essay journalistic ethics

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists

A good place to learn about journalists' rights and responsibilities is the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Leighton Walter Kille, The Journalist's Resource March 30, 2009

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/home/code-of-ethics/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Journalists have both rights and responsibilities. A good place to learn what these are is the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists . The society’s code is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior.

The code is intended not as a set of “rules.” It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — legally enforceable. Instead, it is intended as a resource for ethical decision-making.

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.

Seek truth and report it

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. Journalists should:

• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
• 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.
• 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.
• Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• 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.
• Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
• 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.
• Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
• 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.

Minimize harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. Journalists 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.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• 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.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Act independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. Journalists should:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
• Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
• 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.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
• 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. Journalists should:

• Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
• Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

This information was adapted from the website of the Society of Professional Journalists. The original page is here . Answers to frequently asked questions about the code are available here . Tags: ethics.

About The Author

Leighton Walter Kille

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Journalism ethics.

• Patrick Lee Plaisance Patrick Lee Plaisance Department of Journalism & Media Communication, Colorado State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.89
• Published online: 09 June 2016

News workers—writers, editors, videographers, bloggers, photographers, designers—regularly confront questions of potential harms and conflicting values in the course of their work, and the field of journalism ethics concerns itself with standards of behavior and the quality of justifications used to defend controversial journalistic decisions. While journalism ethics, as with the philosophy of ethics in general, is less concerned with pronouncements of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of certain acts, it relies on longstanding notions of the public-service mission of journalism. However, informing the public and serving a “watchdog” function regularly require journalists to negotiate questions of privacy, autonomy, community engagement, and the potentially damaging consequences of providing information that individuals and governments would rather withhold.

As news organizations continue to search for successful business models to support journalistic work, ethics questions over conflicts of interest and content transparency (e.g., native advertising) have gained prominence. Media technology platforms that have served to democratize and decentralize the dissemination of news have underscored the debate about who, or what type of content, should be subjected to journalism ethics standards. Media ethics scholars, most of whom are from Western democracies, also are struggling to articulate the features of a “global” journalism ethics framework that emphasizes broad internationalist ideals yet accommodates cultural pluralism. This is particularly challenging given that the very idea of “press freedom” remains an alien one in many countries of the world, and the notion is explicitly included in the constitutions of only a few of the world’s democratic societies. The global trend toward recognizing and promoting press freedom is clear, but it is occurring at different rates in different countries. Other work in the field explores the factors on the individual, organizational, and societal levels that help or hinder journalists seeking to ensure that their work is defined by widely accepted virtues and ethical principles.

• minimizing harm
• public service
• global ethics
• newsgathering standards
• framing effects
• journalism culture
• media technology

Introduction

Potential harm posed by news accounts, the use of deceptive tactics to secure stories, and the increasing prevalence of infotainment content are all examples of journalism ethics issues. In addition to specific practices, the field of journalism ethics also addresses broader theoretical issues such as what roles the news media should play in society, whether the idea of patriotism poses a conflict of interest for journalists, and what might constitute a set of universal or global values to define good journalism across cultures. As a field, journalism ethics spans a wide range of issues from examination of specific case studies that raise questions of privacy and editorial independence, to abstract, normative arguments about how concepts from moral philosophy such as realism, relativism, and the Aristotelian notion of eudaimonia , or flourishing, should inform the work of journalism.

As the idea of journalism has evolved over the centuries, economic imperatives and the desire to be seen as performing “professionalized” work have motivated news publishers and journalists to embrace various standards of behavior. Depending on its cultural context, the idea of journalism emerged from commercial or political “hack” work, where newspapers were entertainment or party organs, to its role in most developed countries as an autonomous broker of information and “watchdog” of power centers on behalf of citizens. As a result, publishers, editors, and writers recognized the value of embracing standards of conduct to build integrity and commercial viability. Journalism ethics scholars and researchers have explored the philosophical underpinnings of these standards, the recurrent failures of news workers to meet them, and the moral obligations of journalism on a societal level.

Ethics and the Journalistic Mission

While ethics is conventionally understood as the work involved to discern “right” actions from wrong, it is more precisely a field of inquiry focused on examining the quality of our deliberations when dealing with moral dilemmas. It is about asking the “right” questions to best illuminate our duties and potential impacts on others. As such, ethics rarely provides clear answers about the best way to handle quandaries. Rather, ethics serves to help us highlight morally relevant issues and come up with optimal defensible decisions. This also describes the field of journalism ethics: while there are some clear rules and standards about how journalists should operate, more common are abstract statements of value that are intended to inform good behavior. Journalism ethics is a distinct subfield of media ethics in that it addresses behavior and dilemmas unique to the practices of gathering and presenting news content. It works within the context of journalism culture that assumes a critical public-service function of the work in a professional or semi-professional setting distinct from marketing or promotional media content. While journalism ethics scholarship draws from moral philosophy in its use of concepts such as autonomy, harm, and justice, it also represents an applied ethics approach, focusing as it often does on case studies and analyses of situations that pose dilemmas involving protection of journalistic credibility or potential harm to story subjects. Ethicists in media often call for a deontological approach in journalism practice—for journalists to be more mindful of these broad duties and less concerned about the consequences of providing the news to the public. True public service, they argue, requires journalists to report the news, as explosive, discomforting, or controversial as it may be, and let the chips fall where they may. The public must decide how that information will be utilized. These ethicists insist that journalists should resist paternalistic impulses and pressure to “sanitize” the news. Despite this general tendency, many journalism ethics codes and standards also include explicitly utilitarian concerns—a recognition that journalists must, of course, be mindful of the consequences of their work, particularly when it comes to potential harmful effects of some information. The tensions created by these two approaches often constitute the heart of many journalism ethics controversies, just as they do in other areas of applied ethics. A look at codes of ethics embraced by various journalistic organizations around the world illustrates how both approaches are invoked. These codes most often avoid clear declarations of prohibitions or required actions, and instead provide aspirational calls for journalists to report the news courageously, to be accountable to the public, and to minimize harm as much as possible. All of these imply a special covenant with the public and an obligation to act in ways that serve more than the commercial interests of individual journalists or news organizations. This includes, as one of the first publishers of the New York Times famously said, to report the news “without fear or favor”—in other words, without being cowed or intimidated by powerful people or institutions who might want to shape the news for their own interests, and also without any agenda to promote any single individual, cause, or policy in the course of reporting. In commercial media systems, the specter of corporate conflict of interest is a recurring journalism ethics issue: corporate media conglomerates use their journalism divisions to promote, in the guise of news content, products or services (such as a film or musical artist) produced by another division. Similarly, nationalized or party-owned news outlets subject to government or political control are typically perceived as lacking sufficient editorial autonomy to report news that may adversely impact those in power. Accountability in journalism most often refers to fulfilling a public-service role in the dissemination of news. It calls for journalists to respond quickly to questions about accuracy, and to acknowledge and correct mistakes. It also implies the notion that journalists wield considerable power in their ability to spotlight and scrutinize the behavior of others, and that they must use that power judiciously. Journalists, consequently, are expected to acknowledge their own ethical lapses, and to apply the same standards of behavior to themselves that they hold for news subjects. Most journalistic ethics codes also call for minimizing harm in the course of news work. Note that the call to minimize harm is distinct from imperatives to “prevent” or “avoid” harm, which are virtually non-existent in journalism. This semantic distinction is deliberate and reflects an acknowledgement that harmful effects are occasionally inevitable in the course of good journalism. Journalistic harm is most conventionally understood as materially “setting back” an important and legitimate “interest” of someone or some group that is the focus of news. Some such harms might be easily defended, such as the economic harm caused by an investigative report on the questionable or illegal practices of a company. Other such harms are more difficult to justify, such as the damage created to someone’s reputation by the disclosure of personal facts not considered very newsworthy. But harm can take many other forms. Ill-considered behavior might result in harm to the individual journalist’s reputation or that of his or her news organization. As with most other lines of work, the ethically questionable behavior of individual actors can easily reflect on—and harm—the profession or field as a whole, reducing trust. The public also can be harmed with misinformation and sensationalistic coverage or content that leaves people with an inaccurate understanding of a topic or issue. In most cases, journalists minimize potential harms by articulating the public value of published information and by considering withholding information that might be less important or relevant for a story. Journalists also consider story “play”—how images and graphics are used as well as story placement and prominence. More recently, journalism ethics discussions and scholarship have emphasized additional values. One is transparency, or being aboveboard in explaining news decisions. For example, recent efforts to revise the code of ethics of the Society for Professional Journalists in the United States resulted in adding the imperative that journalists “be transparent.” In some cases, this has meant inviting the public to observe, either personally or via streaming video, editorial meetings of news organizations. In others, it has meant allowing digital access to databases and other files that are used in building news stories. Another value that has gained in prominence in journalism ethics is community engagement. More journalistic organizations, particularly digital-only news sites, have expressed an obligation to move beyond mere reporting of the news and to make efforts to foster civic participation. At its most basic, this manifests itself through active story comment lines and forums to discuss stories and issues. But it also can include the sponsorship by news organizations of public meetings to address specific issues of concern as well as inviting audience members to “sponsor” an investigative effort, which a news organization, once receiving sufficient financial support, “pledges” to publish.

Journalism and Ethics Frameworks

Much work in journalism ethics is rooted in two predominant strains found in the philosophy of ethics. One is consequentialism , in which much of the moral weight of decisions is placed on the goodness of the outcome. In journalism, this is most clearly illustrated by the focus on possible harms resulting from newsgathering and publishing. The other predominant strain is deontology , or duty-based ethics. Many news outlets and journalism associations have embraced ethics codes that itemize the various duties that responsible journalists must carry out: duty to serve the public, duty to scrutinize centers of power, duty to be as transparent and accountable as possible. But the “third way” in ethics, virtue theory, has recently been gathering prominence in journalism practice as well. Rooted in the work of Aristotle, this approach focuses instead on identifying “virtues”—what it means to be courageous, charitable, honest, and so forth—and articulating how such virtues ought to be manifested in our lives if we are serious about the promotion of human “flourishing.” Insisting that journalists should “be virtuous” may sound like a less-than-useful platitude, but recognizing and living by virtues is far from simple. We would not still be discussing them thousands of years after Aristotle if it were. And as we have seen, ethics is rarely black and white. We must juggle competing claims, weigh various possible harms, articulate often multiple duties—all in the course of just one ethical question. In moral psychology (discussed later in this article), the idea of “moral commitment” is an important one—the degree to which individuals internalize moral principles, or virtues, into their very self-identities, so that those principles almost reflexively inform daily behavior. Moral “exemplars” are those among us who not only internalize these principles, but whose moral development has given them what might be called a highly developed skill of discrimination: the ability to make fine-grained distinctions among similar situations and to thoughtfully respond with just the right mix of appraisals, beliefs, and behavior that still reflect one’s broader moral commitments. This is the more character-driven approach that preoccupies virtue ethicists. One of them, Rosalind Hursthouse ( 1999 , p. 154), argued that the virtues “are not excellences of character, not traits that, by their very nature, make their possessors good and result in good conduct.” Rather, she said we must remember the “Aristotelian idea that each of the virtues involves practical wisdom, the ability to reason correctly about practical matters.” It is more of a “ground-up” approach, rather than the “top-down” approach of duty ethics or the “ends-focused” approach of consequentialism. And for a growing chorus of journalism ethics scholars, it may be the most useful one. “By building from our appreciation of ‘particular facts’ about how the media operate in the contemporary world, we have a more useful starting point for the tangled problems of media ethics than by relying on supposedly consensual norms, rights or obligations,” wrote media ethicist Nick Couldry ( 2013 , p. 42).

A notable example of virtue ethics applied to journalism is offered by media ethicist Sandra Borden. Borden draws on the work of philosopher Alistair MacIntyre, who argues that the ancient Greeks understood the notion of virtues as qualities that were critical to have if one were to perform well in his or her social roles. Aristotle described virtues not as ends in themselves, but as tools to achieve what he said should be our broader aim: “the good life,” or eudaimonia . As individuals, we not only contribute to our own well-being but help bring about such flourishing for all through specialized work that is often referred to as professional behavior. In his landmark book, After Virtue , MacIntyre ( 2007 , p. 187) called this type of work a practice :

By ‘practice’ I . . . mean any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that human powers to achieve excellence, and human conceptions of the end and good involved, are systematically extended.

Such practices, he argued, involve “standards of excellence and obedience to rules” that are aimed at attaining internal goods, or things that contribute to the common good regardless of who actually receives them. Media professionals, when deliberately informing their work with the “standards of excellence” that are attached to their “practices,” are able to deliver public goods such as providing information and analysis that enables the public to participate in a vigorous democratic life. As Borden ( 2007 , p. 16) summarized, “an occupation’s purpose provides it with moral justification, from a virtue perspective, if it can be integrated into a broader conception of what is good for humans.” In her book, Journalism as Practice , she made the compelling case that journalism should indeed be treated as a MacIntyrean practice . Another media ethicist, Victor Pickard ( 2011 , p. 76), eloquently described the “practice” of journalism having internal goods as its aim:

[Journalism] is an essential public service with social benefits that transcend its revenue stream. In its ideal form, journalism creates tremendous positive externalities. It serves as a watchdog over the powerful, covers crucial social issues, and provides a forum for diverse voices and viewpoints. As such, journalism functions as democracy’s critical infrastructure.

Implications of Specific Practices

Due to the ongoing nature and recurring tensions inherent in news work, several specific types of questions and controversies regularly surface. Yet it should be clear that ethics provides no clear-cut solution to cases of the same type; indeed, ethicists often argue for very different resolutions or optimal decisions among similar cases, depending on context and factors that may have more or less importance in different situations. It nonetheless is valuable to note several broad types of journalism ethics questions:

Conflict of interest. As noted previously, corporate and political conflicts of interest commonly raise questions of journalistic autonomy and adherence to ideals of public service. Conflict of interest can also occur at the individual level, where the interests or values of a single journalist might tempt him or her to compromise his or her news judgements. Most journalistic policies require news workers to treat potential appearances of conflict of interest as just as much a threat to credibility as actual conflicts, and, in cases of the latter, to take explicit steps to acknowledge the conflict and to either minimize or eliminate it. In most cases, journalists are expected to recuse themselves from activities that might pose a journalistic conflict. This includes policies that prohibit reporters covering politics from featuring political bumper stickers on their private vehicles.

Minimizing harm. Also as noted, the concept of harm can take many forms, and journalists are regularly called upon to justify their decisions that arguably cause harm to individuals or groups. Photojournalists in war zones and those covering sites of humanitarian tragedy have been challenged, for example, for their decisions to maintain their role as dispassionate witnesses to scenes of human suffering, rather than setting down their cameras and helping those in need. News organizations also have drawn criticism when disclosing secret or classified information that, in the course of informing the public, may arguably harm or undermine national interests.

Balancing privacy interests. Generally, theorists agree that everyone requires a degree of privacy to allow for self-development and to enable individuals to manage their multiple social roles. But with the value of privacy regularly being contested, journalists confront the dilemma of the extent to which respect for individual privacy should determine news coverage. While some scholars have argued that protecting privacy should never be considered the job of the journalist because of myriad and shifting definitions, others emphasize that journalism that respects privacy can encourage civic participation and engagement. Ethics arguments frequently flare over when disclosure of personal information is merited as well as when story subjects arguably seek to dodge accountability by invoking questionable or ill-informed privacy claims.

News frame effects. News content that may have negative effects on society frequently raises ethics questions. For example, psychologists have long warned of the “contagion” effect of coverage of suicide that focuses on the method of death and emotional state of the subject, which may prompt others in a similar emotional state to “copy” the story. Journalists have embraced media guidelines for responsible coverage of suicide as a social-health issue rather than as spectacle. The way an issue in the news is “framed” by story narratives, using factors such as sourcing, point of view, emphasis, and description, can leave audiences with a particular understanding of that issue. Framing of hot-button topics such as gun violence, gender roles, or obesity can serve to emphasize or favor one perspective over another and thus raise ethical questions.

Stereotypes. Relying on or perpetuating gender, racial, or ethnic stereotypes in news stories also can be considered a framing issue, and journalists must be mindful of inadvertent stereotyping. Expediency, narrative brevity, and the press of deadlines often discourage thoughtful considerations of the descriptions used for story subjects, be they local celebrities or police suspects. Research has suggested a consistent gender bias in news descriptions of physicality, emphasizing clothing items for women but not men, for example. Also, consistent focus on race often leaves skewed perceptions of crime patterns in the mind of the public.

Newsgathering techniques. What methods are justifiable in the collection of information valuable to the public? Classic what-ends-justify-the-means questions regularly confront journalists. While absolutist policies are rare, many news organizations refuse to pay for news or interviews, though tabloid outlets commonly do so. The concern is that sources with a financial incentive may be tempted to embellish, alter, or even fabricate facts and events, thereby undermining the journalistic enterprise. In some developing countries, such as Kenya, China, and India, money is regularly passed to individual journalists to curry favor and secure positive treatment. With celebrity periodicals, where exposure has created its own competitive market among a finite pool of public figures, payment for attention has become more removed from objective newsworthiness standards. The use of deceptive tactics, such as hidden cameras, also raises ethical questions. Several journalistic organizations have adopted policies stating that hidden cameras should be used only as a last resort and only when the information sought has high potential value for the public. Similar policies apply to journalists misrepresenting themselves to access information.

