Journalism “Code of Ethics”
Thu September 25th, 2003 13:53 MSTThe Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists is provided below, with assistance for those journalists who need help reading between the lines. In honor of the eponymous journalist, this practice is called “Fisking” - so the following code of ethics is “Fisked.”
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
Examples of “comprehensive”: reporting as “news” that the US advance was bogged down one week into the fastest invasion in modern history; only giving the bad news from postwar Iraq; showing only the beneficiaries of expensive government programs without mentioning the costs; showing the prices of pharmaceuticals while not showing the vast costs and risks of developing and marketing them; endlessly hyping and distorting a few words from a Bush speech, without giving appropriate context.
Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.
Update: strike “with thoroughness and honesty”; replace “the public” with “their careers.”
Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society’s principles and standards of practice.
But only as modified by the comments highlighted here. Most journalists have little credibility except among the credulous.——————————————————————————–
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
This meant, before the Iraq war, bribing members of the Ministry of Information, and then sitting around the bar at the Al Rasheed Hotel writing stories that would not offend the dictatorship. Now it means sitting around the bar waiting for Americans to be killed, and then reporting that, rather than actively reporting on the myriad of other events in the area.Journalists should:
- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
In other words, report what they are given by the dictator’s sources or report only what all the other journalists in their hotel bar are talking about.- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
- Always question sources motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
Unless they are dictators who will throw you out of the country for doing so (see “courage” above).- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Unless it’s sweeps week or the public needs their attitude changed on a critical issue.- Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
But feel free to select only those photographs or videos that enhance your world view, and leave out those that show the opposite. If there are thousands of Iraqi’s going about their daily business, show only the unhappy one, but don’t distort the video of him.- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
- Never plagiarize.
After all, since most journalists have the same viewpoint and get their news from the same sources, without investigation, there should be no need to plagiarize. They’ll all tell the same story anyway.- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Unless it’s unpopular with the Pulitzer Committee, the left wing intelligentsia, outspoken Hollywood Stars, or racial preference groups.- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
This has been amended to say: Pretend you have no bias, but make sure that your readers reach the proper conclusion (i.e. your views) by proper choice of subject, quotes and visual material.- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
For example, if a killer is a converted Muslim, and acts out of extremist religious views, don’t mention it. Use only his previous non-Muslim name. If he is not white, don’t mention his ethnicity. Note that this clause does not apply to bad folks like Christians, conservatives and southerners.- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
But don’t report them unless the views support their opinion, or make their ideological opponents look silly.- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
In other words, if there is a cut in a federal program, make sure to find one person who is most hurt by it, and give her lots of air time. But be sure not to mention the benefits of the cut or the people hurt by the spending.- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
This has been amended to: “If their reporting supports correct political views, report it as straight news. Hide opinion in “straight news” stories through the use of positive adjectives for things to be supported and negative adjectives for things to be opposed. Remember, the goal is to educate the lumpen masses to correct thinking.- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Especially if those government records are classified because they might aid an enemy of the country. In that case, file lawsuits and diligently seek a leak, and then publish the full contents however they are obtained. Claim that this is for the good of the country and the public’s “right to know.”——————————————————————————–
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Unless they are bad folksJournalists should:
Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
Unless they are bad folksBe sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
For example, when thrusting a microphone into the face of a wife who has just learned of the death of her husband, pretend to do this reluctantly for “the public’s right to know.”Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort.
And use that against the bad folks.Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
Until you reach a position where your ratings are so high that you cannot be fired. Then demand multi-million dollar salaries, limousines, etc. Keep them out of site when you are helicoptered to a disaster scene. Never mention this when advocating for tax increases, since you now have so much money that the taxes won’t affect your lifestyle.Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
Unless they are the bad folks or have just suffered a personal tragedy.Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
You’re kidding, right?Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes. Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
And make sure not to identify criminal suspects’ ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, economic status or political views unless they are bad folks.Balance a criminal suspects fair trial rights with the publics right to be informed.
Unless you get a hot tip, a good leak or a lurid photograph.——————————————————————————–
Act Independently
But think identically
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.
