Ethics codes should guide journalists in the world where we live and work, not the world where we wish we worked.
At a discussion at the Excellence in Journalism conference last August, several members of the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee indicated they thought the SPJ Code of Ethics just needed “tweaking,” if it needed anything.
Here’s a surprise: They decided just to tweak it.
The code needs an overhaul and it got a touch-up.
Journalism is changing and journalists make ethical decisions in unfamiliar situations. Journalism ethics codes need to provide helpful guidance for journalists. The SPJ Code of Ethics, last revised in 1996, is perhaps the most-cited code and for many years was the most helpful. Now it’s terribly outdated and needs to reflect the world where journalists work.
The first draft at an update feels more like an effort to resist change than an effort to guide journalists in a time of change.
I participated in a digital subcommittee that presented detailed recommendations to the Ethics Committee. The committee posted its draft of a new ethics code. It’s a profound disappointment. Obviously I’ve failed to persuade the Ethics Committee to address new issues that journalists face. If you’re an SPJ member and want a real update that will help you in the world where you work, you should speak up.
Before I address details, I’ll note how the committee appears to have given little or no consideration to whether the four core principles needed revision. Poynter’s Guiding Principles for the Journalist used to nearly echo the SPJ code, sharing three of the four core values, with the fourth — accountability — addressed in elaborating on the other three.
But Poynters’ revision of the Guiding Principles last year changed two of its three core principles. Truthfulness remained the first principle, but the other two changed from independence and minimizing harm to transparency and community.
I would say that the committee raised a middle finger to journalists calling for transparency as a core value of journalism. But a middle finger is acknowledgment. Transparency is simply ignored in the SPJ draft. The committee’s draft does not use the word transparency or transparent and never explains whether the committee gave a moment’s consideration to revising the basic structure of the code.
Community gets only one mention in the draft and it’s a negative one, an admonition against serving in community organizations.
The message from Ethics Committee Chair Kevin Smith, posted with the blog, seems to indicate that the committee started with the presumption that the code would remain organized under the four principles used in the 1996 code:
The overall committee was divided into four groups, each responsible with revising a principle component of the code: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently and Be Accountable.
First a small editing suggestion: principle should be principal in that context, though its about principles, so it’s a little confusing.
I should be clear that the “digital subcommittee” wasn’t actually part of the full committee. Mónica Guzmán, head of the subcommittee, was the only member of it who actually served on the full Ethics Committee. Other members of the committee were Becky Bowers, David Cohn, Tracy Record and Craig Silverman.
I also want to not that the Ethics Committee members, I am sure, are sincere, ethical, hard-working journalists and academics. My criticism is not personal; I don’t know many of them very well. I appreciate the time they have committed to their project and the sincerity of their opinions. But the committee needed more people who understand and appreciate how journalism is changing and want to make SPJ a bigger part of the discussion of ethics in that change.
I won’t put Mónica on the spot by asking her to tell about the committee’s considerations. As the leader of the subcommittee and the only subcommittee member on the full committee, she worked hard to achieve a better result than we have so far.
I’m glad we get a look at this draft and a chance to respond to it. If you’re an SPJ member and want the society to become a relevant voice in journalism ethics again, you should comment on the posting of the draft (it has only three comments so far) and at local and national SPJ meetings.
SPJ is an odd mix of veteran journalists and student groups. I didn’t see a lot of young working journalists at its conference in August. Student members who want more and better ethical guidance and working journalists who belong to SPJ should speak up and demand better. They should ask to join the Ethics Committee and make it address the issues they face.
My analysis here will be long because I think this is an important matter. I suggest first reading the full proposed code in one smooth read at the SPJ Ethics Committee blog. My analysis will be detailed but not smooth. I hope I’ve organized it, though, in a way that will be easy for people considering the various options and arguments. Within the larger headings of the actual sections of the SPJ Code, the smaller headings are mine, for the purpose of organizing this post. I’ll analyze the first section here and subsequent sections in a follow-up post or posts.
Below, passage by passage, are six things:
The current SPJ code.
My 2010 recommendations, if any.
The recommendations, if any, of the digital subcommittee.
The current draft.
I will identify what, if anything, has changed.
My comments, if any.
Preamble
Current code:
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. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. 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.