Graphic images. The publication of photos that depict gore, violence, and suffering regularly raises ethical questions for news journalists. Such questions become particularly heated during times of war or conflict, and when patriotic sentiments may bring added pressure to bear on journalists to depict the “right” story and avoid using images that audiences might perceive to be demoralizing. Claims that graphic images can be offensive, harmful, or unnecessary clash with concerns that avoiding such images risks sanitizing or propagandizing the news, which can easily undermine journalistic credibility. As with other journalistic ethics issues, the controversies over the publication of graphic images reflect diametric approaches within ethics itself: A utilitarian concern focused on minimizing harmful consequences of a decision versus a deontological ethos that calls for depicting the news with courage and relying on audiences to make their own decisions about the value of such images.

Ethics and Journalism Sociology

A variety of factors influences and even determines the behavior of journalists. The professional, cultural, and organizational environments in which journalists work have been referred to as their “moral ecology,” a recognition that news workers, like everyone else, do not operate in a self-defined vacuum, and that individual beliefs and predispositions are routinely subsumed by broader processes of socialization that can both help and hinder the exercise of ethical reasoning skills and moral autonomy. Thus, normative claims about what journalists should or should not do in the course of their work must rest not on assumptions that journalists are guided solely by personal beliefs but on an appreciation of these socialization processes. For example, journalists are criticized for advancing a “news agenda” reflecting their personal biases, but such claims often ignore how the broader constraints of the news decision-making process (e.g., the requirements of video production on deadline), organizational structure (e.g., the allocation of resources intended to produce one type of news content over another), or professional culture (e.g., the internal system of sanctions and rewards from editors based on impartiality of work) function as much greater influences. That moral ecology, of course, varies widely around the globe. Journalism sociology research over the years has identified broad “levels” or categories of factors that influence the production of news, generally distinguishing among individual-, organizational-, and societal-level spheres. For example, the ongoing “Worlds of Journalism” project examining news work across cultures has identified six levels of influence:

The individual level includes personal opinions, values, and demographic data as well as information on specific roles and occupational characteristics within a news organization.

The media routines level includes deadlines, production procedures, and standards and other constraints posed by newsgathering practices.

The organizational level includes technological imperatives, advertising or revenue considerations, and editorial decision-making.

The media structures level includes the economic model of news that entails profitability and resource allocation as realities in the relatively high costs of news production.

The systemic level includes national-level data such as regulatory policies, ideological assumptions, and degree of press freedoms.

Reference groups constitute a dimension that spans professional and personal domains to include competing news organizations, audiences, colleagues, friends, and family members.

In much research on journalism culture since the late 20th century, organizational- and societal-level factors have been found to be stronger influences on news content than individual-level factors, suggesting a hierarchical structure of influences in which the higher the level, the stronger the influence. However, no definitive model of influence has emerged.

Media Technology

The proliferation of online media has resulted in a host of new complications for journalists and news organizations. While traditional ethical concepts do not fundamentally change when information is delivered online, the ease and ubiquity of digital media provide new ways of interacting with audience members and story subjects. And everyone is tempted to do things he or she may not otherwise contemplate without the speed and ease of media technology. As one media ethics scholar noted, “Deceptive behavior in cyberspace is . . . not a new moral issue though it raises the problem of ‘moral distance’ with extra urgency . . . The speed of digital communication does not create new forms of immorality, but makes it possible to commit immoral acts so fast one hardly notices” ( 2000 , pp. 34–35). For example, the issue of corrections and retractions in digital journalism has received considerable attention.

Generally, many journalistic organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Journalists, have adopted policies against “unpublishing” erroneous reports from their archives and instead amending corrections to them. News organizations also have felt increasing pressure from story subjects who are embarrassed by content and argue that it is unfair for the news organizations to archive material long after it is no longer relevant. But allowing individuals to “scrub” the public record for their own interests raises deeper questions about the value of independently curated public information, and it also can threaten a key aspect of the journalistic mission, which is to document history. As one journalism educator has said, “Source remorse is not a reason to unpublish.” Unpublishing material also does little to eliminate the “echoes” that likely exist all over the Web on search engines, blogs, and other news sites. Better to correct or amend the existing archived material, which both preserves the integrity of the journalistic process and also fosters credibility through transparent action. For instance, editors at the Boston Globe cited the latter for their decision to correct, but not remove, a live blog post erroneously stating that an arrest had been made shortly after the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013 . In rare cases, a news organization may consider unpublishing a story that is judged to be unethical or even be questionable legally, or when continued accessibility of an archived story may pose a real threat to someone’s well-being. In such cases, many policies urge journalists to look for evidence of concrete harm, such a doctor’s opinion, and for any such decisions to unpublish to be made by consensus, never leaving them to a single person.

The immediacy provided by media technology has enabled journalists to increase their relevance and value and to foster new forms of interaction with audiences. It also can encourage broad collaborative efforts with non-journalists whose perspectives and information can augment journalistic efforts. But that very immediacy can threaten to become deterministic —the value of now can displace ethical concerns of credibility, verification, and care. In the rush to be a part of the conversation and buzz on breaking stories, many news organizations have fallen victim to all stripes of hoaxes. “The development of social networks for real-time news and information, and the integration of social media content in the news media, creates tensions for a profession based on a discipline of verification,” said journalism technology scholar Alfred Hermida. News sites around the world, for example, circulated what turned out to be a fake photo of Osama Bin Laden’s body soon after his death in May 2011 . The immediacy of digital technology tempts journalists to post, share, and verify later—often at the cost of their long-term credibility. This risk of compromised integrity or even partiality is a serious concern reflected in the social media policies of most news organizations. The notion of technological determinism—that values emphasized by technology such as convenience tempt us to set aside other values such as respect, conscientiousness, and even safety—has resulted in abetting the perilous impulse in a competitive media system of getting it first rather than getting it right. Critic Evgeny Morozov ( 2011 , p. xvi) calls this “cyber-centrism,” or our tendency to “prioritize the tool over the environment.” The integration of social media also has required journalists to resist the temptation for informality. Several news organizations have adopted explicit policies that reinforce how traditional concerns of ethics as well as etiquette apply to social media. For example, the Associated Press cautions its writers about the peril residing in too-informal use of Twitter:

Twitter, in particular, can present some challenges—with a tight character count and no way to modulate your body language or the volume and tone of your voice, requests that are intended to be sensitive can come across as cold or even demanding. Think about how your tweet would come across if spoken with an angry voice, because that’s just how the recipient may hear it in his head.

Media technology has collapsed time and space in the exchange of information, but it also has arguably initiated a reformation of communication structures. No longer is the news media system a “closed” one in which journalists serve a central gatekeeping function; now we have an “open” system in which the sourcing and distribution of information has been radically democratized and globalized. As many theorists have said, we now have a networked society. Journalists and journalistic brands are now just single nodes among a constellation of voices and sources, all moving in a “shared” information space. This, writes scholar Ansgard Heinrich, “sketches the evolution of an interactive sphere that, at least in theory, fosters a greater level of interaction and exchange. Connection, interaction, and collaboration are the markers of this shift.” This transformation, however, poses many questions for journalism as it has been conventionally understood, in the form of print newspapers and broadcast networks. Who do you link to? How do you distinguish between activist bloggers and more dispassionate collaborators? Do these distinctions matter anymore? And in this new “network journalism,” how are journalists to act responsibly in what is now a global sphere? Scholars have begun insisting that journalists have a responsibility to be more cosmopolitan in their outlook and their framing of news, and to work harder to transcend the “nationalistic” lenses that have traditionally dominated news narratives. As Heinrich argues, “This nationally inward looking focus of news reporting, however, does not do justice to a world (1) where events in one corner of the world might affect the other; (2) where news stories produced by one outlet are not restricted in access to ‘local,’ i.e., national audiences; and (3) in which many voices roam through the spheres of a digitally connected world that might provide an alternative take on a news story.” Globally responsible journalists, then, must break out of the tradition of foreign correspondent narratives that focus almost exclusively on elite or official sources and on how events impact a particular nation, instead engaging in the multitude of activist and “unofficial” sources that provide often competing narratives.

Global Journalism Ethics Theorizing

Much journalism ethics theorizing since the end of the 20th century has been preoccupied with the desire to establish viable ethical norms that transcend cultural boundaries and reflect what one researcher referred to as an empirical trend toward “ever-increasing globalization of journalism standards.” Some of this work calls for a media system that relies on a framework of international human rights, or a general veneration of human life, to guide news work regardless of culture. Others have called for a “modified contractualist” approach that would respect differing cultural manifestations of broad principles. Still others insist that any such global framework reject Enlightenment assumptions of the primacy of individual rights and rationality. Too often, claims of journalism standards of behavior remain rooted in Western cultural assumptions and are imperialistically imposed onto non-Western cultures in which the values of social stability and collective well-being replace individualistic models. As one scholar observed, “It is a global reality that the common concerns we have as human beings coexist with differences of ethical thinking and priorities in different cultures. This coexistence of common ground and different places plays out in the work of journalists across the world.” Notwithstanding the rarity with which the value of press freedom is enshrined in Western media systems, American and European scholars and journalistic organizations continue to dominate journalism ethics discourse. As a result, that discourse is focused on protecting journalistic functions with the rule of law and insulating them from power and identity politics. The European Federation of Journalists, for example, released a report in 2015 examining the effects of chronic corruption in 18 countries, noting how “media managers are doing ‘deals’ with advertisers to carry paid-for material disguised as news, how editors are being bribed by politicians or corporate managers and how this whole process makes it increasingly difficult to separate journalism from propaganda from public relations.” But voices from other parts of the world are joining the discourse on press freedom and journalism ethics. Many sociology and philosophy scholars on the African continent have offered critiques of postcolonial systems to promote journalism institutions (e.g., Kasoma, 1996 ; Wasserman, 2006 ). In 2015 , the Journal of Media Ethics published a special issue devoted to the notion of ubuntu as a guiding framework for media practice—the idea common among several south African cultures that individual flourishing is possible only through community belonging and social identity. The widespread practice of journalists accepting gifts and cash in exchange for favorable treatment—called “brown-envelope” journalism in Nigeria and “red-envelope” journalism in China—is receiving an increased amount of attention by journalism sociology scholars around the world (Xu, 2016 ). The practice in China was an intrinsic part of the commercialization of the media system in China beginning in the 1980s, and was actually initiated by foreign companies to entice journalists to attend press conferences (Zhao, 1998 ).

Cultural diversity notwithstanding, research worldwide has identified several key areas and concepts that concern journalists across cultures. These include truth-telling, accuracy, factualness, objectivity, credibility, balance, verification, independence, fairness, accountability, honesty, and respect. Of course, many of these overlap, and they can apply to one or more of the influence levels referred to previously. But many journalism ethics scholars agree that these are not enough. It is shared moral principles, rather than agreed-upon practices, that can bind responsible journalists around the world in ethical solidarity. As scholar Clifford Christians ( 2010 , p. 6) argues:

Without a defensible conception of the good, our practices are arbitrary. How can we condemn violent practices such as suicide bombings in the name of jihad except through widely accepted principles? We are stunned at the blatant greed and plundering of the earth, but without norms we are only elitists and hot-tempered moralists. Conflicts among people, communities, and nations need principles other than their own for their resolution. A credible ethics, as a minimum, must be transnational in character.

Christians and others argue that such a global media ethic cannot start with conventional morality that assumes a superior rationality, such as that of Kant. Instead, it must begin with a much more “naturalistic” principle: universal human solidarity, which prioritizes human dignity, truth, and nonviolence, all of which are grounded in the notion of the sacredness of life. In addition to this notion, scholars point to the fundamentally social reality of human existence—that despite the predominance of Western individualism, our realities and even our identities are arguably rooted in interaction and community belonging. In this reality, communication is central, as it is through exchange that we understand ourselves and we see the importance of “the Other”—individuals we encounter who may not share our culture or perspective, but whose existence requires respect and validation. Again, Christians, drawing on a long line of earlier philosophers, explains: “Communication is not the transference of knowledge but a dialogic encounter of subjects creating it together.” This leads us to a framework of “anthropological realism” that provides a hopeful basis for a global media ethic. It is anthropological in nature because it is rooted in the realities of human existence rather than claims about any rationalistic ideals. It is realist in that it insists morality has an explicit character that exists independently of our perceptions and judgements. For the moral realist, moral claims of rightness or wrongness are true regardless of any beliefs an individual might have about them. The casual observer, however, might see an immediate problem with such a framework, a problem wrestled with by philosophers since antiquity: what exactly is the nature of the “good” and how do we apprehend it? Is there more to a moral claim than a sort of intuition that we just know right from wrong? And how might journalists articulate this framework of moral realism in the judgements they make about news, about ethnic conflict, about graphic images? In journalism ethics scholarship, these debates continue.

Moral Psychology Research

Broad-brushed, deductive theorizing such as that discussed previously is one active area of journalism ethics research. But other researchers are increasingly acknowledging the need for more empirical work that seeks to better understand ethical reasoning processes on the ground by bringing long-established psychology measurements to bear. This moral psychology research draws on important philosophical concepts as well as instruments that assess beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions to explore possible patterns and relationships among factors in ethical decision-making. Recent cross-cultural research involving interviewing journalists around the globe, led by German researcher Thomas Hanitzsch, suggests that they perceive notions of objectivity, accuracy, and truth-telling as “core elements” of a widely accepted ethic for journalism practice. Journalists, of course, have been socialized into these norms through formal journalism education as well as through immersion in the newsroom culture, with its internal system of sanctions and rewards by peers and superiors based on the perceived quality of one’s work. Other researchers emphasize that social psychological processes resulting in bias perceptions, such as social validation and attitude stabilization, also must be recognized as evident in the work of journalists.

Moral development theory provides several models to help explain how individuals’ moral agency and sense of morality evolve over the course of a lifetime. The most widely cited moral development theory is that of Lawrence Kohlberg, who has argued that our moral development is tied largely to two factors. One is the degree to which we internalize moral principles that apply to all and move away from relativistic thinking—the notion that moral decisions regarding what is “right” are strictly “relative” to one’s own personal values rather than any broader moral principles. The other, closely related to the first, is the sophistication and scope of our understanding of the concept of justice. Our moral development, Kohlberg argues, can be assessed as existing in one of six stages. Based on Kohlberg’s theory, researchers have refined and widely used a survey instrument that measures one’s moral reasoning skills based on these two factors. By assessing the frequency with which respondents draw on higher-order justifications when presented with a moral dilemma, the Defining Issues Test (DIT) has enabled researchers to assess the moral-reasoning skills of various populations such as professional groups. Media researchers Lee Wilkins and Renita Coleman pioneered the application of the DIT to journalists and other media workers, concluding that, because journalists routinely encountered ethical questions in the course of their work, their moral reasoning skills were relatively high compared with workers in other professions.

Another moral psychology instrument that has proven useful in journalism ethics research is the Ethics Position Questionnaire (EPQ) developed by Donelson Forsyth. Because people’s responses to ethical dilemmas are influenced by their worldviews, understanding the basic elements of their outlooks can illuminate the thrust of their ethical judgements. Two such basic elements are key to individuals’ “ethical ideologies.” One is how idealistic they are—that is, to what extent are they optimistic about the actions of others, and to what extent are they concerned about minimizing harm or are more accepting of harmful effects if positive consequences are believed to outweigh them. Another basic element is how relativistic they are—whether they tend to make judgements based primarily on their own interests and perceptions of “rightness” that are relative to their own standing or views, or whether they tend to draw on broader, universal principles to decide what’s ethically justifiable. Using some key items from the Forsyth instrument, the “Worlds of Journalism” project found that most journalists in the 20 countries surveyed tend to embrace universal principles that should be followed regardless of situation and context. They also agreed on the importance of avoiding questionable methods of reporting, even if this means not getting the story. Much less approval—although the extent of it varied between countries—could be found regarding how much personal latitude journalists should have in solving these problems. This desire for flexibility reflects the longstanding tension in ethics between desirable ends and questionable means, as discussed. Many journalists think that in certain situations, some harm to others would be justified if the result supports a greater public good. News workers in Western countries are more likely to disapprove of a contextual and situational ethics. This attitude, however, also exists in non-Western contexts, though less strongly. Chinese, Pakistani, and Russian journalists, on the other hand, tend to be most open to situational ethical practices. Consistent with this result, interviewees in Western contexts showed little support for the idea that journalists should be allowed to set their own individual ethical standards. Similarities between journalists from Western countries also exist with regard to idealism. Although journalists in all countries agreed on the view that questionable methods of reporting should be avoided, those working in Western contexts appreciate this idea more than their colleagues in a developmental and transitional environment. Regarding the acceptance of harmful consequences of reporting for the sake of a greater public good, journalists in most Western countries—but also their colleagues in Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Uganda—tend to keep all options on the table. Journalists in Bulgaria, Chile, China, Egypt, Romania, and Russia, on the other hand, exhibit a greater willingness to accept harmful consequences in the course of newsgathering and reporting.