And the public’s need to be indoctrinated in correct thinking. But those who own the medium and pay the salary should have no say at all in editorial decisions. After all, who do they think they are? In any case, always pretend to be free of bias or obligation or special interest.Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Such as attending the left wing Columbia School of Journalism, or endlessly praising Fidel Castro (CNN).Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity. Disclose unavoidable conflicts. Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
At least if they are the bad folks.Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
If you are CNN, never say anything bad about any left wing dictator or Saddam Hussein. If you are Fox News, ignore the massive Hong Kong freedom demonstrations because it might endanger your contracts with China’s dictators.Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news. ——————————————————————————–
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
In other words, ignore letters to the editor that attack you or your views, unless you are a Fox News personality.Journalists should:
Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
In other words, lecture the public on how unbiased they areEncourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
By trying to shut down talk radio and denigrating bloggers.Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
If they are trivial. If they are important, say nothing unless you get caught, and then hide the retraction below the fold on page 93.Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
If they hold the view of the bad folksAbide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Always apply humor to your job, such as including sentences like the aboveLeft out:
Journalists who acquire information, the release of which may cause grave harm to their country, especially classified information, should release that information in a manner that will have maximum effect. Journalists have no responsibility as citizens.
Journalists should not take any courses in hard science or mathematics during their education, especially if they plan to report on environmental issues or medicine. The knowledge from these courses could lead to incorrect thinking.
NOTE: The “bad folks” are:
Those of us on the right, or any who have access to first person reports on controversial events are aware of the bias and sloppiness of too many in today’s journalism “profession.” For example, most of the U.S. national media is selecting the facts in Iraq to suit their thesis that it is another Vietnam (another war where they selected their facts). They do the same with many other issues.
Furthermore, those who submit biased reports on scientific, medical and environmental issues usually have no knowledge on the subject. You can obtain a master’s degree from the very prestigious Columbia School of Journalism without taking a course in the hard sciences.
The U.S. media is almost monolithically to the left of center. Surveys show very few Republicans among influential media, and a vast number of Democrats. Major national media on the left include CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times. Major national news media on the right includes only Fox News.
Some say that this is acceptable - that media is always biased - or they take the postmodernist view that there are no objective facts and it’s all a matter of perspective.
Journalists, however, deny any bias, and claim the magically ability to report objectively in spite of their often extremist personal views. They tend to respond vehemently to legitimate revelations of their bias and laziness, such as Bernard Golberg’s book “Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News.”
Good post. And, if I might add, what disturbs me often is their unmitigated and uncorrectable arrogance.
Very good but you left off law enforcement officers as one of the bad guys. I am the sheriff in a small county in southeastern Illinois and have been enduring the wrath of a new monthly newspaper that has accused me of every crime except sinking the Titanic (I have an alibi for that one} Their fairy tales begin with “Our sources tell us..” instead of “Once upon a time..” I am hesitant to refer to them as Sleazy Journalists as that would be an insult to journalists that happen to be sleazy.
Your fisking is right on
What if Everything Changed for American Journalists on September 11th? My Speculations.
What individual exceptions there are I don’t know–I am sure they exist, and I would love to hear from them–but on the whole the American press has not seen fit to start its own story over after the attacks of 2001, just to see if “journalism” comes o…
This wasn’t very funny, useful, informative, or valid. Most journalists are not in Iraq. Most journalists have not written about Iraq. Scapegoating thousands of people who have nothing to do with the issues you care about is like one of those liberal elite conspiracy journalists painting all conservatives as played-out racist hacks or something — it’s not correct, and neither is your unfair portrayal of a valid and useful code of ethics.
Vitriolic and an overgeneralization.
Vicious humor is not clever, smart of commendable. It’s childish.
I take it you got burned in the past by an irresponsible, unethical reporter. Not all are like that, believe it or not.
Why don’t you ask if you can hang around a newspaper office for an hour to two one afternoon?
You might actually learn something about how ethical and responsible journalists make decisions.