Proposed preamble:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that justice and good government require an informed public. The journalist’s duty is to provide that information, accurately, fairly and fully. Responsible journalists from all media, including nontraditional providers of news to a broad audience, should strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Responsible journalists think ethically before acting, and make every effort to get the story right the first time. Integrity is the foundation of a journalist’s credibility, and above all, responsible journalists must be accurate. The purpose of this code is to declare the Society’s principles and standards and to encourage their use in the practice of journalism in any and all media.
Change: Minor rewriting.
Comments, etc.: I didn’t make any 2010 recommendations about the preamble and the digital subcommittee didn’t address it. It’s nice to see accuracy make its way into the preamble. I supposed the final words, “in any and all media,” were meant as a nod to our multi-platform world.
Seek Truth and Report It
This section header is shortened to “seek truth” in the draft.
Current code:
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
My 2010 comment:
A timeless basic principle.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
The increasingly porous division between journalists and the public has made transparency a more vital pursuit for ethical journalism and perhaps a headline principle. Might it find a place in this summary?
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Change: None.
Comment: I didn’t think this was the best place to address transparency, but the dismissal of the suggestion is significant. Transparency would have fit here, but I raised it in the independence section in my 2010 post, and the rewrite of the Poynter Guiding Principles addressed it with independence (actually elevating it above independence). However, this might have been a place to address transparency if the committee decided it didn’t want to pair it with independence. To just ignore transparency is like a decision to remain irrelevant.
Accuracy
Current code:
Journalists should:
Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
My 2010 comment:
I know many might feel an urge here to say that journalists should be especially skeptical of tweets and other information from social media. I don’t think that’s necessary. Journalists should be just as skeptical of information from social media as they are of information from other channels, such as conversation, phone calls, other media and documents. No need to update, no need to single out social media. This passage holds up well with time.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
We suggest a strengthening of this language by editing the first sentence to be more declarative about the importance of verification and working to prevent error. For example: “Confirm the accuracy of information from all sources and work to prevent inadvertent errors. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Aggressively gather and update information as a story unfolds and work to avoid error. Deliberate distortion and reporting unconfirmed rumors are never permissible.
Changes: Acknowledges the unfolding nature of stories today. Addresses reporting unconfirmed rumors.
Comment: Really? Someone suggests stronger language about preventing errors and you choose the weaker language? Not a good sign about where this is headed.
Fairness
Current code:
Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
My 2010 comment:
This needs rewriting and expansion to cover the way journalists cover unfolding news stories. I’d suggest something like: Diligently seek out subjects of news coverage to give them the opportunity to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. In unfolding coverage of breaking news, criticism or allegations may need to be published before a journalist can get a response. In these cases, the initial stories should reflect the effort to get a response, and the response should receive prominent play whenever it comes.
The update here needs to go beyond the technology-driven changes to how we cover breaking news. It also should recognize and address journalism’s widespread and lamentable practice of he-said-she-said stories that don’t get to the truth. The mere effort to report a “balanced” story with charge and response does not satisfy the obligation to report the truth, because this often boils down to nothing more than parroting of dueling lies. The journalist should fact-check, seeking documentation, videos, eyewitnesses and people with first-hand experience (always remaining aware of individual biases and the weakness of human memory) to come as close to the truth as possible.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
Developing stories live on after initial publication, as do journalists’ obligations to ensure that they are up to date and complete. It may be worth emphasizing that the need to pursue and publish responses from scrutinized subjects does not end with initial publication.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Diligently seek subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to criticism and to allegations of wrongdoing.
Change: Cut the word “out” and added the words “and criticism.” I also should note here that three paragraphs appear in the draft between what are the largely unchanged first two paragraphs of the 1996 “seek truth” section. I will deal with changes of the current code, so I will address changes in those paragraphs as their current counterparts come up and then address any new paragraphs at the end of my analysis of this section. The order of the paragraphs doesn’t seem very deliberate.
Comment: I just scratch my head. Receiving the suggestion to speak out against faux balance that treats truth and lies equally, the committee decided not to. Perhaps the committee thought the nod in the previous paragraph to updating as a story unfolds was sufficient to address the subcommittee recommendation. I disagree.
Identifying sources
Current code:
Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
My 2010 comment:
Perhaps this should address the issue of anonymous story comments, though that might be difficult without a consensus among journalists.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
In an information space that can be compared at times with an echo chamber, primary sources have much public value. We suggest that this phrasing specify that primary sources should be sought out whenever feasible.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
The draft combined two paragraphs in its current update, so I’ll address the changes after showing both current paragraph and recommendations.