In a study of journalism “exemplars” in the United States—reporters and editors widely respected for their accomplishments and ethical leadership—media ethicist Patrick Plaisance used both the Defining Issues Test and the Ethics Position Questionnaire, along with several other moral psychology instruments. Regarding the journalism exemplars’ moral reasoning, Plaisance found their DIT scores were indeed higher than that of journalists on average. Regarding the EPQ, the journalism exemplars uniformly rejected relativistic thinking as well. There was also a negative relationship between the journalism exemplars’ DIT scores and their degree of idealistic thinking. That is, the higher the exemplars score on the Defining Issues Test, the less they appear to embrace idealistic thinking. This may first appear counterintuitive; it might stand to reason that people with higher DIT scores, associated as they are with greater application of universal principles in moral judgements, also would be rather idealistic in their outlooks. However, it is important to remember that all of the exemplars scored low in relativistic thinking; so the issue is not that the exemplars would be more or less Machiavellian depending on their DIT scores, but to what degree their belief in universal moral standards, and perhaps primarily their concern for harming others, could be applied rigidly or not. The negative correlation with moral-reasoning scores, then, arguably reinforces the suggestion of comparatively greater moral development in that exemplars with the higher DIT scores exhibit a greater ability to adapt their principles to best fit the often complex range of contingencies in which they find themselves having to work. In other words, they are too wise to believe they can insist on a rigid application of moral rules that can fit all circumstances and have become more adept at making the kind of carefully considered, fine-grained distinctions frequently found among moral exemplars of all walks of life.

Other Resources

African Media Initiative of the Ethical Journalism Network .

Center for International Media Ethics .

Ethical Journalism Network corruption report .

European Federation of Journalists .

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2012, Winter). Consequentialism . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics .

Steiner, L. (1989). Feminist theorizing and communication ethics. Communication , 12 , 157–173.

Wasserman, H. (2006). Have ethics, will travel: The glocalization of media ethics from an African perspective .

• Black, J. , & Roberts, C. (2011). Doing ethics in media: Theories and practical applications . New York: Routledge.
• Borden, S. L. (2007). Journalism as practice: MacIntyre, virtue ethics and the press . Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
• Bracci, S. L. , & Christians, C. G. (2002). Moral engagement in public life: Theorists for contemporary ethics . New York: Peter Lang.
• Brown, F. (Ed.). (2011). Journalism ethics: A casebook of professional conduct for news media (4th ed.). Portland, OR: Marion Street Press.
• Christians, C. G. (2010). The ethics of universal being. In Media ethics beyond orders (pp. 6–23). New York: Routledge.
• Christians, C. G. , Fackler, M. , Richardson, K. , Kreshel, P. , & Woods, R. H. (2015). Media ethics: Cases and moral reasoning (9th ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Christians, C. G. , Ferré, J. P. , & Fackler, P. M. (1993). Good news: Social ethics and the press . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Christians, C. G. , Glasser, T. L. , McQuail, D. , Nordenstreng, K. , & White, R. A. (2009). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Christians, C. G. , & Merrill, J. C. (2009). Ethical communication: Moral stances in human dialogue . Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
• Couldry, N. (2010). Media ethics: Towards a framework for media practitioners and media consumers. In S. J. A. Ward & H. Wasserman (Eds.), Media ethics beyond borders: A global perspective (pp. 59–72). New York: Routledge.
• Couldry, N. (2013a). Living well with and through media. In Ethics of media ( N. Couldry , M. Madianou , & A. Pinchevski , Eds.) (pp. 39–56). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Ettema, J. S. , & Glasser, T. L. (1989). Custodians of conscience . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 (1), 175–184.
• Hamelink, C. J. (2000). The ethics of cyberspace. London: SAGE.
• Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kasoma, K. (1996). The foundations of African ethics (Afri-ethics) and the professional practice of journalism: The case for society-centred media morality. Africa Media Review , 10 (3), 93–116.
• Klaidman, S. , & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). The virtuous journalist . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1971). From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology (pp. 151–235). New York: Academic Press.
• Kohlberg, L. , Levine, C. , & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics . Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
• Kovach, B. , & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (3d ed.) New York: Three Rivers Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3d. ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Meyers, C. (2011). Journalism ethics: A philosophical approach . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Morozov, E. (2011). The Net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom . New York: Public Affairs.
• Patterson, P. , & Wilkins, L. (2013). Media ethics: Issues and cases (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Pickard, V. (2011). Can government support the press? Historicizing and internationalizing a policy approach to the journalism crisis. The Communication Review , 14 , 73–95.
• Plaisance, P. L. (2014a). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice (2d ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Plaisance, P. L. (2014b). Virtue in media: The moral psychology of excellence in news and public relations . New York: Routledge.
• Plaisance, P. L. , & Deppa, J. A. (2009). Perceptions and manifestations of autonomy, transparency and harm among U.S. newspaper journalists. Journalism & Communication Monographs , 10 (4), 327–386.
• Plaisance, P. L. , Hanitzsch, T. , & Skewes, E. A. (2012). Ethical orientations of journalists across the globe: Implications from a cross-national survey. Communication Research , 39 (5), 308–325.
• Plaisance, P. L. , Skewes, E. A. , & Larez, J. (2014). The moral psychology of journalism exemplars. Ethical Space , 11 (3), 4–13.
• Quinn, A. (2007). Moral virtues for journalists. Journal of Media Ethics , 22 (2&3), 168–186.
• Rest, J. R. (1973). Morality. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive development (4th ed.), vol. 3 (pp. 556–629). New York: John Wiley.
• Rest, J. R. (1974). Manual for the Defining Issues Test (unpublished manuscript). University of Minnesota.
• Ward, S. J. A. (2006). The invention of journalism ethics: The path to objectivity and beyond . Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
• Ward, S. J. A. (2010). Global journalism ethics . Montreal: McGill–Queen’s University Press.
• Ward, S. J. A. (Ed.). (2013). Global media ethics: Problems and perspectives . Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Wasserman, H. (2006). Globalized values and postcolonial responses: South African perspectives on normative media ethics. International Communication Gazette , 68 (1), 72–91.
• Wilkins, L. , & Coleman, R. (2005). The moral media: How journalists reason about ethics . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Xu, D. (2016, in press). Taking red-envelope cash: Journalists on the take in contemporary China. Journal of Media Ethics , 31 (4).
• Zhao, Y. Z. (1998). Media, market, and democracy in China: Between the party line and the bottom line . Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Related Articles

• Journalism on the Web
• Privacy Rights
• Journalism, Culture, and Society
• Cybervetting
• Theories of Journalism
• Gender and Journalism
• Policy Issues Surrounding Journalism
• Drone Journalism, Privacy Law, and Journalism Ethics
• Journalism and Explaining News Content
• Behavioral Journalism in Health and Risk Messaging
• Journalism's Social Contract
• News, Economic Governance, and Anti-Corruption
• Objectivity and Bias in Journalism
• Accountability in Journalism
• Crowdsourcing in Journalism
• Comparative Journalism Research
• Journalistic Organizations: Arenas for Professional and Symbolic Struggles
• Global Media Ethics

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

Ethical Journalism

A handbook of values and practices for the news and opinion departments.

Introduction and Purpose

The Scope of These Guidelines

Other standards of behavior.

Our Duty to Our Readers

Pursuing the News

Personal Relations with Sources

Obeying the law in pursuit of the news.

Accepting Hospitality From Sources

Dealing with the Competition

Protecting the Paper’s Neutrality

Providing Financial or Other Advice

Speaking engagements, competitions and contests, the use of borrowed equipment, collaboration and testimonials.

Participation in Public Life

Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues

Community service.

Advertisers, Marketing, Promotion

Obligations to The Times

Speaking for The Times

Books, Movies, Reprints and Copyright

Journalistic Work Outside The Times

Appearing on Broadcast Media

Sorting Out Family Ties

Disclosure of Possible Conflicts

Investments and Financial Ties

Affirming Good-Faith Compliance

Business-financial, technology and media news, transitional arrangements, annual filing by ranking editors.

Rules for Specialized Departments

Culture, Styles, Dining

Art, pictures, technology, automobiles.

Dealing with Outside Contributors

Sample letter declining a gift

Sample letter declining an unsolicited award, letter of understanding with the newspaper guild of new york.

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news and opinion staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.

Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas. They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, family and companions can create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts.

In keeping with its solemn responsibilities under the First Amendment, The Times strives to maintain the highest standards of journalistic ethics. It is confident that its staff members share that goal. The Times also recognizes that staff members should be free to do creative, civic and personal work and to earn extra income in ways separate from their work at The Times. Before engaging in such outside activities, though, staff members should exercise mature professional judgment and consider the stake we all have in The Times’s irreplaceable good name.

These guidelines generally apply to all members of the news and opinion departments whose work directly affects the content of the paper, including those on leaves of absence.

They include reporters, editors, opinion writers, photographers, picture editors, art directors, artists, designers, graphics editors and researchers. This group of professional journalists is what this text means by “staff ” or “staff members.”

News clerks, administrative assistants, secretaries and other support staff are generally not bound by these strictures, with two important exceptions: First, no newsroom or opinion employee may exploit for personal gain any nonpublic information acquired at work, or use his or her association with The Times to gain favor or advantage. And second, no one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government; in particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other form of political partisanship while on the job.

Our contracts with freelance contributors require them to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent. In keeping with that, they must honor these guidelines in their Times assignments, as set forth in Section 14.

The Times believes beyond question that its staff shares the values these guidelines are intended to protect. In the past The Times has resolved differences of view over applying these values amiably through discussion, almost without exception. The paper has every reason to believe that pattern will continue. Nevertheless, The Times views any deliberate violation of these guidelines as a serious offense that may lead to disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal, subject to the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Our fundamental purpose is to protect the impartiality and neutrality of The Times and the integrity of its report. In many instances, merely applying that purpose with common sense will point to the ethical course. Sometimes the answer is self-evident. Simply asking oneself whether a course of action might damage the paper’s reputation is often enough to gauge whether the action is appropriate.

Every staff member is expected to read this document carefully and to think about how it might apply to his or her duties. A lack of familiarity with its provisions cannot excuse a violation; to the contrary, it makes the violation worse. The provisions presented here can offer only broad principles and some examples. Our world changes constantly, sometimes dramatically. No written document could anticipate every possibility. Thus we expect staff members to consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or opinion managing editor if they have any doubts about any particular situation or opportunity covered by this document. In most cases an exchange of emails should suffice.

Thus this handbook is not an exhaustive compilation of all situations that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. It does not exclude situations or issues giving rise to such conflicts simply because they are not explicitly covered within this document, nor does the document or any of its particular provisions create an implied or express contract of employment with any individual to whom the guidelines apply. The Times reserves the right to modify and expand the guidelines from time to time, as appropriate. ( See the letter of understanding with the Newspaper Guild of New York, included in the appendix below. )

The authority to interpret and apply these guidelines is vested in department heads and ranking editors, most notably in the standards editor and, on the opinion side, the opinion editor and opinion managing editor. They may delegate that duty to their ranking assistants, but they remain responsible for decisions made in their name.

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

As employees of the Times Company, we observe our Values and Behaviors, which are the axiomatic standards of behavior governing our dealing with colleagues and going about our work. We also observe the company’s policies against harassment and on computers and electronic communications.

The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

We treat our readers no less fairly in private than in public. Anyone who deals with readers is expected to honor that principle, knowing that ultimately the readers are our employers. Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by telephone, by letter or online. Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and emails that warrant reply.

The Times gathers information for the benefit of its readers. Staff members may not use their Times position to make inquiries for any other purpose. As noted above, they may not seek any advantage for themselves or others by acting on or disclosing information acquired in their work but not yet available to readers.

Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We will not tolerate such behavior.

The Times treats news sources just as fairly and openly as it treats readers. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone’s personal life. Staff members may not threaten to damage uncooperative sources. They may not promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. They may not pay for interviews or unpublished documents.

Staff members should disclose their identity to people they cover (whether face to face or otherwise), though they need not always announce their status as journalists when seeking information normally available to the public. Staff members may not pose as police officers, lawyers, business people or anyone else when they are working as journalists. (As happens on rare occasions, when seeking to enter countries that bar journalists, correspondents may take cover from vagueness and identify themselves as traveling on business or as tourists.)

Theater, music and art critics and other writers who review goods or services offered to the public may conceal their Times connection but may not normally assert a false identity or affiliation. As an exception, restaurant critics may make reservations in false names to protect their identity. Restaurant critics and travel writers must conceal their Times affiliation to eliminate the possibility of special treatment.

Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely staff members must be aware that sources are eager to win our good will for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship. A City Hall reporter who enjoys a weekly round of golf with a City Council member, for example, risks creating an appearance of coziness, even if they sometimes discuss business on the course. So does a reporter who joins a regular card game or is a familiar face in a corporation’s box seats or who spends weekends in the company of people he or she covers. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly. The acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships to the standards editor or the opinion editor. In some cases, no further action may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk—to avoid the appearance of conflict.

Staff members must obey the law in the pursuit of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and email or voice mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In short, they may not commit illegal acts of any sort.

Staff members may not use the identification cards or special license plates issued by police or other official agencies except in doing their jobs. Staff members who have applied for or hold “NYP” or other special plates should disclose that fact to the standards editor or opinion editor or managing editor. Staff members whose duties do not require special plates must return them.

Staff members may not record conversations without the prior consent of all parties to the conversations. Even where the law allows recording with only one party aware of it, the practice is a deception. Masthead editors may make rare exceptions to this prohibition in places where recordings made secretly are legal.

Accepting Hospitality from Sources

The Times pays the expenses when its representatives entertain news sources (including government officials) or travel to cover them. In some business situations and in some cultures, it may be unavoidable to accept a meal or a drink paid for by a news source. For example, a Times reporter need not decline every invitation to interview an executive over lunch in the corporation’s private dining room, where it is all but impossible to pick up the check. Whenever practical, however, the reporter should suggest dining where The Times can pay. A simple buffet of muffins and coffee at a news conference, for example, is harmless, but a staff member should not attend a breakfast or lunch held periodically for the press by a “newsmaker” unless The Times pays for the staff member’s meals.

Staff members may not accept free or discounted transportation and lodging except where special circumstances give us little or no choice. Among them are certain military or scientific expeditions and other trips for which alternative arrangements would be impractical — for example, a flight aboard a corporate jet during which an executive is interviewed. Staff members should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor when special circumstances arise.

Staff members who review artistic performances or cover athletic or other events where admission is charged (for example, the New York Auto Show) may accept the press passes or tickets customarily made available. No other staff members, not even editors in the culture and sports departments, may accept free tickets. Even when paying the box office price, no staff member may use his or her Times position to request choice or hard-to-get seats unless the performance has a clear bearing on his or her job.

Staff members compete zealously but deal with competitors openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication, we attribute them.

Staff members may not join teams covering news events for other organizations, and they may not accept payment from competitors for news tips. They may not be listed on the masthead of any non-Times publication. (Exceptions can be made for publications that do not in any way compete with The Times, such as a church or synagogue newsletter, an alumni magazine or a club bulletin.)

Staff members may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other inducements from any individuals or organizations covered by The Times or likely to be covered by The Times. (Exceptions may be made for trinkets of nominal value, say, $25 or less, such as a mug or a cap with a company logo.) Gifts should be returned with a polite explanation. A sample letter for use in such situations appears below. See the appendix .

Staff members may not accept employment or compensation of any sort from individuals or organizations who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise.

Staff members may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage. They may share in reprint fees that other journalistic media pay The Times, according to the terms of our contract with the Newspaper Guild. They may also share in fees paid by non-journalistic parties for permission to reprint Times material in advertisements or promotions, though their share of those fees may not exceed $200 an article.

Staff members may accept any gifts or discounts available to the general public. Normally they are also free to take advantage of conventional corporate discounts that the Times Company has offered to share with all employees (for example, corporate car rental rates). And staff members may accept free admission at museums or other benefits extended to all Times employees by virtue of the Times Company Foundation’s support of various cultural institutions.

Staff members must be mindful, however, that large discounts — even those negotiated by the Times Company — may create the appearance of partiality, especially by those who have a hand in the coverage of the company or industry offering the discount. If General Motors, for instance, offers substantial trade discounts to all Times Company employees, the Detroit correspondent should not accept without discussing the possible appearance of favoritism with the responsible editors. If any such discounts do raise doubts, staff members should bring them to the attention of their department heads and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting.

Unless the special terms are offered by The New York Times Company or a Times subsidiary or affiliate, staff members may not buy stock in initial public offerings through “friends and family shares” where any plausible possibility exists of a real or apparent conflict of interest. Staff members may not accept allocations from brokerage firms.

It is an inherent conflict for a Times staff member to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid. Staff members may not advise individuals or organizations how to deal successfully with the news media (though they may of course explain the paper’s normal workings and steer outsiders to the appropriate Times person). They may not, for example, advise candidates for public office, write or edit annual reports or contribute to the programs of sports teams. They should not take part in public relations workshops that charge admission or imply privileged access to Times people, or participate in surveys asking their opinion of an organization’s press relations or public image. They are free, however, to offer reasonable help to institutions such as their child’s school, a small museum, a community charity or their house of worship. (See the section on Community Service for a fuller discussion of permissible participation.)

