Welcome to SPJ Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Forgive me for tearing a page out of my own newspaper, but here's a thought from Manning Pynn, public editor of the Orlando Sentinel. He recently discussed journalism with students in Central Florida and expressed to readers his admiration for simplicity:
"Ethics codes come in a variety of sizes. The New York Times, notably, came up with one more than 50 pages long a few years ago. I'm sure that it covers every possible contingency but less confident that I could commit it to memory.

"The Sentinel's is decidedly more compact and, in my view, more likely to be remembered -- and used. Still, I favor the sort of reminder that can be reduced to a wallet card."
In that spirit, he tells budding journalists to focus on the following "seven admonitions":
  1. Don't accept free stuff.
  2. Don't cover friends, family -- or enemies.
  3. Don't use your position for personal benefit.
  4. Don't make stuff up.
  5. Explain where you got your information.
  6. Don't steal other people's work.
  7. Don't alter photographs.
Pynn admits those don't cover all the pitfalls, but that sticking to them will avoid common problems.

What do you think? Suggest an eighth rule below.
Published Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:46 AM by AdrianUribarri

Comments

# re: Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:03 AM by Anna Haynes
> Explain where you got your information.

Wouldn't this entail naming the institution that authored the press release?

I wish reporters would do this.
(and better yet, provide a link to the original)

# re: Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:19 PM by AdrianUribarri
I see your point, Anna. While reporters could argue that a press release should be a jumping-off point rather than the foundation of a story, it would be tough to argue that they shouldn't offer readers access to materials they used during information gathering. I have argued that police reports, which often are distributed digitally, should be linked alongside crime stories. Journalists may not be able to vouch for the content or accuracy of original documents, but labeling them clearly should save the reader from being misinformed.

How far should we go, though? Could posting press releases set a bad precedent for publicity hounds who just want their messages conveyed through a news-media outlet with broad reach? How can we argue that their press releases shouldn't appear next to stories we write about them?

# re: Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:37 AM by Andy Schotz
Anna, I think a different way of stating your point is: Attribute. We are supposed to do that already. I'm not sure what the purpose would be of linking press releases to stories, unless we want readers to compare what we wrote to what was handed to us. I suppose you also could scan your notes and post them, or put up a sound file of a full tape-recorded interview, so readers could decide whether you picked out the right information. Conceptually, those fit in with what I'd suggest as No. 8: Be transparent. But I don't think we need to go that far.

# re: Journalistic Ethics, Clear and Simple

Monday, March 10, 2008 1:49 PM by Shianne
This is crazy.
Anonymous comments are disabled. Please log in or create an account to comment on this article.