Current code:
Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
My (very long) 2010 comment:
Truly anonymous sources – people who won’t disclose their names even to the journalist – should never be used as anything more than tipsters. Anything a truly anonymous source tells a journalist must be fully verified before publication. Journalists should always question motives before granting confidentiality to a source whose identity they know. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information, and don’t accept the condition that you would never publish the information; you must remain free to seek other sources of the information, while protecting a source’s identity. Make clear to sources seeking confidentiality that this is a two-way deal: You are granting confidentiality in return for truthful information. If you learn that they have lied, misled or presented rumor to you as fact, they should know that you may have to identify them publicly. You should challenge what confidential sources tell you and skeptically seek to confirm or refute the information with other sources.
Remember Judith Miller’s absurd dismissal of responsibility for her false reporting about intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: “If your sources are wrong, you are wrong.” I think the SPJ Code of Ethics needs to state unequivocally: Journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of the stories; you should verify thoroughly enough to refute false information from sources.
Do not publish critical opinions from people seeking confidentiality. People who wish to express opinions in the media should stand behind their opinions. Confidentiality should be granted only to gather important facts that could not otherwise be learned.
Consider power and eagerness in deciding whether to grant confidentiality. A powerful source volunteering information is trying to use a journalist and should be held accountable for what he or she says. A vulnerable source being approached by a journalist may express reluctance to talk at all without confidentiality. You still should examine motives, seek to get the source on the record and verify information provided, but this source is in a more acceptable position for granting confidentiality.
Use confidentiality as a means to find on-the-record sources and documentation that can be quoted. Quote the confidential sources only as a last resort.
Beyond those issues of a journalist’s sources, SPJ should consider whether the code should address anonymous story comments: Should journalists protect the identities of those commenters (even without a chance for this kind of vetting)? You can’t simply dismiss that as a matter of organizational policy that doesn’t need to be addressed in a code for individual journalists; many journalists are solo bloggers, so this is not an issue just for newspaper, broadcast or large online organizations.
Current comment on that long comment: I did not intend or offer it as a passage of the code — the code should not be a series of essays — but as things to consider in updating the section on sources.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
Anonymous “dropboxes” like Wikileaks take questioning anonymous sources out of the equation and set a distinction between confidentiality – where the journalist knows the source but hides her identity – and the now deeper anonymity where not even the journalist knows the source. Should that be addressed?
Information moves so quickly that it’s tempting to deflect responsibility for getting things right. This is an opportunity to affirm that journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of their reporting.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Clearly identify sources; the public is entitled to as much information as possible on source’s identity, reliability and possible motives. Seek alternative sources before granting anonymity. Reveal conditions attached to any promises made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
Changes: Added the words “clearly,” “identity” and “and possible motives.” Changed “always question sources’ motives” to “seek alternative sources.” Changed “clarify” to “reveal.” Combined two paragraphs and moved them from the third and fourth paragraphs to the fifth.
Comment: If that’s not tweaking, I don’t know what is. But I should note here that the third paragraph of the new section does incorporate an important suggestion I made in its first sentence:
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Journalists, not sources, are responsible for the accuracy of stories. Verify information from sources before publishing. Information taken from other news sources should be independently verified.
Avoid publishing critical opinions by those seeking confidentiality.
Comment: I am being critical enough here that I should note that the first sentence was taken verbatim from my 2010 post (buried in that way-too-long sources comment above). The second paragraph is not verbatim, but clearly follows one of the principles I voiced above, too. Those principles are important to me, so I should express my strong appreciation to the committee for making those statements. And I certainly agree with the second sentence, about verification.
But what’s up with the third sentence in that first paragraph above? Is there any journalist or any news organization that doesn’t frequently use material from other news sources (think AP). We are all too busy to expect that we’re going to independently verify information from other reliable professional journalists and news organizations. Unless we have reason to doubt the information, attribution should be sufficient when citing other journalists’ work. Journalism and the public are better served when journalists spend their time doing original work. To call for us to revisit the work of colleagues is a call for us to do less original work. I don’t understand that.
Meanwhile, the committee ignored the subcommittee’s recommendation to encourage seeking primary sources. I’d like to know what the argument against that is.
Context
Current code:
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.