Staff members may not serve as ghost writers or co-authors for individuals who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. They may not undertake such assignments for organizations that espouse a cause.

Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except in the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, proffer investment advice, or operate or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may not do anything that would require registration as an investment adviser. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians.

The Times freely acknowledges that outside appearances can enhance the reputation of its bylines and serve the paper’s interests. Nevertheless, no staff member may appear before an outside group if the appearance could reasonably create an actual or apparent conflict of interest or undermine public trust in the paper’s impartiality. No staff member who takes part in a broadcast, webcast, public forum or panel discussion may write or edit news articles about that event.

Staff members should be especially sensitive to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close relationship to the sponsoring group. Before accepting such an invitation, a staff member must consult with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Generally, a reporter recently returned from the Middle East might comfortably address a suburban synagogue or mosque but should not appear before a group that lobbies for Israel or the Arab states. A reporter who writes about the environment could appropriately speak to a garden club but not to conservation groups known for their efforts to influence public policy.

Staff members may not accept invitations to speak before a single company (for example, the Citigroup executive retreat) or an industry assembly (for example, organized baseball’s winter meeting) unless The Times decides the appearance is useful and will not damage the newspaper’s reputation for impartiality. In that case, The Times will pay expenses; no speaker’s fee should be accepted. Staff members invited to make such appearances should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members should not accept invitations to speak where their function is to attract customers to an event primarily intended as profit-making.

Staff members may accept speaking fees, honorariums, expense reimbursement and free transportation only from educational or other nonprofit groups for which lobbying and political activity are not a major focus. If a speaking fee exceeds $5,000, the staff member must consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting.

Staff members who accept fees, honorariums or expenses for speaking engagements must file with the associate managing editor for news administration or the opinion editor or managing editor by January 31 of each year an accounting of the previous year’s appearances. If their fees total less than $5,000, no annual accounting is required. Fees earned under Times auspices for promotional or other approved purposes need not be included.

Staff members who write books and want to promote them must give their supervisor a schedule of proposed appearances. They may accept routine expenses and fees in promotional appearances, but they must make every effort to ensure that their appearances conform to the spirit of these guidelines and do not interfere with their responsibilities to the paper. If they have doubts about an appearance, they must consult their supervisor and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Speeches and other outside endeavors by staff members, or unpaid, should not imply that they carry the endorsement of The Times (unless they do). To the contrary, the staff member should gracefully remind the audience that the views expressed are his or her own. Outside commitments should not interfere with the speaker’s responsibilities at The Times. Thus no staff member should agree to an extensive speaking schedule without approval from a supervisor.

Staff members may not enter competitions sponsored by individuals or groups who have a direct interest in the tenor of Times coverage. They may not act as judges for these competitions or accept their awards. Common examples are contests sponsored by commercial, political or professional associations to judge coverage of their affairs. The standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor may make exceptions for competitions underwritten by corporate sponsors if broad in scope and independently judged, such as the University of Missouri awards for consumer journalism, long sponsored by J.C. Penney.

Staff members may compete in competitions sponsored by groups whose members are all journalists or whose members demonstrably have no direct interest in the tenor of coverage of the field being judged. Times staff members may act as judges for such competitions and accept their awards. For example, a staff member may enter a university-sponsored competition for coverage of economic or foreign affairs but not accept an advocacy group’s prize for outstanding environmental coverage.

This prohibition on taking part in sponsored competitions applies to film festivals or awards in which critics are asked to vote and to such competitions as the Tony Awards, the Heisman Trophy, most valuable player and rookie of the year honors and admission to sports halls of fame. Cooperation of this sort puts the paper’s independence into question.

A current list of some competitions that The Times has approved is posted on the Newsroom home page under Policies. Staff members who would like to enter others should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. A critical factor in approving a competition, whatever its sponsorship, is a record of arm’s-length decisions, including a willingness to honor critical reporting.

Staff members who win unsought awards from groups that do not meet the criteria established here should decline politely. A sample reply appears below in the appendix .

Normally staff members are free to accept honorary degrees, medals and other awards from colleges, universities and other educational institutions. Those who cover higher education or supervise that coverage should be sensitive to any appearance of coziness or favoritism. Those in doubt should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members who borrow equipment, vehicles or other goods for evaluation or review must return the borrowed items as soon as possible. Similarly, items borrowed to be photographed, such as fashion apparel or home furnishings, should be returned promptly.

Staff members may keep for their own collections — but may not sell or copy — books, recordings, tapes, compact discs and computer programs sent to them for review. Such submissions are considered press releases. Recorded or digital media, such as tapes or disks, must be destroyed or returned to the provider if not retained by the journalist; they may not be copied, given away or left where they could be carried off for illicit copying or reuse.

Staff members may not collaborate in ventures involving individuals or organizations that figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. Among other things, this prohibition applies to collaborating in writing books, pamphlets, reports, scripts, scores or any other material and in making photographs or creating artwork of any sort.

Except in reviews or columns published in The Times or on its website or appropriately voiced in authorized public appearances, staff members may not offer endorsements, testimonials or promotional blurbs for books, films, television programs or any other programs, products or ventures. Masthead editors may authorize rare exceptions (for instance, when a staff member has become expert in a field unrelated to his or her Times duties). This restriction does not apply when permission is given to reprint Times material.

Staff members of The Times are family members and responsible citizens as well as journalists. The Times respects their educating their children, exercising their religion, voting in elections and taking active part in community affairs. Nothing in this policy is meant to infringe upon those rights. But even in the best of causes, Times staff members have a duty to avoid the appearance of a conflict. They should never invoke The Times’s name in private activities.

Certain of these requirements apply to all newsroom and opinion employees, journalists and support staff alike. No newsroom or opinion employee may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government. In particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other sign of political partisanship while on the job. Otherwise, “staff members” in this section refers only to the professional journalists defined above .

Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.

Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.

No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office plainly violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. It poses a risk of having the staff member’s political views imputed to The Times, and it can sow a suspicion of favoritism in The Times’s political coverage when one of its staff is an active participant.

Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements, sign ads taking a position on public issues, or lend their name to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or The Times’s ability to function as neutral observers in covering the news. Staff members must keep in mind that neighbors and other observers commonly see them as representatives of The Times.

Staff members may appear from time to time on radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper. Opinion writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly because their business is expressing opinions. The Times nevertheless expects them to consider carefully the forums in which they appear and to protect the standards and impartiality of the newspaper as a whole.

Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.

A staff member with any doubts about a proposed political activity should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. These restrictions protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Though The Times will consider matters case by case, it will be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception.

Staff members may not serve on government boards or commissions, paid or unpaid. They may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations or otherwise promoting journalism education. Those in doubt about such activities should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, exceptions may be made to permit staff members to serve their alma mater (or their children’s alma mater) as a trustee or visitor at schools that seldom if ever generate news of interest to The Times.

The Times has no wish to impede good community citizenship. Normally the restriction on joining trustee boards or advisory committees will not apply to organizations that are highly unlikely to generate news of interest to The Times and that do not generally seek to shape public policy. These typically include houses of worship, community charities, local libraries, fine arts groups, hobby groups, youth athletic leagues, country clubs and alumni groups. Within reason staff members may help such groups with relatively modest fundraising. They should not play a leading role or ever lead a donor to expect a favor in return. They should never solicit anyone with whom they or The Times has professional dealings. Those in any doubt about what is permissible should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members may not solicit funds for political, social, religious, educational, philanthropic or other causes that reach beyond the sorts of groups described in the preceding paragraph. Doing so could create an expectation of a favor in return. Staff members should think carefully about their own contributions to various causes, bearing in mind the need for neutrality on divisive issues. Those in doubt about contributions should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

The Times treats advertisers as fairly and openly as it treats readers and news sources. The relationship between The Times and advertisers rests on the understanding, long observed in all departments, that news and advertising are strictly separate — that those who deal with either one have distinct obligations and interests and neither group will try to influence the other.

Members of the news department should maintain their disinterest and objectivity by avoiding discussions of advertising needs, goals and problems except where those needs or problems are directly related to the business of the news department. In many instances, for example, the news and advertising departments may properly confer on the layout and configuration of the paper or the timing of special sections.

When authorized by the executive editor, members of the news staff may take part in interdepartmental committees on problems that affect several departments, including news. As far as possible they should leave advertising issues to colleagues from the business side.

From time to time, when authorized by the executive editor or the opinion editor, staff members may take part in events organized by The Times for marketing or promotion. But they should stick to their expertise and refrain from saying anything that sounds like a sales pitch.

No one in the news department below the masthead level (except when authorized by the executive editor) may exchange information with the advertising department or with advertisers about the timing or content of advertising, the timing or content of articles or the assignment of staff or freelance writers, editors, artists, designers or photographers.

The Times’s good name does not belong to any of us. No one has a right to expropriate it for private purposes.

Staff members may not use Times identification cards for purposes not connected with Times employment. Cards may not be used to obtain special treatment or advantage from governmental, commercial or other organizations (except when the card is required for a benefit available to all Times Company employees by virtue of its foundation’s charitable relationships, such as free admission to the Metropolitan Museum).

Staff members may not use Times stationery, business cards, forms or other materials for any purpose except the business of the newspaper.

Staff members must not disclose confidential information about the operations, policies or plans of The Times or its corporate affiliates.

Department heads and masthead executives may authorize other staff members to comment publicly on policies or plans within the staff members’ areas of responsibility and expertise. If staff members are approached by other media or other outsiders to discuss Times content or policy, they should refer the questioners to a masthead executive or the corporate communications department.

Staff members are free to discuss their own activities in public, provided their comments do not create an impression that they lack journalistic impartiality or speak for The Times.

None of these restrictions should be interpreted as barring a staff member from responding openly and honestly to any reasonable inquiry from a reader about that staff member’s work. If a reader asks for a correction, that request should be passed promptly to a supervisor. If the request threatens legal action or appears to be from a lawyer, the complaint should be promptly referred to the legal department through a department head.

Any staff member intending to write or assemble a nonfiction book based on material that derives from his or her assignment or beat must notify The Times in advance, so The Times can decide whether to make a competitive bid to publish the work. In this regard, staff members cannot accept or entertain any sort of preemptory bid from an outside publisher before allowing The Times to consider the project. Staff members are required to inform The Times of any such project or proposal, in writing, by sending a letter or email to their department head, as well as to the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. The notification should include any information about the anticipated time frame of the project, including (if applicable) the time frame that an outside publisher has set for bidding on the project.

Within a reasonable period, taking into account the time frame for the project, The Times will inform the staff member in writing whether it wants to compete for the project. If it does, The Times will provide the staff member with a competitive bid. In the end, the staff member and his or her agent have no obligation to accept The Times’s offer. This process is intended to assure The Times a seat at the table in any negotiations, including auctions, involving books based on materials derived from a Times assignment or beat.

These guidelines do not apply to book proposals or projects that involve the reproduction of articles, columns, photographs, artwork or other material created by staff members and published in The Times or on nytimes.com. The Times owns such material outright, and no such material may be reproduced elsewhere without the prior written permission of The Times, nor may it be rewritten, updated or otherwise altered and then republished without The Times’s prior written permission. Staff members are often approached by agents, producers, studios or others seeking rights to Times material. Such inquiries must be forwarded immediately to the standards editor or to the opinion editor or managing editor, and to the legal department. If a staff member represented by the Newspaper Guild has questions about rights to payment for reprints of articles that the staff member has written, he or she should refer to The Times’s collective bargaining agreement with the Guild. In general, this agreement calls for a 50/50 split of the fees involved.

In contemplating book projects — or other outside endeavors — staff members must never give an impression they might benefit financially from the outcome of news events. Staff members may not negotiate with any outside person or entity for any rights to an article or story idea before the article has run in The Times. Staff members involved in covering a running story may not negotiate over books, articles, films, programs or media projects of any sort based on that coverage until that news has played out, unless they have written permission in advance from the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

No staff member may serve as a ghost writer or co-author for individuals who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise.

No staff member will be given a leave of absence, paid or unpaid, to write a book without the explicit permission of the executive editor or the opinion editor. Ideally, a staff member who feels he or she will need to leave to complete a book project should inform The Times of the intention to seek a leave at the same time he or she first makes the book project available for consideration by The Times. A decision to grant or deny a request for a book leave — like requests for most other leaves of absence — will be based on many factors, including previous book leaves or accommodations the newspaper has granted to the staff member; the impact the leave will have on departmental staffing needs, and the degree to which The Times believes the book project will accrue to the newspaper’s interests. If a staff member represented by the Newspaper Guild has a question about a leave of absence, he or she should refer to The Times’s collective bargaining agreement with the Guild.

At no time may a staff member turn over notes, interviews documents or other working materials to any third party, including agents, producers, studios or outside production agencies, or share those materials with them unless legally compelled to do so. Staff members are advised that in such circumstances, The Times’s legal department will provide assistance. (Those represented by the Guild should refer to their collective bargaining agreement for the parameters of that assistance.) As a matter of policy, The Times will not give commercial producers or publishers access to working materials any more than it would turn them over to government prosecutors for use in court.

This paragraph applies only to television and film: Staff members offered “consulting” agreements by agents, producers, studios or others must consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting. No staff member may serve as a consultant to a film or program that he or she knows in advance is tendentious or clearly distorts the underlying facts. In no case should a consulting role be described in a way that invokes The Times or implies its endorsement or participation.

Staff members are generally entitled to accept freelance assignments that do not directly compete with The Times’s own offerings. Normally, work for competitors will not be permitted. When allowed in rare instances, permission will be limited to cases in which The Times is not interested in assigning the staff member a similar piece or project.

The Times competes in a far larger arena today than in the past. The printed paper remains our flagship, as does The International Herald Tribune internationally, but we reach an audience of millions through The New York Times on the web. We are learning to translate our journalism into outstanding television. We publish numerous books, both original and drawn from past articles; we offer archival photos of museum quality. We deliver The New York Times in its complete form via the web. Our bedrock mission is to serve a high-quality audience that values Times journalism, relying on any appropriate medium.

Competitors include any newspaper, magazine or other media of publication, regardless of form, with an editorial focus on either New York City or general-interest news and information. If the competitive status of a publication, website or TV production is unclear, a staff member should consult with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members are encouraged (but not required) to offer their freelance work to The Times or, in the case of a website, to The New York Times on the web before trying to sell it elsewhere. The Times offers a number of outlets for work for which a staff member is paid extra, including the Times Magazine, the Book Review and special sections. (Any freelance material that derives from a Times assignment or beat must first be offered to The Times before a staff member offers it elsewhere.)

Staff members must ensure that their freelance work does not interfere with their responsibilities to The Times and that it is consistent with these policies and guidelines. If any doubt exists, they must consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting outside assignments.

Before accepting a freelance assignment, a staff member should make sure that the tone and content of the publication, website or program are in keeping with the standards of The Times. In general, a staff member should write nothing elsewhere that could not fit comfortably under his or her byline in The Times or that implies The Times’s sponsorship or endorsement. An outside publication, program or website may identify staff members by their Times positions but only in a routine way.

Because their primary identification is with The Times, staff members who accept freelance assignments should adhere to these guidelines in carrying out those assignments. For example, a staff member on freelance assignment may not accept compensation, expenses, discounts, gifts or other inducements from a news source. Similarly, staff members who establish their own sites online must insure that their online conduct conforms to these guidelines.

Frequency matters. Freelance work might create a conflict of interest if it is pursued with such regularity that it interferes with Times assignments or compromises the integrity or independence of The Times. Freelancing might also create a conflict if it identifies a staff member as closely with another publication or website as with The Times. A business reporter who wrote a column in every issue of a trade magazine might soon become more identified with that magazine than with The Times. A critic writing regularly for an arts magazine might foster the impression that The Times was not his or her prime responsibility. The use of a pseudonym does not alter the obligation to comply with this provision.

A regular contribution to an outside enterprise is permissible if it does not interfere with or flow from Times responsibilities or involve intellectual matter owed to The Times and its readers. Examples of acceptable affiliations might be a foreign desk copy editor who writes a monthly column on stamp-collecting or a mapmaker working as a freelance illustrator. Staff members considering such continuing ventures should confer with their supervisors and with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members may participate in radio, television or Internet interviews or discussions, paid or unpaid, that deal with articles they have written or subjects that figure in the coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. Such occasional appearances must not imply that they carry the sponsorship or endorsement of The Times (unless they do). Staff members should be careful about the use of their names and that of the newspaper in materials promoting the appearances. As a courtesy, they should let their department head know about their plans to appear.

In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering. Instead, we should offer thoughtful and retrospective analysis. Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times.

Staff members may not appear on broadcasts that compete directly with The Times’s own offerings on television or the Internet. They may not accept assignments from the Times’s TV clients or potential clients without its approval. As the paper moves further into these new fields, its direct competitors and clients or potential clients will undoubtedly grow in number. A staff member who has any doubt about the status of a particular program should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Appearances might create a conflict of interest if they come so regularly that they interfere with Times assignments or compromise the integrity or independence of The Times. They might also create a conflict if they identify a staff member as closely with a radio or television program or a website as with The Times. A Washington reporter who appeared weekly on a television program might soon become more known for that program than for work done for The Times. Occasional appearances on the same program would not run that risk.

