Why maintain a nationwide journalism code of ethics, as the Society of Professional Journalists does, when it is unenforceable and when most major news organizations have crafted excellent codes of their own?
Why go to great lengths to assemble a high-powered group of editors and journalism teachers to update this unenforceable code – especially at a time when a large majority of the public considers “journalism ethics” to be an oxymoron?
The first, most important question is really a subset of the big question all journalists face: Are we going to allow our role to be defined by those who mistrust us, who consider us enemies of the people, and who mis-use their power to undermine our independence?
The answer is, of course, NO, and there are a lot of ways of saying it:
– We can muster the courage to continue producing independent journalism despite legal and business pressures to do otherwise. That’s what we’ve seen in recent weeks in the forthright and detailed coverage of the horrendous ICE killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
– We can fight in the courts to protect our right to report and publish and to safeguard the public right to know. (The organization I chair, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, is doing this every day.).
– We can band together to oppose every sort of attack on journalists.
– And we can do our own work ethically, share our standards and our methods transparently, and proudly fulfill our First Amendment responsibility to inform the public and hold the government accountable.
Here’s where the SPJ Code comes in. It publicly declares that we, indeed, have shared values as journalists. It sets out those values extraordinarily succinctly, in a single-page document (a case study in great editing, incidentally), and with impressive thought and sophistication. It reminds ourselves, our audiences and our critics that, while we may not always live up to our aspirations, most of us in the profession do indeed have such aspirations.
Widely cited and frequently searched, the SPJ Code exists not to be “enforced” upon individual newsrooms – which rightly have the freedom to devise guidelines best suited to their particular mission and culture – but to be consulted whenever useful. It is also available to be adopted or adapted, as it has been by many hundreds of newsrooms, often smaller ones across the country.
The SPJ Code, first issued 100 years ago, was last updated in 2014. Since then, ethical use of AI has emerged as an urgent issue. Physical danger to journalists has intensified. Pressures from newsroom owners to self-censor have increased. Risks that sources face when they speak with us, especially in immigration reporting, have become increasingly grave. Misinformation and disinformation overwhelm the channels of communication and often overshadow our journalism. Social-media production and consumption of news further blurs the already-fading line between news and opinion.
The committee that is reviewing the 2014 Code, ably led by Chair Dan Axelrod and Vice Chair Chris Roberts, will have to consider how these developments affect journalistic ethics and in what ways they may need to be addressed in the revision. These are important and fascinating questions that everyone in journalism is struggling with in one way or another.
While the current Code is excellent in spirit and in most particulars, it will be even stronger once at least some of these questions are addressed – which is why I am thrilled to be part of the effort.
Personally, I am paying special attention to the passages on crime and the criminal justice system. Police, crime and court reporting are staples of daily journalism. Though often assigned to less-experienced reporters, these beats are incredibly challenging, both ethically and legally. How do you square the presumption of innocence with the newsworthiness of an accusation? How do you rely on police sources and remain skeptical of them, publish official statements yet cultivate sources who may cast doubt on them? How do you place crime in its societal context?
The only passage of the SPJ Code that addresses this topic directly states this:
“Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.”
I will want us to consider amending this to address how journalists treat the presumption of innocence and whether they should be advised to limit the use of mug shots and coverage of perp walks to avoid implying guilt. I also believe reporters should be encouraged to include in their crime coverage such context as the underlying causes of crime and inequities in the criminal-justice system.I look forward to working with my colleagues on this question and the many others that will arise. If you are interested in sharing your views, please email your thoughts to me at the NYU Ethics and Journalism Initiative.