My 2010 comment:
I would add: Where brief reports can present only limited context, use links to provide full context. In print editions, refer readers to online links providing greater context.
Digital subcommittee recommendations:
Data have emerged as new, powerful tools for enhancing stories. We believe they, too, should be included in this list..
Journalistic posts on social media offer an interesting conundrum. Many can be described by the phrase “promotional material” — those posts that link back to articles. But there are plenty of tweets, Facebook posts, Instagram photos and other journalistic social media content that is content itself, and would not count as mere “promotional material.” That content often does highlight incidents out of context by definition, because of the constraints of the medium and its bit-by-bit nature, but does not amount to unethical coverage just because it must fit those constraints. Should the bit-by-bit process of some real time news content be addressed here?
New media allow opportunities to provide deeper context that should not be ignored. We see a new ethical bullet point here: Where certain reports can provide only limited context, use links to provide deeper context. We recommend this not to address brevity or content limits so much as to stress the importance of the journalist serving as a guide to good information as well as its provider.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Work to put every story in context. In promoting, previewing or reporting a story live, take care not to misrepresent or oversimplify it.
Changes: The key points are the same: context, misrepresentation and oversimplifying. But the committee has attempted to update the paragraph otherwise.
Comment: This reveals deep understanding on the part of members (certainly not all members, but obviously a majority) of the Ethics Committee: They have singled out “reporting a story live” as a place where misrepresentation or oversimplification is most likely to happen. I will bet you that most of the people who wrote or supported that rewrite have never reported a story live. If they did, they would know that live coverage presents more context in coverage of events, with more protection against misrepresentation or oversimplification because journalists aren’t summarizing as they do for limited print space as for a brief broadcast spot. (Live coverage of breaking news presents challenges in accuracy and verification and may not provide context as well as event coverage.) The committee apparently bought into the notion that live coverage presents ethical challenges (it does, as any type of journalism does), but it clearly did not understand the challenges.
As for the rejection of the ethical nature of linking, I’m getting used to that. The Poynter update of the Guiding Principles made the same mistake.
Distortion, misleading
Current code:
Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement is permissible only for technical clarity, not for altering content. Label montages and photo illustrations.
Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
My comments and digital subcommittee: Neither the committee nor I made any comments on these two paragraphs.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Never alter or distort news images. Clearly label illustrations.
Avoid re-enactments or staged news events.
Changes: Principles are the same, but both are tightened.
Comments: I agree.
Undercover reporting
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.
My 2010 comment:
This may need to specifically address situations such as online misrepresentation, as the Spokesman-Review did in 2005, through a former federal agent working on the news organization’s behalf (another issue to address?) to document Spokane Mayor James West’s sexual interest in teen-age boys.
No digital subcommittee recommendation.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional, open methods will not yield vital information to the public.
Change: Last sentence, encouraging transparency, was cut.
Comment: Wow, we have some serious hostility toward transparency on this committee. Or at the very least, failure to appreciate its value.
Plagiarism
Current code:
Never plagiarize.
My 2010 comment:
Much as I love the direct simplicity of this passage, it’s no longer enough. I would add: Credit sources by name, not by vague descriptions such as “press reports,” “a blog,” or by indirect references such as “was reported” or “reportedly.” When crediting sources online, link to the original source. Be diligent in identifying source of information clearly in notes, whether digital or paper. Sloppiness is not an excuse for plagiarism.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
News sources are in constant conversation with each other but often fail to be honest about the paths those conversations take, to the disservice of readers who would benefit from accessing the roots of a story. Beyond plagiarism, there is a new principle here: fair and transparent attribution. We see an opportunity to affirm the expanded importance of crediting all sources specifically and completely, whether they are a person you reached by phone or a blogger whose material turned up in a search, and of linking to primary sources when appropriate.
Sourcing publicly available material journalists include in stories (photos, posts, etc.) has become complicated by the availability of content that is easy to grab but not necessarily ours to use, or ours to use as we wish. It is journalists’ responsibility to both understand and respect legal restrictions around use of publicly available content and to respect content creators by crediting them and sourcing them properly when their content is fair to use. Possible wording: “Attribute specifically to your sources of information, including reports from competitors. In digital platforms, attribution should include relevant links and embeds.”
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Never plagiarize. Always attribute information not independently gathered.
Change: Second sentence is new.