In a day when most families balance two careers, the legitimate activities of companions, spouses and other relatives can sometimes create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts. They can crop up in civic or political life, professional pursuits and financial activity. A spouse or companion who runs for public office would obviously create the appearance of conflict for a political reporter or an editor involved in election coverage. A brother or a daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.

To avoid such conflicts, staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgments about them. For similar reasons, staff members should not recruit or directly supervise family members or close friends. Some exceptions are permissible — in a foreign bureau, for instance, where a married couple form a team, or in the case of an article by a food writer profiling her brother the Yankee star, where the kinship is of genuine news interest.

Staff members must be sensitive to these possibilities. Any staff member who sees a potential for conflict or a threat to the paper’s reputation in the activities of spouse, friends or relatives must discuss the situation with his or her supervising editor and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

In some cases, disclosure is enough. But if The Times considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk — to avoid the appearance of conflict.

Although this policy necessarily imposes restraints, The Times has no wish to intrude upon the private lives of its staff members and their families. Nothing in this document seeks to prohibit a companion, spouse or other relative of a Times staff member from taking part in any political, financial, commercial, religious or civic activity. The Times understands that friends and relatives of its staff have every right to pursue full and active lives, personally and professionally. If restrictions are necessary, they fall on the Times employee. But any attempt to disguise a staff member’s participation in prohibited activity by using a relative’s name or any other alias (or by acting anonymously) violates this guideline.

In all cases The Times depends on staff members to disclose potential problems in a timely fashion so that we can work together to prevent embarrassment for staff members and The Times.

Every member of the Times staff must be constantly vigilant against any appearance that he or she is abusing nonpublic information for financial gain. That imperative applies to all departments.

Though staff members must necessarily accept certain limits on their freedom to invest, this policy leaves a broad range of investments open to them. Any staff member, regardless of assignment, is free to own diversified mutual funds, money market funds and other diversified investments that the reporter or editor cannot control. Any member also may own treasury bills, investment-grade municipal bonds, debt securities other than speculative bonds, and securities issued by the New York Times Company. And staff members are of course free to own stocks entirely unrelated to their Times assignment.

No staff member may own stock or have any other financial interest in a company, enterprise or industry that figures or is likely to figure in coverage that he or she provides, edits, packages or supervises regularly. A book editor, for example, may not invest in a publishing house, a health writer in a pharmaceutical company or a Pentagon reporter in a mutual fund specializing in defense stocks. For this purpose an industry is defined broadly; for example, a reporter responsible for any segment of media coverage may not own any media stock. “Stock” should be read to include futures, options, rights, and speculative debt, as well as “sector” mutual funds (those focused on one industry).

Staff members may not buy or sell securities or make other investments in anticipation of forthcoming articles that originate with The Times. In general, staff members must refrain from acting on such information before noon Eastern time the day of print publication. This restriction does not apply to spot news that first appears on wire services or that originates elsewhere. That information is public.

Staff members in any department will be asked when hired to affirm that they have no investments that would violate the rules above with respect to the assignment they are being given. If a new staff member is unable to make this affirmation, the staff member may choose to sell the conflicting holding. If not, he or she must be given a different assignment where no such conflict exists.

Staff members should be acutely sensitive that the investments and business interests of their spouse, family and companions may create real or apparent conflicts of interest by raising questions of favoritism. Staff members will be asked when hired to affirm that to the best of their knowledge no spouse, family member or companion has financial holdings that might reasonably raise doubts about the impartiality of the staff member’s reporting or editing in his or her proposed assignment. Depending on circumstances, the new staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or accept an alternative assignment unrelated to the holdings in question.

The standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor may from time to time ask staff members in any department to affirm that they have no investments in violation of the rules above. Such a request might be expected, for example, when a staff member is about to begin a new assignment or work on a particularly sensitive article.

Similarly, staff members may be asked on occasion to affirm that to the best of their knowledge no spouse, family member or companion has financial holdings that might reasonably raise doubts about the impartiality of the staff member’s reporting or editing. If and when such conditions come up, the staff member must alert his or her department head and the standards editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even to move to a job unrelated to the holdings.

If a reporter who owns stock in a company outside his or her regular beat is assigned to write an article about that company or its industry, the reporter must discuss the investment with the assigning editor before beginning the work. Similarly, editors assigned to major articles or a series about companies or industries in which they have investments must advise their supervisors of potential conflicts before beginning the editing. In many instances it will be perfectly permissible for the work to proceed, but the reporter or editor who works on such an article or series may not buy or sell stock in the company or industry until two weeks after publication.

Staff members in business-financial news regularly work with sensitive information that affects financial prices. Because of that sensitivity, they are subject to additional and stricter requirements. Staff members in technology news and media news are subject to the same rules as those in business-financial news, for the same reason.

Members of these three departments may not play the market. That is, they may not conduct in-and-out trading (buying and selling the same security within three months). They may not buy or sell options or futures or sell securities short. Any of these actions could create the appearance that a staff member was speculating by exploiting information not available to the public.

In special circumstances — a family financial crisis, for example — the associate managing editor for news administration may waive the three-month holding period.

Supervising editors in business-financial, technology or media news should be especially cautious in investing because they may reasonably expect to become involved in the coverage of virtually any company at any time. Their counterparts in other departments should be equally sensitive to possible conflicts in supervising coverage of companies in their domain.

Because of the sensitivity of their assignments, some business financial staff members may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company). These include the Market Place writer, other market columnists, the regular writer of the daily stock market column, reporters regularly assigned to mergers and acquisitions, the daily markets editor, the Sunday investing editor, the Sunday Business editor, the business and financial editor and his or her deputies.

Masthead editors and other editors who play a principal part in deciding the display of business and financial news, including its display on Page 1, may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company).

The opinion editor and opinion managing editor may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company). Nor may opinion writers and columnists regularly assigned to write about business, finance or economics.

A staff member who owns stock and moves into an assignment where such holdings are not permitted must sell the stock. Those who are newly barred from owning stock of any sort (for example, on being promoted to deputy business and financial editor) may dispose of their shares in phases, following a reasonable plan worked out with the associate managing editor for news administration. But the phase-out does not apply to reporters or editors who own shares in specific industries they are newly assigned to cover. For instance, it is manifestly untenable for a new Automobiles editor to own stock in an auto company, so divestiture must be prompt.

Whenever this document requires the sale of stock holdings, a staff member can satisfy the requirement by putting the shares into a blind trust (or into an equivalent financial arrangement that meets the same goal: preventing an individual from knowing at any given time the specific holdings in the account and blocking the individual from controlling the timing of transactions in such holdings). If The Times assigns a staff member to a new job where mandatory divestiture would impose an undue hardship, The Times will reimburse the staff member for the reasonable costs of setting up a blind trust.

To avoid an appearance of conflict, certain editors must annually affirm to the chief financial officer of The Times Company that they have no financial holdings in violation of the rules above or any other provision of these guidelines. They include the executive editor, the managing editor, deputy and assistant managing editors, associate managing editors, the business and financial editor, his or her deputies and the Sunday Business editor. They also include the opinion editor and opinion managing editor.

To avoid an appearance of bias, no member of the sports department may gamble on any sports event, except for occasional recreational wagering on horse racing (or dog racing or jai alai). This exception does not apply to staff members who cover such racing or regularly edit that coverage.

Except for journalists who receive press passes to cover sporting events, members of the sports department may not accept tickets, travel expenses, meals, gifts or any other benefit from teams or promoters.

Sports reporters assigned to cover games may not serve as scorers. Members of the sports department may not take part in voting for the Heisman Trophy, most valuable player and rookie of the year awards, entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame or similar honors.

The Times has exceptional influence in such fields as theater, music, art, dance, publishing, fashion and the restaurant industry. We are constantly scrutinized for the slightest whiff of favoritism. Therefore staff members working in those areas have a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict.

Reporters, reviewers, critics and their editors in the Book Review, the Times Magazine and the cultural news, media news and styles departments, beyond abiding by the other provisions of this document, may not help others develop, market or promote artistic, literary or other creative endeavors.

They may not suggest agents, publishers, producers or galleries to aspiring authors, playwrights, composers or artists. They may not suggest chefs to restaurant owners or designers to clothing manufacturers. They may not recommend authors, playwrights, composers or other artists to agents, publishers, producers or galleries.

They may not offer suggestions or ideas to people who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. They may not invest in productions that figure or are likely to figure in their coverage. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) They may not comment, even informally, on works in progress before those works are reviewed.

They may not serve on advisory boards, awards juries, study committees or other panels organized by the people they cover or whose coverage they supervise. They may not accept awards from such people. And they may not request extra copies of books, tapes or other materials that are routinely submitted for review.

An arts writer or editor who owns art of exhibition quality (and thus has a financial stake in the reputation of the artist) may inspire questions about the impartiality of his or her critical judgments or editing decisions. Thus members of the culture staff who collect valuable objects in the visual arts (paintings, photographs, sculpture, crafts and the like) must annually submit a list of their acquisitions and sales to the associate managing editor for news administration.

The Times recognizes that members of its talented staff write books, operas and plays; create sculpture, and give recitals. It further recognizes that such projects require commercial arrangements to come to fruition. A writer requires a publisher, a playwright a production company.

Nevertheless those commercial ties can be a breeding ground for favoritism, actual or perceived. Staff members who enter into such arrangements must disclose them to their supervisors, who may require them to withdraw from coverage of the parties involved. Staff members who have a publisher or a movie contract, for example, must be exceedingly sensitive to any appearance of bias in covering other publishers or studios. Those with any doubts about a proposed arrangement should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Certain positions, such as those of the Book Review editor and the culture editor, have such potential for conflicts that those editors may not enter into any commercial arrangements with publishers, studios, or other arts producers without the executive editor’s written approval.

Beyond honoring all the other provisions of this document, Times photographers, picture editors, art directors, lab personnel and technology editors and reporters may not accept gifts of equipment, programs or materials from manufacturers or vendors. They may not endorse equipment, programs or materials, or offer advice on product design. This guideline is not meant to restrict The Times from working with vendors to improve its systems or equipment.

With the approval of the picture editor, the design director, the technology editor or the Circuits editor, staff members may test equipment or materials on loan from manufacturers or vendors, provided such tests are properly monitored. The equipment or materials should be returned promptly after testing unless purchased by The Times.

It is our policy that no one may test drive or review a vehicle for The Times unless the paper is paying the vehicle’s owner the normal market rental or its equivalent. Rare exceptions may occur when an equivalent rent is largely hypothetical, as with military vehicles, vintage autos or race cars.

Reviewers should carry out their testing expeditiously and return the vehicle promptly. A reasonable amount of personal use is permissible provided that the use contributes to the review.

No writer or editor for the Travel section, whether on assignment or not, may accept free or discounted services of any sort from any element of the travel industry. This includes hotels, resorts, restaurants, tour operators, airlines, railways, cruise lines, rental car companies and tourist attractions. This prohibition applies to the free trips commonly awarded in raffles at travel industry events. It does not apply, however, to routinely accumulated frequent-flyer points.

Travel editors who deal with non-staff contributors have a special obligation to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. They must bear in mind that it is our policy not to give Travel assignments to freelance writers who have previously accepted free services. Depending on circumstances, the Travel editor may make rare exceptions, for example, for a writer who ceased the practice years ago or who has reimbursed his or her host for services previously accepted. It is also our policy not to give Travel assignments to anyone who represents travel suppliers or who works for a government tourist office or as a publicist of any sort. The Travel editor may make rare exceptions, for example, for a writer widely recognized as an expert in a particular culture.

Writers on assignment for Travel must conceal their Times affiliation. The validity of their work depends on their experiencing the same conditions as an ordinary tourist or consumer. If the Times affiliation becomes known, the writer must discuss with an editor whether the reporting to that point can be salvaged. On rare occasions, the affiliation may be disclosed, for example, when a special permit is required to enter a closed area.

No Travel writer may write about any travel service or product offered by a family member or close friend.

These rules also apply to writers and editors of travel content in other sections.

Times readers apply exacting standards to the entire paper. They do not distinguish between staff written articles and those written by outsiders. Thus as far as possible, freelance contributors to The Times, while not its employees, will be held to the same standards as staff members when they are on Times assignments, including those for the Times Magazine. If they violate these guidelines, they will be denied further assignments.

Before being given an assignment, freelance contributors must sign a contract with The Times. These contracts oblige them to take care to avoid conflicts of interests or the appearance of conflict. Specifically, in connection with work for The Times, freelancers will not accept free transportation, free lodging, gifts, junkets, commissions or assignments from current or potential news sources. In addition, they will publish no similar article in a competing publication within 14 days unless The Times approves.

The contracts’ concise provisions cannot cover every circumstance that might arise. Assigning editors should ensure that contributors are aware of this document and to the greatest extent possible, in fact honor its provisions while on assignment for The Times. Any disagreement over whether a specific provision applies to outside contributors should be resolved before the assignment proceeds.

Assigning editors in business and financial news who deal with non-staff contributors have a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. To the extent possible, assigning editors should ensure that outside contributors meet the strict standards outlined above for the business and financial news staff.

Dear XXXXXXXXX,

Your recent gift came as a pleasant surprise. I appreciate your thinking of me.

But the gift puts me in an awkward position. The New York Times bars its reporters and editors from accepting anything of value from the people or groups they cover. The paper does not want to risk the perception that it will cover a subject more thoroughly or skew its coverage of controversial subjects because interested parties have expressed appreciation for its efforts.

So I must return your gift with thanks. I hope you understand our position, and I thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Your recent letter informing me that I’d been selected to receive an award from XXXXXXXX came as a pleasant surprise. I appreciate the sentiment behind the award.

But your decision puts me in an awkward position. The New York Times bars its reporters and editors from accepting awards conferred by groups that have an interest in the subjects covered by the award recipients. The paper does not want to risk the perception that it will cover a subject more thoroughly or skew its coverage of controversial subjects because interested parties have applauded its efforts.

So I must decline your award with thanks. I hope you and your colleagues understand our position.

Thank you again for your kind words.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach

Professor of Philosophy

Author Webpage

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Since the introduction of radio and television news, journalism has gone through multiple transformations, but each time it has been sustained by a commitment to basic values and best practices. Journalism Ethics is a reminder, a defence, and an elucidation of core journalistic values, with particular emphasis on the interplay of theory, conceptual analysis and practice. This unified text on journalism ethics begins with a sophisticated model for ethical decision making, devised by two of the nation's leading ethicists, which connects classical theories with the central purposes of journalism. Top scholars from philosophy, journalism and communications offer essays on such topics as objectivity, privacy, confidentiality, conflict of interest, the history of journalism, online journalism, and the definition of a journalist. Theoretical essays are paired with practical essays in order to better inform the discussion. The result is a guide to ethically sound and socially justified journalism, in whatever form that practice emerges.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Journalism Ethics

• First Online: 24 September 2023

Cite this chapter

• Julie Firmstone 2  

149 Accesses

This chapter explores the role of journalism ethics as fundamental to the practice of journalism. Considering what ethical judgements are and when they are necessary, the chapter introduces the areas of news making where ethical decisions come into play and highlights the ethical tensions and dilemmas faced by journalists. It explores how ethics are observed, enacted, and adhered to in practice by considering journalists’ perceptions of the impact of codes of ethics on their work, the relationship between the ethics of individuals and professional values, and the role of the organisational cultures and ethos of news organisations in shaping ethical practices. We see that journalistic standards and ethics are not simply based on individual or personal beliefs, or regular consultation of codes. Rather they are collective practices that operate in the context of institutions which have their own ground rules and ethical cultures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/83a74b96-21f4-3272-bee9-f74f1c770d4b

Bardoel, J. & D’Haenens, L. 2004. Media responsibility and accountability: new conceptualizations and practices. Communications, 29, 5–25.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baugut, P., Fawzi, N. & Reinemann, C. 2017. Close, dependent, and out of touch with the people? Investigating and explaining local political communication cultures in a multilevel analysis. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22, 357–379.

Belsey, A. & Chadwick, R. F. 1992. Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, London, Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Berkowitz, D., Limor, Y. & Singer, J. 2004. A cross-cultural look at serving the public interest: American and Israeli journalists consider ethical scenarios. Journalism, 5, 159–181.

Bertrand, C.-J. 2003. An Arsenal for Democracy: Media Accountability Systems, Creskill NJ, Hampton Press.

Black, J., Steele, B. & Barney, R. 1999. Doing Ethics in Journalism: A Handbook with Case Studies, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon.

Boeyink, D. E. 1994. How effective are codes of ethics? A look at three newsrooms. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 893.

Bromley, M. 2000. The Manufacture of News—Fast Moving Consumer Good Production, or Consumer Service? In: Berry, D. (ed.) Ethics and Media Culture: Practices and Representations (pp. 111–126). Oxford; Boston, Focal Press.

Christians, C. G. 2009. Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies, Urbana, Ill; Chesham, University of Illinois Press.