What’s that? Rather complain and keep your paradigm? That’s much more fun and a lot more entertaining than doing something to help save the problem, isn’t it?
Are you going to be a big whiney “victim” the rest of youre life? Spout of endlessly and not take action to correct what you see as a corrupt business with corrupt reporters?
Why don’t you start or join a media watchdog group? I invite it, because reporters are not perfect, and need to be monitored in order to improve the profession. With no sarcasm, I wholeheartedly encourage that.
You have poison in those veins of yours.
I guess I should point out two things: the blog article applies primarily to the national press reporting on “big” issues, not the local dailyu; and, it is normal in blogs to exaggerate and be sarcastic - especially when Fisking.
As to being a “victim” of journalism, I am not. But I spent last year working as a Vietnam Veteran trying to get out the truth about John Kerry. I watched the national press corps adopt a uniform point of view (Bush is evil, Bush is stupid, Bush dodged the draft, Kerry is a war hero who did no wrong, any Vietnam Vet against Kerry has a bitter grudge) and fail to ask the simplest of questions:
Why didn’t Kerry sign the Form 180 to allow any citizen to view his servvice record? Why did he change his military dates of service on his web site when he released only some of his records? Why was he honored as a hero by the Vietnamese communists? Why were his statements used in anti-US propaganda last year by the Vietnamese Was it possible that the 65 witnesses produced by the Swift Boat Veterans were not all Republican shills or those carrying a grudge, but rather ordinary Americans who had fought along with Kerry? Why did Kerry meet with the North Vietnamese and negotiate with them during the war? Why did he keep one of the meetings secret? How do National Guard aviation outfits work and why was being a pilot in one a hazardous occupation (I was a Naval aviator - I KNOW the danger of military aviation and I lost my best friend to an accident in the New Mexico National Guard).I could go with many more - the national press corps was pathetic in its ignorance and its blatant bias, and made a mockery of any ethical standards.
Vitriolic, damned straight - like the press coverage of Bush last year. Humor? Not meant to be. Burned in the past? Every year in the sense of having my point of view misrepresented or suppressed, in the sense of having Vietnam Veterans portrayed as losers and victims when we weren’t, in the sense of watching the biased press help lose a war that was won with the blood of 58,000 Americans.
As to the code of ethics itself, it isn’t too bad, although I would add that a journalist should consider harm to his nation (not the same as harm to an administration) in his reporting. Some do, but some do not.
Your backtracking and explanations about exaggeration were not apparent in your Fisk blog. I am unfamiliar with Fisk. Do Fisk bloggers generally write vicious, sarcastic statements for a laugh and later admit they exaggerate?
I find some of your write-in statements about the SPJ code of ethics offensive and angering. I might respond to those separately another time.
You say you refer to the national press, not local dailies. Are you referring to the New York Times as one example of national press? If so, I agree that its editorial staff is blatantly anti-Bush. Political articles and bias aside, the paper still has good writers and some damn entertaining articles.
Quote: “although I would add that a journalist should consider harm to his nation (not the same as harm to an administration) in his reporting.”
Please explain. What in the world does this mean?
The answer to your problems:
Start your own newspaper, or if you lack money and time, you might want to publish investigations that support your perspective on your own web site, or write a book. Period.
This is America. You can make money off your misery. Haven’t you figured that out? Some might actually buy your book.
I have not followed the Kerry story so I cannot comment on your Kerry paragraph there. Some politics I am interested in; others not. We all pick our battles and have differing passions. Kerry is not one of mine.
To respond to others’ comments:
Yeah, some reporters are arrogant. A reporter friend himself said “reporters are snobs.” The attitude of, say, 10 percent reflect very poorly on all reporters. This is just a rough estimate.
I myself called one reporter I know a snob. Plus, she has terrible fashion sense.
I seem to have really hit a nerve. Is “backtracking” a journalistic term for “detailed explanation?”
In answer to my problems, I am just a citizen. Last year I was also a political activist. I do what I can. I am not interested in starting a newspaper, but it would help if the national press wasn’t so terribly biased.