Comment: Nice to see attribution make it into here (it’s not even mentioned in the current code). But really, what is the refusal to understand or recognize the ethical value of linking? What’s interesting is that SPJ was part of last year’s Summit to Fight Plagiarism and Fabrication and the resulting ebook, Telling the Truth and Nothing But, which included a section on linking (which I wrote but the task force representing SPJ and several other journalism organizations supported).
At this point, I’d say that Telling the Truth and Nothing But is a more important document on journalism ethics than the SPJ Ethics Code update promises to be. It’s narrower in scope, but it’s timely and useful.
Diversity
Current code:
Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
My 2010 comment:
I would add: When using social media to connect with sources, be aware of the groups who might be unrepresented or underrepresented because they use social media less.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
Not all voices have equal access to the channels that bring public voices closest to each other and to journalists. This is a place where the importance of listening to everyone no matter where they are: “…even when it is unpopular to do so, and making an effort to expose yourself to voices you may not easily hear.”
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.
Change: Cut “even when it is unpopular to do so.”
Comment: Why would you cut that? And why would you not adopt the subcommittee’s recommended simple but important addition?
Current code:
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
My 2010 comment:
I’m tempted to add here that journalists should not stereotype Twitter users. But I don’t want to elevate the inaccurate reporting about Twitter to these more serious civil rights issues.
The digital subcommittee made no recommendation on those two paragraphs.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Avoid stereotyping. Examine your own cultural values and avoid imposing those on others.
Change: Combined two paragraphs. Removed the laundry list of possible stereotypes.
Comment: Good editing.
Exchange of views
Current code:
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
My 2010 comment:
I would add: The responsibility to support this open exchange does not override the responsibility to report the truth. When people are giving false information in support of their views, the journalist should fact-check and set the record straight.
Digital subcommittee:
New media have enhanced the tools with which journalists can cultivate productive public conversations about news and made that a cultivation a new obligation for the ethical journalist. Supporting the open exchange of views now calls the journalist to a new level of participation in which she engages with public voices throughout the life of a story, which only begins at the point of publication. Journalists must be aware of and responsive to its impact.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
That paragraph disappeared.
Comment: Scratching my head. Rather than addressing the ethics of participating in the community conversation, the Ethics Committee ran in the other direction.
Voices
Current code:
Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
Digital subcommittee recommendation (I didn’t have any 2010 comment on this paragraph):
Public voices commit acts of journalism when they share information. We believe ethical journalists should acknowledge the contributions of public voices as completely and respectfully as they would acknowledge the contribution of more traditional sources.
In that spirit, we believe this could be a good spot to address the ethical principles around comments, forums, or any evolution of the public conversation attached to a story. The community those spaces create are the responsibility of the journalist, and public voices using those forums should be respected as other sources are respected. Journalists should set good guidelines, monitor forums and participate as required to serve the community well.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Seek sources whose views are seldom used. Official and unofficial sources can be equally valid.
Change: Rewording the “give voice to the voiceless” passage.
Comment: Again, the subcommittee encourages a stronger statement and the committee runs away from its strong statement. As for the change the committee made, I prefer giving voice to the voiceless, even if it’s a bit of a cliché. That imperative applies to choosing story ideas, making assignments and planning beats. “Seek sources” is a tighter focus on stories and general source development on a beat.
Opinions
Current code:
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Neither my 2010 post nor the digital subcommittee made recommendations here.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be clearly labeled.
Change: Cut out “and not misrepresent fact or context.”
Comment: So now the Ethics Committee thinks it’s OK to misrepresent fact or context in commentary. Really? Why would you cut that out? You’re entitled to your opinions, but let’s stand by the principle that journalists should present facts accurately, even in analysis and commentary. The current code doesn’t insist on basing opinions in fact, just that they shouldn’t be misrepresented. I’d like to hear the pro-misrepresentation argument.
Advertising
A paragraph on advertising was moved to the section on independence. I will deal with it in a subsequent post.
Open government
Current code:
Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
My 2010 comment:
When reporting information from public documents, journalists should link to them or publish them online in pdf or other formats, so users can examine the documents themselves.
Digital subcommittee recommendation:
This last point makes us think of another new principle we think bears mentioning: The public service that is linking wherever possible to the raw materials of stories wherever they allow people to explore important information for themselves. For example: many government agencies publish data publicly. When journalists crunch that data in a story and draw specific conclusions, they should link to those data sets and empower public journalists to explore the data themselves.