Christians, C. G. 2010. The Ethics of Universal Being. In: Ward, S. J. A. & Wasserman, H. (eds.) Media Ethics Beyond Borders: A Global Perspective (pp. 6–23). New York, Routledge.

Christians, C. G. 2019. Media Ethics and Global Justice in the Digital Age , Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooper, T. 1990. Comparative international media ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 5, 3.

Díaz-Campo, J. & Segado-Boj, F. 2015. Journalism ethics in a digital environment: how journalistic codes of ethics have been adapted to the Internet and ICTs in countries around the world. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 735–744.

Fengler, S., Eberwein, T., Alsius, S., Baisnée, O., Bichler, K., Dobek-Ostrowska, B., Evers, H., Glowacki, M., Groenhart, H., Harro-Loit, H., Heikkilä, H., Jempson, M., Karmasin, M., Lauk, E., Lönnendonker, J., Mauri, M., Mazzoleni, G., Pies, J., Porlezza, C., Powell, W., Radu, R., Rodriguez, R., Russ-Mohl, S., schneider-Mombaur, L., Splendore, S., Väliverronen, J. & Zambrano, S. V. 2015. How effective is media self-regulation? Results from a comparative survey of European journalists. European Journal of Communication, 30, 249–266.

Fielden, L. 2012. Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press Councils. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism [Online]. Available from: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/regulating-press-comparative-study-international-press-councils .

Firmstone, J., Steel, J., Conboy, M., Elliott-Harvey, C., Fox, C., Mulderrig, J., Saunders, J. & Wragg, P. 2022. Trust, Ethics and Responsibility in Local Journalism—A Six-Country Comparison of Journalists’ Perceptions and Ethical Practices. In: Lynch, J. & Rice, C. (eds.) Responsible Journalism and Communication in Divided and Conflicted Societies (pp. 15–29). London, Routledge.

Forsyth, D. R. 1980. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39, 175–184.

Fox, C., Saunders, J., Steel, J., Firmstone, J., Elliott-Harvey, C., Conboy, M. & Mulderrig, J. 2023. What is the purpose of a code of ethics for the press? Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 20: 1.

Franklin, B. 2005. Key Concepts in Journalism Studies, Los Angeles, Sage.

Hafez, K. 2002. Journalism Ethics Revisited: A Comparison of Ethics Codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. Political Communication , 19(2), 225–250.

Hanitzsch, T. & Hanusch, F. 2012. Does gender determine journalists’ professional views? A reassessment based on cross-national evidence. European Journal of Communication, 27, 257–277.

Hanitzsch, T., Hanusch, F., Mellado, C., Anikina, M., Berganza, R., Cangoz, I., Coman, M., Hamada, B., Elena Hernández, M., Karadjov, C. D., Virginia Moreira, S., Mwesige, P. G., Plaisance, P. L., Reich, Z., Seethaler, J., Skewes, E. A., Vardiansyah Noor, D. & Kee Wang Yuen, E. 2011. Mapping journalism cultures across nations: a comparative study of 18 countries. Journalism Studies, 12, 273–293.

Herrscher, R. 2002. A universal code of journalism ethics: problems, limitations, and proposals. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17, 277-289.

Himelboim, I. & Limor, Y. 2008. Media perception of freedom of the press: A comparative international analysis of 242 codes of ethics. Journalism, 9, 235–265.

Jones, C. J. 1980. Mass Media Codes of Ethics and Councils. UNESCO Reports and Papers on Mass Communication. Paris, UNESCO.

Laitila, T. 1995. Journalistic codes of ethics in Europe. European Journal of Communication, 10, 527–544.

Leveson, L. J. 2012. Inquiry Into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Executive Summary and Recommendations. House of Commons. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229039/0779.pdf .

Lo, V.-H., Chan, J. M. & Pan, Z. 2005. Ethical attitudes and perceived practice: a comparative study of journalists in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Asian Journal of Communication, 15, 154–172.

Mauri I De Los Ríos, M., Rodríguez-Martínez, R., Maz, M. F. & Fedele, M. 2018. Press councils as a traditional instrument of media self-regulation: the perceptions of European journalists. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 7, 221–243.

McChesney, R. W. 2003. The problem of journalism: a political economic contribution to an explanation of the crisis in contemporary US journalism. Journalism Studies, 4, 299–329.

McQuail, D. 2000. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, London, Sage.

Miranda, J. & Camponez, C. 2019. European Models of Journalism Regulation: A Comparative Classification. In: Eberwein, T., Fengler, S. & Karmasin, M. (eds.) Media Accountability in the Era of Post-Truth Politics: European Challenges and Perspectives.

NUJ. 2018. Code of Conduct [Online]. National Union of Journalists. Available: https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html [Accessed].

Phillips, A., Couldry, N. & Freedman, D. 2010. An Ethical Deficit? Accountability, Norms, and the Material Conditions of Contemporary Journalism. In: Fenton, N. (ed.) New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age (pp. 51–67). London, Sage.

Plaisance, P. L. 2016. Media ethics theorizing, reoriented: a shift in focus for individual-level analyses. Journal of Communication, 66, 454–474.

Plaisance, P. L. & Deppa, J. A. 2009. Perceptions and manifestations of autonomy, transparency and harm among U.S. newspaper journalists. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 10, 327–386.

Plaisance, P. L., Skewes, E. A. & Hanitzsch, T. 2012. Ethical orientations of journalists around the globe: implications from a cross-national survey. Communication Research, 39, 641–661.

Sanders, K. 2003. Ethics and Journalism, London, Sage.

Singer, J. B. 2007. Contested autonomy: professional and popular claims on journalistic norms. Journalism Studies, 8, 79–95.

Slattery, K. L. 2014. Ethics and Journalism Standards: An Examination of the Relationship Between Journalism Codes of Ethics and Dentological Moral Theory. In: Wyatt, W. N. (ed.) The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Institutional and Cultural Influences. London, I.B. Tauris.

Steel, J. 2012. Journalism and Free Speech , London, Routledge.

Steel, J., Firmstone, J., Conboy, M., Elliott-Harvey, C., Fox, C., Mulderrig, J., Saunders, J. & Wragg, P. 2018. DFoP: Scope and Parameters of the Project. Working Paper. Defining Freedom of the Press: A Cross National Examination of Press Ethics and Regulation. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/138587/ .

Voakes, P. S. 1997. Public perceptions of journalists’ ethical motivations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 23–38.

Ward, S. 2009. Journalism Ethics. In: Wahl-Jorgensen, K. & Hanitzsch, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Journalism Studies (pp. 395–309). New York, Routledge.

Weaver, D. H. 2007. The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium, Mahwah, N.J, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Weaver, D. H. & Wilhoit, G. C. 1991. The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Weaver, D. H. & Willnat, L. 2012. The Global Journalist in the 21st Century, New York; Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge.

Wilkins, L. 2014. My Newsroom Made Me Do It: The Impact of Organisational Climate on Ethical Decision-Making. In: Wyatt, W. N. (ed.) The Ethics of Journalism: Individual, Institutional and Cultural Influences. London, I.B. Tauris.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Julie Firmstone

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Firmstone .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Firmstone, J. (2024). Journalism Ethics. In: The Shaping of News. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21963-4_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21963-4_6

Published : 24 September 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-21965-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-21963-4

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• En… English
• Es… Español
• Fr… Français
• Members area

Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists

The IFJ Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists was adopted at the 30th IFJ World Congress in Tunis on 12 June 2019. It completes the IFJ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists (1954), known as the ”Bordeaux Declaration".

The Charter is based on major texts of international law, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contains 16 articles plus a preamble and defines journalists’ duties and rights regarding ethics.

The right of everyone to have access to information and ideas, reiterated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the journalist's mission. The journalist's responsibility towards the public takes precedence over any other responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public authorities. Journalism is a profession, which requires time, resources and the means to practise – all of which are essential to its independence. This international declaration specifies the guidelines of conduct for journalists in the research, editing, transmission, dissemination and commentary of news and information, and in the description of events, in any media whatsoever.

1. Respect for the facts and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.

2. In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall at all times defend the principles of freedom in the honest collection and publication of news, and of the right of fair comment and criticism. He/she will make sure to clearly distinguish factual information from commentary and criticism.

3. The journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which he/ she knows the origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify any document. He/she will be careful to reproduce faithfully statements and other material that non-public persons publish in social media.

4. The journalist shall use only fair methods to obtain information, images, documents and data and he/she will always report his/her status as a journalist and will refrain from using hidden recordings of images and sounds, except where it is impossible for him/her to collect information that is overwhelmingly in the public interest. He/she will demand free access to all sources of information and the right to freely investigate all facts of public interest.

5. The notion of urgency or immediacy in the dissemination of information shall not take precedence over the verification of facts, sources and/or the offer of a reply.

6. The journalist shall do the utmost to rectify any errors or published information which is found to be inaccurate in a timely, explicit, complete and transparent manner.

7. The journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.

8. The journalist will respect privacy. He/she shall respect the dignity of the persons named and/or represented and inform the interviewee whether the conversation and other material is intended for publication. He/she shall show particular consideration to inexperienced and vulnerable interviewees.

9. Journalists shall ensure that the dissemination of information or opinion does not contribute to hatred or prejudice and shall do their utmost to avoid facilitating the spread of discrimination on grounds such as geographical, social or ethnic origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, disability, political and other opinions.

10. The journalist will consider serious professional misconduct to be

• distortion of facts
• slander, libel, defamation, unfounded accusations

11. The journalist shall refrain from acting as an auxiliary of the police or other security services. He/she will only be required to provide information already published in a media outlet.

12. The journalist will show solidarity with his/her colleagues, without renouncing his/her freedom of investigation, duty to inform, and right to engage in criticism, commentary, satire and editorial choice.

13. The journalist shall not use the freedom of the press to serve any other interest and shall refrain from receiving any unfair advantage or personal gain because of the dissemination or non-dissemination of information. He/she will avoid - or put an end to - any situation that could lead him/her to a conflict of interest in the exercise of his/her profession. He/she will avoid any confusion between his activity and that of advertising or propaganda. He/she will refrain from any form of insider trading and market manipulation.

14. The journalist will not undertake any activity or engagement likely to put his/her independence in danger. He/she will, however, respect the methods of collection/dissemination of information that he / she has freely accepted, such as "off the record", anonymity, or embargo, provided that these commitments are clear and unquestionable.

15. Journalists worthy of the name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. They may not be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an opinion that is contrary to his/her professional conviction or conscience.

16. Within the general law of each country the journalist shall recognize in matters of professional honour, the jurisdiction of independent self-regulatory bodies open to the public, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by governments or others.

Click here to download the Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists in  PDF

Get Started

The Importance of Ethics in Journalism

The digital revolution simplified many areas of our lives while adding layers of complexity to others. Journalism , the collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related information was originally applied to current events in printed form. Newspapers, magazines and books captured journalism until the advent of radio and television. Journalism in the digital era is increasingly complex. With universal access to podcasts, social media, e-mail, blogs, and video-based apps, virtually anyone can create and distribute “news” online. 

The importance of ethics in journalism has never been more critical. Studies show that half of the Generation Z population in the United States use social media as their primary news source every day. They also turn to online-only news sites and podcasts to stay informed. Given that the next generation relies almost exclusively on online news sources, it’s essential to develop and follow a code of digital journalism ethics to promote truth, transparency, and accuracy.

Learn more about the importance of ethics in journalism and how the next generation of digital journalists can be advocates of truth.

Why Do Digital Journalism Ethics Matter?

The expression “fake news” grew in popularity during the 2016 election in the United States. Fake news refers to the spread of misinformation, often through digital channels. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 80% of surveyed Americans reported seeing fake news about the pandemic. 

However, this 80% only captures the Americans who were aware that they were consuming fake news. The following statistics paint a more comprehensive picture of Americans’ interaction with misinformation:

• 26% of Americans are very confident that they can recognize fake news when they see it
• 67% of Americans who believed fake news in the past experienced a great deal of confusion
• 10% of Americans reported that they knowingly shared fake news

Unreliable news websites saw more traction and significantly higher engagement on social media in 2020 than in 2019. Without adequate filters, people share inaccurate information and misleading headlines. Why does this matter? Fake news affects the way people interpret reality and can influence everything from election results to climate change initiatives. Journalists can help the public navigate the complex and ever-changing landscape of news, with truth, and ethical reporting.

Case Study: How Gambling Affects Sports Media

Dr. Brian Moritz is an expert in sports journalism and the associate professor and director of the online journalism MA programs at St. Bonaventure University. Dr. Moritz recently covered the topic “What Happens to Sports Media When Everyone’s a Gambler?” for Global Sport Matters where he explored the impact of legalized sports betting on aspects of sports coverage and consumption.

Dr. Moritz says, “Currently, there is no industry-wide prohibition against journalists betting on the sports they cover.” He went on to say, “The journalists and experts interviewed for this story all felt that the biggest potential conflict of interest for reporters was so-called “insider trading” – journalists using information they learn and placing a bet based on that information before reporting the news.”

Sports journalists play a unique role in journalism ethics to convey honest sports coverage without allowing personal gain or gambling to interfere with transparency. Those enrolled in SBU’s MA in Sports Journalism and MA in Digital Journalism learn how to navigate both traditional and digital media platforms based on the highest journalistic standards.

Whether a journalist is covering sporting events, entertainment news, the stock market, or current events, they have a collective responsibility to abide by a code of ethics to avoid conflicts of interest that may compromise their integrity or impartiality.  

How Can We Encourage Journalism Ethics?

Journalists play an important role in seeking the truth and reporting it to the public. As we experience a media revolution during the era of digital-first news, journalism is more democratized, interactive and instantaneous than ever before. Anyone with an internet connection can open Twitter and make a statement that others may perceive as truth.

As a result, professional journalists have an even greater responsibility to champion the truth, disprove fake news, and fact-check trending narratives to ensure the public has access to reliable information online. Where does one start identifying and applying journalism ethics? 

According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics , journalists assume four primary responsibilities, including: to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. 

1. Seek truth and report it

One of the most significant responsibilities journalists have is to verify the accuracy of their reports and communicate truth. Journalists must convey the truth in every format and provide context to avoid misrepresenting information. For example, ethical journalists should avoid clickbait headlines that intend to oversimplify or misconstrue the truth. In addition to providing clarity, journalists should always verify sources and check for reliability and impartiality.   

2. Minimize harm

Journalism ethics is founded on the belief that human beings deserve respect and truth. Journalists must exercise compassion and avoid unnecessary intrusiveness. They must also gain legal access to information and respect an individual’s consent and right to refuse information. Journalists have an even greater responsibility to minimize harm when it comes to covering sensitive topics that involve juveniles, victims of crimes, or interacting with inexperienced or vulnerable populations. 

3. Act independently

Journalism is intended to benefit the public. Ethical journalists must act independently and should avoid conflicts of interest. In the case study covering sports gambling, Dr. Mortiz explored how conflicts of interest can compromise a journalist’s integrity and impartiality. Journalists must refuse gifts, fees, special treatment, and avoid political activities that could influence their coverage.    

4. Be accountable and transparent

When journalists publish their work, they have a continued responsibility to answer to the public and promptly correct any mistakes. In addition, journalists must be open to providing follow-up information, clarity, and answering the public’s questions. A journalist’s job is not done when their content is published; it continues as the content is consumed and reviewed by its audience.  

Join the Future of Journalism Ethics in the Digital Age

Journalists in the digital age tell stories that matter across digital media and broaden important global conversations based on truth and transparency. St. Bonaventure University’s (SBU) online Master of Arts in Digital Journalism or online Master of Arts in Sports Journalism will prepare you to meet this need. 

Offered at the ACEJMC-accredited Jandoli School of Communication, our journalism graduate programs go beyond traditional journalism skills, such as writing, reporting, and editing, and allow you to master the art of digital media. Learn to connect with audiences on a wide range of platforms by incorporating photography, video, design and audio. 

Our journalism master’s programs provide an unparalleled education that combines traditional journalism with digital innovation, all shaped within a moral and ethical framework reflecting our Franciscan values. Whether you’re a seasoned journalist looking to upskill or entirely new to the field you will benefit from a long legacy of journalistic excellence, and a curriculum that adheres to the highest standards in the industry, including in areas such as diversity, inclusion and ethics.

Develop practical skills that allow you to navigate the current and future state of journalism ethics and provide coverage founded in truth, integrity, and transparency. 

Learn more about St. Bonaventure University’s Online Master of Arts in Digital Journalism or Online Master of Arts in Sports Journalism.

*Please note that information contained in this blog post may be subject to change per program or regulatory requirements.

Whether you have a simple question or need advice to determine if this program is right for you, our knowledgeable advisors are here to help. They can chat with you on your schedule and guide you through the entire admissions process, so you can feel confident moving forward with your online St. Bonaventure University program.

Connect with an Advisor Today

St. Bonaventure University | 3261 West State Road , St. Bonaventure , NY 14778 | 1-844-424-4960 All Rights Reserved © 2024 | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | California Privacy Notice Online program management

• Request More Info

Journalism: Media Law and Ethics Essay

Introduction, ethical concerns, contempt of the court, scandalizing, reference list.