You asked about the NYT. Yes, the NYT (and Boston Globe and LA Times) are at the top of the list, as are the major TV news networks, in terms of extreme bias.
Fisker’s generally write stong criticism and not for a laugh, but to make a point. I do not intend this to be funny. I intend it to be serious, but of course exaggerated in order to make that point.
You are curious about my national security idea. Journalists too often are taught that the truth should be put out, no matter whom it hurts. I find it shocking that the code of ethics does not suggest protecting the country as a duty of journalists.
The Kerry story was *the* story of last year. If you didn’t follow that, how can you comment on my comments?
“Detailed explanation” is in fact what I meant by backtracking. In fact, most people, not just journalists, understand it as meaning “detailed explanation.” Just ask any of your friends. They will confirm.
And in part, it referred to your apologist (of your own words) behavior.
As in “no, what I really meant was…”
Is that the best you’ve got in terms of snide remarks? Come on, bring it on! You can SO do better than that.
“Journalists too often are taught that the truth should be put out, no matter whom it hurts. I find it shocking that the code of ethics does not suggest protecting the country as a duty of journalists.”
First sentence is technically true. Some stories will inevitably hurt some people and sometimes editors and publishers just don’t care. In other situations, they do care. The press for example has an agreement with mental health providers and the health industry in general not to publish stories of suicides, except in cases of a public figure, public suicide, etc.
The reasoning is such articles glamorize suicide for the young, influential and unstable.
Google your choice of terms and you will come up with a scholarly article detailing this agreement. It has been honored on the media’s part. Shocking, isnt’ it?
But know it’s the publishers and their superiors who ultimately make editorial decisions. Reporters can and do argue, beg, petition a publisher not to run a story, but reporters ultimately have no power. That is what is going on with me right now. Details omitted, because I fear my publisher and don’t want to risk him seeing this or risk my identifying myself inadvertently.
I know in general what was going on in the Kerry story. I did not actively seek it out and don’t know as many details (Form 180 for example) about it as you do. Do not accuse me of being politically ignorant because in general, I keep up with politics.
There are some stories and subjects I follow with a passion, digesting details. Kerry was not one of them.
“The Kerry story was *the* story of last year. If you didn’t follow that, how can you comment on my comments?”
Your logic does not hold. Not actively following the Kerry story to your degree of knowledge may mean I can’t comment on your Kerry-related points about media bias. It does not by any means disqualify me from commenting on your mockery and remarks about the SPJ Code of Ethics. I am responding to your vicious remarks on the code and your stereotyping of all journalists as one in the same.
Must I be knowledgeable about the stories on which you base your stereotypes in order to comment only on your stereotypes? Come on, take logic 101.
I made it clear in an earlier post that I cannot comment on the media’s approach to the Kerry situation. Capisce?
Oh, it’s Fiskers. Not Fisker’s. That’s grammatically incorrect. It drives me batty. Too many people do that.
Another example: “I took my two dog’s out for a walk” is incorrect. It should be “I took my two dogs out for a walk.”
No apostrophe. Just being helpful.
They tend to respond vehemently to legitimate revelations of their bias and laziness
Oops. Somehow it ate the rest of my message.
Quote:
“They tend to respond vehemently to legitimate revelations of their bias and laziness.”
Tell me 12 through 16 hour days are lazy.
Go ahead. Do it.
Oh and I won’t even get into the corporate greed and unethical demands reporters have to face from their corporate superiors. My editor broke into tears from a request from her publisher. She got off the phone, spun around, and burst into tears. My editor did not obey his request, despite fear of being fired.
I also won’t get into the name calling, flabbergasting rudeness, glares, sneers, etc. I face from some people I have to get information from. Mind you, as I politely and professionally and non-arrogantly go about speaking with them, doing my job. How would you like a public official glaring and sneering at you while you try to eat your brunch in peace? I never did anything to hurt him, his colleagues or his profession.
That, low pay, greedy soul destroying corporate people, unethical superiors are some of the perks of being a reporter.