2014 Ethics Committee draft:
Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection. Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Change: One sentence added.
Comment: The committee’s addition is fine, but this is important: At every point where the subcommittee and/or I noted the ethical value of linking, the Ethics Committee ran the other direction.
Other additions
I recommended this in 2010:
The heart of seeking the truth is verifying facts. Should SPJ advocate that journalists use a checklist, as Craig Silverman advocates? Craig notes that checklists are proven to reduce errors in crucial professions such as surgery and pilots. If we want to uphold the truth as a core principle, why shouldn’t we advocate a proven system to improve accuracy?
The committee did nothing on checklists. The committee did, however, add this paragraph (second in the seek-truth section):
Remember that neither speed nor brevity excuses inaccuracy or mitigates the damage of error.
I think it makes as much sense as writing this:
Remember that neither having lots of time to work on a story nor having unlimited space to tell a story excuses inaccuracy or mitigates the damage of error.
Remember, Judith Miller’s stories about weapons of mass destruction (and lots of other bad journalism) came in long stories that she and her editors worked a long times on. That one paragraph shows the committee’s powerful bias against the issues of digital journalism and its refusal and/or inability to deal with those issues. Speed and brevity may deserve a place in the ethics code, but they should be addressed knowledgeably, not dismissively.
My reservations about the digital subcommittee
I’ll repeat my appreciation for the two statements about journalists, not sources, being responsible for the accuracy of their work and about not allowing unnamed sources to criticize people. But beyond that, I am deeply disappointed with this “update” of the code.
Here’s what I wrote in an email to Mónica when she asked me to join the digital subcommittee:
I have to say that I have serious concerns about the approach of handling digital experience through a subcommittee. If I hadn’t blogged about the need to update the SPJ Code, and if it were someone else asking, I might blow off this request. That BS I heard in Anaheim about maybe all we need is a few tweaks was pretty discouraging. And then they heard a student say that the SPJ Code isn’t providing the guidance she needs. If a young journalist isn’t getting help in the situations she faces, the code needs more than some tweaks. So I go into this with some strong reservations. But, like I said, I called for an update. I should help when asked. So I’m in.
I’m not sorry I tried to help, but frankly, I think I’d prefer no update to these tweaks. If the code remains obviously outdated, the need to update it will remain strong. And maybe they’ll take another try in a few years and get it right or closer to right. I’d rather do that than tweak it now and have the anti-change forces spend the next 18 years claiming they had already updated it.
Does SPJ want its code to be relevant?
For many years, the SPJ Code of Ethics has been the most important document on journalism ethics. We are fortunate now to be in a time of considerable discussion of journalism ethics. In addition to the update of Poynter’s Guiding Principles and Telling the Truth and Nothing But:
The European Journalism Center published the Verification Handbook.
J-Lab published Rules of the Road, addressing ethics in hyperlocal news.
The University of Colorado hosted a Digital Journalism Ethics Symposium this month, bringing academic and professional voices together.
The Online News Association is working on a set of building blocks for organizational ethics codes.
Each of those other efforts has been more relevant to how journalists work today and to the ethical situations that journalists face. SPJ is not just updating its ethics code. It’s deciding whether that code will be relevant to journalists.
Disclosure: I acknowledged in my 2010 post calling to update the Ethics Code that I wasn’t an SPJ member. An officer contacted me and encouraged me to join, and I signed up for a year, figuring that was the right thing to do if I wanted to be part of the conversation. After a year of no notable discussion of updating the code, I let the membership lapse. Then I was invited to speak at last year’s EIJ conference. I did speak but didn’t renew my membership. I considered it again, especially after being invited to join the digital subcommittee. But I didn’t join. And I won’t. If SPJ ever adopts a relevant ethics code, I will rejoin. But I don’t want to belong to an organization that has decided to live in the past.
About my blog name: Yes, I have a ridiculous blog name. It’s temporary, and it’s for a good cause.
Filed under: Ethics Tagged: Becky Bowers, Craig Silverman, David Cohn, Guiding Principles for the Journalist, Mónica Guzmán, Online News Association, Poynter, Rules of the Road, Society of Professional Journalists, SPJ Code of Ethics, Telling the Truth and Nothing But, Tracy Record, Verification Handbook 