Each organization is established within specific ethical parameters. This concept applies also to the media houses including independent journalists. Exploring the dynamics of media, journalists are the link between the legal authorities and the greater society. Therefore, every step the journalists take is weighted if it can have an unintended effect on the public. That is why media law and ethics are crucial in regulating this profession. Common issues regarding media ethics relate to defamation, libel, slander, injurious falsehood, blasphemy, and sedition among others.

Exploring the fictional case, the involved journalist ignored the basics of reporting. Considering there are established codes of ethics to be observed by all journalists. She disregarded the ethical codes by revealing the bloodied body of the victim to the audience. With no consideration to the effect on children who might be watching the news bulletin with their parents. Therefore, the reporting lacked balanced impartiality and was injurious to society. Regarding media ethics and regulations the established code of conduct does not permit journalists to broadcast horrifying scenes without prior warning. This illustrates why the code of conduct is perceived as a representative factor for accountability and responsibility within the media fraternities (Leiboff 2007).

Ethical considerations are critical in enhancing neutral, balanced, and objective journalism. As a profession, journalism is based on an explicit code of conduct/ethics. However, the role of executing these codes is mandated to the individual journalist. This demonstrates why most journalists are faced with or sued for defamation, libel, or injurious falsehood. For instance, the depiction of Channel X TV News reporter airing the unverified bits from the unknown woman can lead to legal tussle.

Regarding aspects of journalism, unreliable sources are liabilities to the profession. Therefore, the said journalist could not have rushed to air the said interview and in particular, the accusations for this could result in the accused suing for defamation. This could also lead to the accused suing the media house for injurious falsehood if his repute and business are affected.

Though, journalism is associated with such central dynamics as democracy and freedom of expression. In a situation like this, the concerned journalist abused the fundamental elements of journalism by breaching respect for others. Equally, though the public has a right to unbiased and objective reporting the journalist also ignored the parameters for truth (Pippert 2005). Therefore, considering the legal provisions for defamation or libel, the journalist could have weighed the impact of the accusations “This hit was ordered by Mike Mobster”. Hence, in a later bulletin, Mike Mobster is interviewed and emphatically denies the indictment, saying he is taking legal advice about it.

However, where Mike Mobster sought to seek legal action certainly his case may fail or be defeated. Regarding media law, there are specific instances when the freedom of the press is more essential than safeguarding reputation. Statements from these occasions, or for the given objectives, are privileged. And this considerably restricts the right to sue, while in other instances entirely taken away. In such instances, the law distinguishes two modes of privilege: qualified and absolute privileges.

Privileges are employed to shield freedom of speech. Despite that Channel, X TV can dispute the claim of defamation by relying on the extent of fair comment. This hold concerning the interviewed woman had claimed to be the accused girlfriend. Therefore, the content of the comment is viewed to be fair and honest, and given in the interest of the public, can sustain a solid defense.

Regarding the attitude of The Daily Trumpet newspaper, the minister had a reason to seek legal remedy. This can be allied to the fact that as a public official he is considered as an above accusation. Though the newspaper had inaccurately posted the minister’s picture as the one for Mike Mobster, as a sign of good faith they could have withdrawn the picture and apologized. By rejecting the minister’s request for a published apology could be translated that they had a motive and intent to blemish his name. And this is against the dynamics of journalism. It should be noted that the primary principles of journalism advocate for fair and balanced journalism.

The Daily Trumpet could therefore pursue the truth and more so apologize. This is because being a part of the link that ties the society their opinions could have grievous effects. The media ethics forbids journalists from presenting unverified information or pictures. And this raises a serious question of whether the behavior of the concerned newspaper was in line with the fundamental principles of journalism.

Drawing from other examples with similar issues the paper had no valid case to ignore the minister’s request. As the media law requires individual repute is supreme and that is why the government guards individual repute (Leiboff 2007). Examining the case of The Trumpet it can be argued that by publishing his picture and later failing to apologize, they shamed and injured his repute among the greater community. And this illustrates the minister was left with an option of seeking legal rights by using the paper for wrongful misrepresentation and defamation.

From a legal standpoint, the minister could therefore sue and argue that he should be compensated for unprovoked injury to his reputation. Though, the newspaper could argue on the ground of free speech, looking at the available legal aspects the minister has a more credible defense for suing. Note that he can argue the paper lowered his person in the opinion of right-thinking members of common society and this could have resulted in the questioning of the minister’s moves and activities. Also, The Trumpet editors should realize that posting the wrongful picture could send a wrong signal to society. Hence, the impression of the posting may not present what the writer intended. And this illustrates why the law is typically concerned with the effect or the ensuing damage caused by the impression.

On the other hand, the magistrate’s order suppressing any discussion of the confession evidence can be challenged. The journalists do enjoy privileges that are protected by the law. Therefore, for the sake of public interest, the media can exploit the shielding blanket granted under absolute and qualified privileges. Also, the magistrate’s order can be seen to be effective in that the reporting journalist or media house had released the coverage via the social network and this had given the public a chance to debate the confession.

On ethical concern, the magistrate should have realized that journalists have a collective responsibility of informing the public (Pearson 2011). Considering that the information being suppressed was already leaked, the court can equally term the Trumpets action as an act of contempt. Contempt of court is typically defined as a charge laid against an individual or an organization for disrupting the procedure of justice in a court of law.

In an indictment of contempt if established the outcomes are either in detention or penalties or both. Therefore, where the magistrate indicated the issues relating to the confessions cannot be discussed outside courts until further notice had to be respected. This can be allied to the fact that continuous discussion may question the court’s fairness. Therefore, if the Trumpet can be sued the court can raise the issue of contempt only after proving the newspaper had done so. It should be noted the newspaper had released the information about the case even before the magistrate had declared the suppression order.

Court contempt’s are typically two; civil or criminal contempt. If the Trumpet newspaper, for instance, disregarded the court order and continued to publish or to tweet the submissions of the confession, it can be charged for civil contempt. And if the court feels the activities of the newspaper, in reality, hindered its elaborate activities, it can be charged with criminal contempt. Generally, Contempt of court is as well broken up into express contempt, which occurs in front of an adjudicator, in addition to indirect contempt (Young 2007). To sustain or verify a charge of contempt of court, it must show that the contemnor was conscious of the court regulation or rule which was violated.

In such a scenario the newspaper had no choice but to stop any activity or reporting that can be translated as contempt of court. There are several dissimilar forms of contempt of court. In every case, they are ingrained in the design that a courtroom in addition to its officers insists esteem, both out of widespread modesty plus because a court acts as lawful authority. Failure to regard the court can confront the path of justice, potentially generating a mistrial or confronting the authenticity of a trial. As a consequence, contempt is taken critically (Pippert 2005).

Therefore, self-regulation becomes critical to each journalist. This is essential in that it helps in averting any unnecessary conflicts with the courts. As is established above the courts are seen to consider the instances of contempt gravely. It is practical for journalists to act within the tenets of accountable and responsible journalism. More so, going against the court order could as well be injurious to the individual journalist as well as the media house he or she is reporting for.

According to concepts of media law and ethics every journalist is expected to be observant (Young 2007). The reason behind this rationale is in avoiding any tussle involving courts and journalists. The illustration of the Trumpet newspaper can result in court contempt for disclosing what had ensued in the court. Also, the broadcasting of the court confessions can be seen as an act of interfering with pending investigations or proceedings including exposing the magistrate’s deliberations (Young 2007).

The Daily Trumpet can not be held liable for comments on the juror’s blog. They can argue that they reported on her opinion which she had posted on her blog. Considering contempt of the court is a serious issue, this can be interpreted as an interference with the report of a court case by commenting on the juror’s blog. Perhaps this may have involved providing details of the defendant’s earlier scandalous convictions, before the closing stages of the trial; this would automatically lead to contempt. For the reason that it may prejudice the arbitrator, magistrate, or judges in opposition to the defendant if there are countless earlier convictions. This would lessen the prospects of a fair trial. Earlier convictions (repeatedly called antecedents) could not be exposed until after the decision has been arrived at.

Despite that, the juror’s posting could as well be translated as contempt of the court. This is because in the previous instances the magistrate had barred anyone from writing or reporting on the case until further notice. More so, it should be noted that the juror breached the suppression order by posting her personal opinion regarding the case. As is demonstrated in the case regarding terminally ill radio host Derryn Hinch, who has admitted breaching suppression orders by naming two offenders at a rally in 2008 and on his website, the juror as well as the Daily Trumpet violated the suppression for nowhere had the judges seen lifting the orders (Pearson 2011).

Therefore, about the scope of contempt of court, it can be argued the courts do not consider the aspects of public interests. Rather the courts ascertain that both the freedom from intrusion as well as upholding of dignity – are sheltered by the laws of contempt.

Journalism is a profession that is etched on the pillars of accountability and transparency. More so, fair, balanced, and objective reporting forms the foundation for every journalist. Therefore, journalist faces decimal regulations from the authorities. Translating self-regulation is what oils the profession of journalism. Also, an elaborate code of conduct makes certain that the members of the fourth estate do not write, air, or broadcast content or materials injurious to public health.

As is illustrated by the above incidences the journalists are indebted to uphold their integrity in all that they do. Different media houses have unique codes of ethics for their members and this applies also to aspects of media law (Pearson 2011). Therefore, in the course of their duties journalists have to respect both the authorities as well as the rights of the public. Having a definite understanding of what one is expected of a lot of time is saved. However, where ignorance is allowed to take lead most journalists are immersed in the endless tussle of conflicts. Some of these conflicts may involve libels, defamation, seditious claims, malicious falsehood, or blasphemy.

Therefore, going back to the issue of Mike Mobster and the instance of the Radio Z interview, it should be noted that this incidence presents complex ethical and legal issues. An ethical issue exposed regards interviewing Fred Mafia’s girlfriend who is biased. While on the legal ground the issue regards the utterances made by the interviewee. Though the concerned radio interview with the good intention of concern is that the manner Fred Mafia’s girlfriend accused the judge and scorned at the court’s decision to jail Mike for life and a 12 years parlor. By saying the judge is incompetent is a serious issue that can lead to the accused seeking legal redress.

This is because in the first place radio Z approach can be construed to scandalize the court’s decision, secondly, by allowing the woman to accuse the judge they disregarded the established broadcasting regulations which forbids such kind of accusations.

Courts are known to protect themselves dutifully against any elements that could tarnish or damage their collective dignity, or equally interfere with their freedom. Though this does not mean courts can not be evaluated and criticized. This shows bad judgments can be criticized by the media where applicable. However, this ought to be approached carefully in as far as court decisions are being criticized. Regarding the incidence of Fred Mafia’s girlfriend discrediting the court’s decision could be assumed as an act of lowering the court’s dignity before the public. Therefore, the act is construed as contempt and can equally be evaluated as an act of scandalizing the court.

Stating the judge is incompetent through a medium that is trusted by the public is equally an act of injurious falsehood. In such a scenario the Radio Z can be held liable for broadcasting injurious statements while at the same time scandalizing the court’s decision. The statement can be injurious to the judge’s repute, career, and family. Considering that at common rule a defamatory statement is assumed to be a lie or false (Lyon 2005).

The defendant must verify that on the scope of probabilities that the said defamatory statement is real. In essence, the law of defamation is etched in shielding reputations. Regarding such understanding, Radio Z can be sued for scandalizing the court decision plus airing defamatory remarks. This scenario can be linked to a similar case where it was reported: “Crossword guilty of defaming Abe Saffron” in this case the plaintiff sued for damages after a crossword puzzle published with a query that had the tags underworld and sin.

Each journalist is individually liable for what he writes, blogs or broadcasts. This, therefore, indicates that the media personnel must be vigilant in all that they do or release to the public. As depicted by the above scenario poor judgment resulted in a motley of legal issues from contempt of court, defamation as well as scandalization of court’s decision.

Leiboff, M. (2007) Creative Practice and the Law . Pyrmont: Thomson Lawbook.

Lyon, D. (2005). The Information Society . New York: Blackwell.

Pearson, M. (2011) The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law . Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Pippert, Wesley G. (2005). An Ethics of News . Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Young, S. (2007) Government Communication in Australia . Sydney: University of Melbourne.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 25). Journalism: Media Law and Ethics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/journalism-media-law-and-ethics/

"Journalism: Media Law and Ethics." IvyPanda , 25 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/journalism-media-law-and-ethics/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Journalism: Media Law and Ethics'. 25 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Journalism: Media Law and Ethics." March 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/journalism-media-law-and-ethics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Journalism: Media Law and Ethics." March 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/journalism-media-law-and-ethics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Journalism: Media Law and Ethics." March 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/journalism-media-law-and-ethics/.

• Law in the Information Age 2.0
• Kay’s “Trumpet” as a Attempt for a Person to Be Identified
• The Defamation Law in the UAE
• Biases and Sources in Newspaper Articles About the Coronavirus
• Good Riddance to the Media Dinosaurs
• News Channel’s Priorities: Fox News Special Report
• News-Gathering and Production Practices
• Designing an Influential Interview

Kirsten Berg Holds Power to Account

Alum was at the center of Pro Publica’s Pulitzer-winning investigation of ethics in the Supreme Court

Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. Adobe Stock photo.

In a liberal democracy, good journalism shines a light into the places where darkness reigns. A news story informs the public and keeps those in power honest. At its very best, a story can help right a wrong. Kirsten Berg experienced this first-hand before many journalists have landed their first full-time beat. In fact, Berg (’11) was just an intern and a COM undergraduate when she contributed to a journalistic project that would reshape the way many young people experience the American justice system.

In 2011, Berg had landed an internship with the New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR)—a professional nonprofit news outlet based at COM. Reporting to veteran investigative reporter and NECIR cofounder Maggie Mulvihill , an associate professor of the practice of computational journalism, Berg and a team of reporters looked at the history and efficacy of a Massachusetts law that allowed juveniles to be sentenced to life without parole. 

“She taught us all the ropes: This is how you make a difficult call; this is how you use all of these databases to find people; this is how you get data from government sources; this is how you file public records requests,” Berg says of Mulvihill.

The NECIR team’s reporting, published in 2011 and 2012 both at its own website (now archived) and in the Boston Globe , was cited by the petitioners in the US Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama , where the high court decided automatic sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for defendants under 18 years old. In January 2024, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court banned such sentencing for defendants under 21. 

“It was an amazing thing to get to be doing as someone who’s still in college,” Berg adds. “It really set me up for loving this career.”

Berg’s work continues to put the Minnesota and Iowa native in the reporting center of some of the country’s top news stories. As a research reporter at the nonprofit ProPublica since 2019, she was part of a team nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, Berg joined an investigation into the ethics and oversight of the Supreme Court that won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service on May 6. But Berg doesn’t seem to worry too much about award nominations and wins. She’s more interested in doing the kind of work that helps build back Americans’ eroding view of journalism.

“Investigative journalism is such a foundational part of journalism, which is about holding power to account and telling stories of communities,” Berg says.

The work of a research journalist

ProPublica launched in 2007, filling a void left by print newsrooms that had gutted or eliminated their investigative bureaus. Reporting projects at ProPublica take months or sometimes years to finish, and the work is a collaborative effort, Berg says. As a research reporter, she specializes in obtaining and verifying information—through court records, filing public records requests, mapping out the structures of organizations and conducting archival, legislative and historical research. 

There seemed to be a pattern of scandal, of ethical breaches, that seemed to be swept under the rug—of judges being defended, of oversight being thwarted. Kirsten Berg

Often, Berg is looking for information that the institutions and people at the center of ProPublica investigations do not want to be made public. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) repeatedly ignored official requests for interviews at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Berg built a spreadsheet of more than 700 current and former CDC employees that included information like how best to reach them (usually on a cell phone) and their role in the pandemic response. “[We also] put together a dossier of what they had done in their careers, and why they might be willing to talk to us, so that when we picked up the phone and called them, we would have a good pitch,” Berg says. “That made a huge difference.” The final piece, “ Inside the Fall of the CDC ,” published in October 2020, detailed widespread internal strife at a beleaguered agency that was stretched to the limits by the global pandemic. That capstone piece, alongside more than seven months of COVID reporting, earned the ProPublica newsroom a Pulitzer finalist spot in the Public Service category .

By the time Berg joined the four-person investigative team looking into ethics questions at the nation’s highest court in mid-2023, ProPublica had already published the bombshell report showing Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted unreported gifts from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. Berg was brought on to research the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking arm of the court system tasked with investigating alleged ethics breaches. “We wanted to look at why and how some of these seeming ethical breaches that undermine the integrity of the court were tolerated, allowed to happen, okayed. [The Judicial Conference] was the organization that was supposed to be policing it,” Berg says. With public information on the secretive organization’s inner workings limited, Berg pored over the archives and media clips that were available to understand how the Judicial Conference had dealt with investigations historically—including Thomas’s. “What we found through that was that there seemed to be a pattern of scandal, of ethical breaches, that seemed to be swept under the rug—of judges being defended, of oversight being thwarted,” Berg says. 

Next, for a perspective from inside the Judicial Conference, Berg set out to find judges who comprised the oversight group. But there were a couple immediate roadblocks. For one, the names of the judges that make up Judicial Conference are kept confidential. Berg says she was able to put together a pretty exhaustive list of members using archives of congressional records where names were mentioned, court documents and official conference notices. “One of the best things was their letterhead,” Berg says. “Whenever they sent it out, they had every single member listed [on the letterhead], so we were tracking down when letters had been sent out and then getting all the names from there.” 

