to transparency, which is a tenet in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. News organizations should take the time to explain how stories were reported and why the journalists made certain decisions.

The Honolulu Civil Beat sets aside time every Friday afternoon to hold “office hours” on Facebook Live, for example. Readers can submit questions and get them answered by some of the news organization’s editors.

News organizations and journalists should also reach out to community leaders to open a dialogue about the role of the local and national press. Those relationships are crucial in acquiring access to government and getting help when journalists run into proverbial roadblocks.

Leaders of the Society of Professional Journalists stopped by the offices of U.S. House and Senate members last month to say hello and talk about the press, for example.

Additionally, local and national news organizations should team up to hold town halls across the country that explain what responsible journalism is, how it’s created and why it’s important. The public can then engage with journalists and get their questions answered.

Some of these steps are easier than others, but they are all necessary if the press wants to earn back the public’s trust. No media literacy program, no partnership with a tech giant, no journalism organization and no journalist can accomplish this goal alone.

Efforts to earn back trust may seem futile when faced with the latest numbers from Gallup showing less than a third of U.S. adults say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the news media. But, the public’s relationship with the press is more complex than that number.

For example, a May report from the Pew Research Center shows nearly three-quarters of people in the U.S. say they believe the press serves as a watchdog over government.

Additionally, Gallup numbers show trust in various U.S. institutions in the U.S. like the military, the criminal justice system and small business increased over the past few decades. If trust can be earned by other institutions, the same can be true for the press.

While journalists and news organizations should give up on hoping President Trump will change his behavior toward the press, they should not give up on the American people.

The press needs to teach the public what it does and why it matters. If the press succeeds, it won’t matter how many times the president publishes the words “fake news” on Twitter. The public will know the truth about responsible journalists and news organizations.


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

Is It Ethical to Interview People Who Cause Harm?

Screenshot of Megyn Kelly's Twitter feed.

Screenshot of Megyn Kelly’s Twitter feed.

People are calling on NBC to forgo showing an upcoming interview between its journalist and a well-known conspiracy theorist.


Megyn Kelly posted a teaser on Twitter Sunday night to promote her upcoming interview with Alex Jones, a well-known conspiracy theorist. The brief video caused an immediate backlash with people calling on NBC to forgo airing the interview on Sunday.

Foremost among people’s concerns is that Jones will get airtime on NBC after his website InfoWars pushed untrue and harmful conspiracy theories that claimed the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that resulted in 26 deaths was a hoax.

Part of the video shows Kelly in conversation with Jones. He first says the September 11, 2001 attacks were an “inside job.” Kelly then prompts him with the words, “Sandy Hook.” The answer Jones provides is as nonsensical as the stories found on his website.

The Society of Professional Journalists is often asked whether certain people or subjects should be avoided due to past harmful actions or the immense emotions they cause. The answer – like most – is more complex than just yes or no.

Journalism that focuses on controversial topics and figures is not inherently unethical. Journalists around the world dissect and analyze these types of topics each day in front of readers, viewers and listeners. What matters most is how the stories are reported.

At this point, people don’t have enough information to know how Kelly’s interview with Jones ultimately transpired beyond the few seconds published online.

For example, people may feel differently about the interview if Kelly aggressively challenges Jones about his words and confronts him with the unnecessary pain and torment he helped unleash upon grieving families.

On the other hand, people’s concerns may be justified if Kelly’s interview proceeds as a simple back and forth conversation.

In his nightly newsletter, CNN’s Brian Stelter included quotes from an interview between his colleague Dylan Byers and Liz Cole, who is executive producer of Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly.

“Until you see the full program, in the full context, I wouldn’t judge it too much,” Cole is quoted as saying. “Judge it when you see it. Megyn does a strong interview, we’re not just giving him a platform.”

Society should not get into the habit of forcing journalists to shy away from harmful, painful or emotional subjects. Instead, it should push journalists to uphold their profession’s abiding principles and show people what is fact and what is fiction.

If nothing else, the public outcry over the upcoming interview sends a very loud and clear message to NBC and Kelly that they must be conducted with extreme care and awareness of the subject’s complexity.

People will learn on Sunday night whether NBC and Kelly got the message.


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

Learning From a Leak

Caught a drip falling from the tap in the kitchen

Journalists and news organizations must work to protect their sources even when no formal promises or agreements are made between the two parties.


Missteps in handling and reporting classified information may jeopardize the identity of sources and ultimately dissuade other people from leaking important information that may be vital to the public.

The U.S. Justice Department today announced charges against a government contractor for leaking classified information to a news outlet about an hour after The Intercept published a classified document from the National Security Agency.

The document dated early May “was provided anonymously” and details – among other things – an alleged Russian-led cyberattack on a U.S. voting software supplier before the November presidential election, according to The Intercept’s story.

The Justice Department’s affidavit says the news outlet – assumed to be The Intercept – contacted the government agency on May 30 and provided a copy of the classified document. The agency examined the document and noticed “the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.

The crease and/or fold was enough to steer investigators toward employees with physical access to the information, according to the affidavit. Of the six people who printed the report, only one had email communications with the news outlet.

As far as I can tell from online news reports and the Justice Department’s affidavit, the source’s arrest cannot be directly blamed on The Intercept’s decision to turn over a copy of the leaked document. Investigators may have been able to identify the alleged leaker due to email or other activity.

The affidavit does suggest The Intercept’s decision made the government’s investigation easier, however.

Journalists and news organizations should not hand over copies of leaked documents to the government, as pointed out on Twitter by Emily Bell, who is the director of Columbia Journalism School’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism in New York.

The main reason for withholding those documents from the government is to protect the source’s identity. As happened in this case, investigators may be able to find clues that lead to the source – such as a crease, fold, watermark or other marking.

The situation Bell cites in her Twitter post resulted in a legal case between The Guardian and the UK government over leaked documents that contained markings that would identify the source.

In its nightly media newsletter, CNN cites a statement from The Intercept: The NSA document was provided to us anonymously. The Intercept has no knowledge of the identity of the source.

The statement seems to conflict with the Justice Department’s affidavit that suggests the alleged leaker had some communication with the news outlet.

News organizations usually have some communication with the sources of leaked information. In those cases, the Society of Professional JournalistsCode of Ethics is clear that journalists should “keep the promises they make.”

The Code is less direct when sources simply mail information to reporters without earlier or follow-up communications. Yet, journalists and news organizations still have an implicit responsibility to do all they can to protect sources of the information.

Journalists and news organizations have a responsibility to minimize harm that should be considered when reporting, writing and ultimately publishing or broadcasting information.

Additionally, leakers need to know journalists on the receiving end of information will treat those documents with the appropriate care and won’t unwittingly turn over information that jeopardizes their safety. If people can’t trust journalists to do all they can to protect people’s identities in these types of situations, leakers may think twice before sending potentially vital information to news organizations.

Beyond the news value of such leaks, it’s in the best interest of the country for people to leak information to responsible journalists and news organization instead of places like WikiLeaks.

Whether The Intercept unknowingly guided the U.S. government to its source is debatable at this point, but the situation an important reminder to other journalists and news organizations to be aware of their responsibilities throughout the news reporting process.


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

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