But even when Berg tracked down most of the conference member names, federal laws protecting judges kept much of their contact information hidden from the public eye. “You have to get creative in tracking down cell phones, addresses, emails for judges,” Berg says. For instance, where information about a judge might not be available, perhaps a reporter could find something listed publicly about the judge’s spouse. Or maybe a phone number was inadvertently listed with a property record connected to a judge. Perhaps a judge or their spouse volunteered at their church or synagogue, and an email was listed in a congregational bulletin. “It’s really different for everyone,” Berg says. 

Recognition and new projects

ProPublica’s deep dive into the Judicial Conference , which Berg coproduced with Brett Murphy, is part of the “ Friends of the Court” series that led to a Senate Finance Committee investigation and to the Supreme Court adopting a first-ever conduct code . Besides its real-world impact, the series is also racking up some serious nominations and awards. ProPublica has already won USC’s Selden Ring award for investigative reporting and the George Polk Award for national reporting. ProPublica is a finalist for both Syracuse University’s Toner Prize and the Goldsmith Prize from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. Most notably, the investigation received the 2024 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service on May 6. But if the nominations and awards mean anything to Berg—who has since investigated Chinese organized crime’s connection to America’s illegal marijuana market—it’s only that they reaffirm the countless hours of reporting, writing and fact-checking the ProPublica team put into the Supreme Court investigation. Berg’s concern remains with the accountability her work—and all investigative journalism—creates for the wealthy and powerful. “I feel like it’s sort of cliché, but right now there’s a lot of distrust of media,” Berg says. “To be able to put out something so transparent and nuanced and ironclad was, in addition to accountability, such a great way to educate the public about how investigative journalism works.”

• investigative journalism

Related News

Com work earns top honors at regional student production awards.

Meet the Indiana Jones of Italian Wine

COM Photographers Win Top Prizes at Boston Contest

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

Gannett hits pause button on its promise to restaff its smallest papers

Outlets with few or no staff members likely to stay that way for a while.

For most of 2023 year and all of 2024 so far, Gannett has promised that it is working to add hundreds of new editorial positions , backfilling the many openings that were lost after a December 2022 hiring freeze, then growing further.

The pledge includes restaffing many of the chain’s smallest dailies, ones that have been languishing with one or no locally based journalists as more profitable metros get attention and resources.

Chief Content Officer Kristin Roberts said of the new approach in Gannett’s quarterly earnings call with analysts:

“Last year, we launched an initiative with the conviction that putting reporters into our smallest newsrooms was critical, but not enough on its own to be sustainable.

We needed to experiment with new ways of engaging hometown readers at a small-site scale. Our reporters combined first-person voice with a newsletter approach that invited readers to join them in experiencing their community firsthand, the results were remarkable and gave us the confidence to boldly expand this strategy.”

There was a notable omission, though.

Roberts didn’t say that the company hit the brakes on hiring for that key small newsroom position three months earlier.

The people already on board in the beta version of what Gannett calls the I-30 Initiative could stay. Authorizations to proceed with other hires stopped.  Some candidates who were expecting to start soon have had the offer rescinded. According to internal communications, the “pause” has now been rolled over through the second quarter.

Roberts declined my request for an interview. The next quarterly earnings report is Thursday, and she may or may not offer an update.

The I-30 jobs (so called because they were approved for 30 markets) are unusual ones, defined after a protracted planning process through last summer. Journalists, well paid at roughly $50,000, are being hired on one-year contracts rather than as full-time employees. They must physically work in the target communities.

Their job is to establish a local news presence in cities that have been getting only a thin trickle of hometown content. A particular emphasis, as Roberts said, is creating newsletters, now a primary way in the industry to get samples of coverage to the target audience and capture email addresses of potential paid digital subscribers.

A community division editor who alerted me to the pause said it has created chaos for people like her. (She asked for anonymity in hopes of keeping her job).

Editors, spread thin and scrambling to oversee several papers at once, are not getting the relief they’d anticipated, she said. Identifying I-30 candidates in October and November proved difficult, given the lack of assurance they would be hired permanently.

Plus, from the management perspective of regional editors who hire one level down, they cannot be sure that a position that comes open as an editor moves on or is fired can be filled.

With approvals on hold, “the solution for all these ghost newsrooms is put off indefinitely,” my source said.

Though the number of hires involved is modest, and Gannett continues to spend on growing news staff at its metros , I think there is a context that makes it a bigger deal.

For the better part of a decade, Gannett has been open about bigger newspapers, particularly in an era pivoting from print to digital, being the  best prospects for revenue and profit growth.

The metro division used to hold its annual planning retreat at Poynter and  allowed me to sit in to better understand the company’s editorial strategy. I was told on background by one of the participants that even papers with no news staff contributed welcome revenue and a little profit

Continuing to publish papers with next to no local content has seemed like a sham to analysts like me and market-by-market data expert Penny Abernathy. I first wrote specifically about a Gannett ghost newspaper four years ago — this one in Ithaca, New York, a town with two major universities, that was down to a single local reporter. I got the explanation that metros proportionately generate more revenue and profits.

So, it seemed welcome evidence of journalistic commitment when Roberts’  extensive package of initiatives for her first year at Gannett included a good faith effort to put a better news report in front of its small and midsized town readers.

I’m hoping, even betting, that the I-30 program and other reinvestments resume. But for right now, the community papers have again taken their position in the back of the line for Gannett.

Opinion | Sports columnist suspended over Caitlin Clark exchange

Indianapolis Star sports columnist Gregg Doyel will also not cover any of Clark’s WNBA games in person this season

Opinion | Some quick Pulitzer Prize arithmetic reflects atrophy among regional newspapers

In a quarter century, the number of regional newspaper honorees went from 20 to 4. The winds don't look favorable.

What we know about the ‘outside agitators’ being blamed for campus protests

Police, city and university officials nationwide have blamed them for campus protests but have provided little evidence for their claims

Hannah Dreier wins Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for investigative stories into migrant child labor

Dreier’s stories ushered in waves of impact, which included congressional hearings, a White House crackdown, and reforms in multiple states

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think local news outlets are doing fine financially, survey finds

The local news crisis has been widely chronicled. Why do so many seem unaware?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

In the campus protests over the war in Gaza, language and rhetoric are—as they have always been when it comes to Israel and Palestine—weapons of mass destruction.

By Zadie Smith

A philosophy without a politics is common enough. Aesthetes, ethicists, novelists—all may be easily critiqued and found wanting on this basis. But there is also the danger of a politics without a philosophy. A politics unmoored, unprincipled, which holds as its most fundamental commitment its own perpetuation. A Realpolitik that believes itself too subtle—or too pragmatic—to deal with such ethical platitudes as thou shalt not kill. Or: rape is a crime, everywhere and always. But sometimes ethical philosophy reënters the arena, as is happening right now on college campuses all over America. I understand the ethics underpinning the protests to be based on two widely recognized principles:

There is an ethical duty to express solidarity with the weak in any situation that involves oppressive power.

If the machinery of oppressive power is to be trained on the weak, then there is a duty to stop the gears by any means necessary.

The first principle sometimes takes the “weak” to mean “whoever has the least power,” and sometimes “whoever suffers most,” but most often a combination of both. The second principle, meanwhile, may be used to defend revolutionary violence, although this interpretation has just as often been repudiated by pacifistic radicals, among whom two of the most famous are, of course, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr . In the pacifist’s interpretation, the body that we must place between the gears is not that of our enemy but our own. In doing this, we may pay the ultimate price with our actual bodies, in the non-metaphorical sense. More usually, the risk is to our livelihoods, our reputations, our futures. Before these most recent campus protests began, we had an example of this kind of action in the climate movement. For several years now, many people have been protesting the economic and political machinery that perpetuates climate change, by blocking roads, throwing paint, interrupting plays, and committing many other arrestable offenses that can appear ridiculous to skeptics (or, at the very least, performative), but which in truth represent a level of personal sacrifice unimaginable to many of us.

I experienced this not long ago while participating in an XR climate rally in London. When it came to the point in the proceedings where I was asked by my fellow-protesters whether I’d be willing to commit an arrestable offense—one that would likely lead to a conviction and thus make travelling to the United States difficult or even impossible—I’m ashamed to say that I declined that offer. Turns out, I could not give up my relationship with New York City for the future of the planet. I’d just about managed to stop buying plastic bottles (except when very thirsty) and was trying to fly less. But never to see New York again? What pitiful ethical creatures we are (I am)! Falling at the first hurdle! Anyone who finds themselves rolling their eyes at any young person willing to put their own future into jeopardy for an ethical principle should ask themselves where the limits of their own commitments lie—also whether they’ve bought a plastic bottle or booked a flight recently. A humbling inquiry.

It is difficult to look at the recent Columbia University protests in particular without being reminded of the campus protests of the nineteen-sixties and seventies, some of which happened on the very same lawns. At that time, a cynical political class was forced to observe the spectacle of its own privileged youth standing in solidarity with the weakest historical actors of the moment, a group that included, but was not restricted to, African Americans and the Vietnamese. By placing such people within their ethical zone of interest, young Americans risked both their own academic and personal futures and—in the infamous case of Kent State—their lives. I imagine that the students at Columbia—and protesters on other campuses—fully intend this echo, and, in their unequivocal demand for both a ceasefire and financial divestment from this terrible war, to a certain extent they have achieved it.

But, when I open newspapers and see students dismissing the idea that some of their fellow-students feel, at this particular moment, unsafe on campus, or arguing that such a feeling is simply not worth attending to, given the magnitude of what is occurring in Gaza, I find such sentiments cynical and unworthy of this movement. For it may well be—within the ethical zone of interest that is a campus, which was not so long ago defined as a safe space, delineated by the boundary of a generation’s ethical ideas— it may well be that a Jewish student walking past the tents, who finds herself referred to as a Zionist, and then is warned to keep her distance, is, in that moment, the weakest participant in the zone. If the concept of safety is foundational to these students’ ethical philosophy (as I take it to be), and, if the protests are committed to reinserting ethical principles into a cynical and corrupt politics, it is not right to divest from these same ethics at the very moment they come into conflict with other imperatives. The point of a foundational ethics is that it is not contingent but foundational. That is precisely its challenge to a corrupt politics.

Practicing our ethics in the real world involves a constant testing of them, a recognition that our zones of ethical interest have no fixed boundaries and may need to widen and shrink moment by moment as the situation demands. (Those brave students who—in supporting the ethical necessity of a ceasefire—find themselves at painful odds with family, friends, faith, or community have already made this calculation.) This flexibility can also have the positive long-term political effect of allowing us to comprehend that, although our duty to the weakest is permanent, the role of “the weakest” is not an existential matter independent of time and space but, rather, a contingent situation, continually subject to change. By contrast, there is a dangerous rigidity to be found in the idea that concern for the dreadful situation of the hostages is somehow in opposition to, or incompatible with, the demand for a ceasefire. Surely a ceasefire—as well as being an ethical necessity—is also in the immediate absolute interest of the hostages, a fact that cannot be erased by tearing their posters off walls.

Part of the significance of a student protest is the ways in which it gives young people the opportunity to insist upon an ethical principle while still being, comparatively speaking, a more rational force than the supposed adults in the room, against whose crazed magical thinking they have been forced to define themselves. The equality of all human life was never a self-evident truth in racially segregated America. There was no way to “win” in Vietnam. Hamas will not be “eliminated.” The more than seven million Jewish human beings who live in the gap between the river and the sea will not simply vanish because you think that they should. All of that is just rhetoric. Words. Cathartic to chant, perhaps, but essentially meaningless. A ceasefire, meanwhile, is both a potential reality and an ethical necessity. The monstrous and brutal mass murder of more than eleven hundred people, the majority of them civilians, dozens of them children, on October 7th, has been followed by the monstrous and brutal mass murder (at the time of writing) of a reported fourteen thousand five hundred children. And many more human beings besides, but it’s impossible not to notice that the sort of people who take at face value phrases like “surgical strikes” and “controlled military operation” sometimes need to look at and/or think about dead children specifically in order to refocus their minds on reality.

To send the police in to arrest young people peacefully insisting upon a ceasefire represents a moral injury to us all. To do it with violence is a scandal. How could they do less than protest, in this moment? They are putting their own bodies into the machine. They deserve our support and praise. As to which postwar political arrangement any of these students may favor, and on what basis they favor it—that is all an argument for the day after a ceasefire. One state, two states, river to the sea—in my view, their views have no real weight in this particular moment, or very little weight next to the significance of their collective action, which (if I understand it correctly) is focussed on stopping the flow of money that is funding bloody murder, and calling for a ceasefire, the political euphemism that we use to mark the end of bloody murder. After a ceasefire, the criminal events of the past seven months should be tried and judged, and the infinitely difficult business of creating just, humane, and habitable political structures in the region must begin anew. Right now: ceasefire. And, as we make this demand, we might remind ourselves that a ceasefire is not, primarily, a political demand. Primarily, it is an ethical one.

But it is in the nature of the political that we cannot even attend to such ethical imperatives unless we first know the political position of whoever is speaking. (“Where do you stand on Israel/Palestine?”) In these constructed narratives, there are always a series of shibboleths, that is, phrases that can’t be said, or, conversely, phrases that must be said. Once these words or phrases have been spoken ( river to the sea, existential threat, right to defend, one state, two states, Zionist, colonialist, imperialist, terrorist ) and one’s positionality established, then and only then will the ethics of the question be attended to (or absolutely ignored). The objection may be raised at this point that I am behaving like a novelist, expressing a philosophy without a politics, or making some rarefied point about language and rhetoric while people commit bloody murder. This would normally be my own view, but, in the case of Israel/Palestine, language and rhetoric are and always have been weapons of mass destruction.

It is in fact perhaps the most acute example in the world of the use of words to justify bloody murder, to flatten and erase unbelievably labyrinthine histories, and to deliver the atavistic pleasure of violent simplicity to the many people who seem to believe that merely by saying something they make it so. It is no doubt a great relief to say the word “Hamas” as if it purely and solely described a terrorist entity. A great relief to say “There is no such thing as the Palestinian people” as they stand in front of you. A great relief to say “Zionist colonialist state” and accept those three words as a full and unimpeachable definition of the state of Israel, not only under the disastrous leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu but at every stage of its long and complex history, and also to hear them as a perfectly sufficient description of every man, woman, and child who has ever lived in Israel or happened to find themselves born within it. It is perhaps because we know these simplifications to be impossible that we insist upon them so passionately. They are shibboleths; they describe a people, by defining them against other people—but the people being described are ourselves. The person who says “We must eliminate Hamas” says this not necessarily because she thinks this is a possible outcome on this earth but because this sentence is the shibboleth that marks her membership in the community that says that. The person who uses the word “Zionist” as if that word were an unchanged and unchangeable monolith, meaning exactly the same thing in 2024 and 1948 as it meant in 1890 or 1901 or 1920—that person does not so much bring definitive clarity to the entangled history of Jews and Palestinians as they successfully and soothingly draw a line to mark their own zone of interest and where it ends. And while we all talk, carefully curating our shibboleths, presenting them to others and waiting for them to reveal themselves as with us or against us—while we do all that, bloody murder.

And now here we are, almost at the end of this little stream of words. We’ve arrived at the point at which I must state clearly “where I stand on the issue,” that is, which particular political settlement should, in my own, personal view, occur on the other side of a ceasefire. This is the point wherein—by my stating of a position—you are at once liberated into the simple pleasure of placing me firmly on one side or the other, putting me over there with those who lisp or those who don’t, with the Ephraimites, or with the people of Gilead. Yes, this is the point at which I stake my rhetorical flag in that fantastical, linguistical, conceptual, unreal place—built with words—where rapes are minimized as needs be, and the definition of genocide quibbled over, where the killing of babies is denied, and the precision of drones glorified, where histories are reconsidered or rewritten or analogized or simply ignored, and “Jew” and “colonialist” are synonymous, and “Palestinian” and “terrorist” are synonymous, and language is your accomplice and alibi in all of it. Language euphemized, instrumentalized, and abused, put to work for your cause and only for your cause, so that it does exactly and only what you want it to do. Let me make it easy for you. Put me wherever you want: misguided socialist, toothless humanist, naïve novelist, useful idiot, apologist, denier, ally, contrarian, collaborator, traitor, inexcusable coward. It is my view that my personal views have no more weight than an ear of corn in this particular essay. The only thing that has any weight in this particular essay is the dead. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

The day the dinosaurs died .

What if you started itching— and couldn’t stop ?

How a notorious gangster was exposed by his own sister .

Woodstock was overrated .

Diana Nyad’s hundred-and-eleven-mile swim .

Photo Booth: Deana Lawson’s hyper-staged portraits of Black love .

Fiction by Roald Dahl: “The Landlady”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jay Caspian Kang

By David Remnick

By Dexter Filkins

Log in to comment on videos and join in on the fun.

Watch the live stream of Fox News and full episodes.

Reduce eye strain and focus on the content that matters.

Matt Taibbi: NPR has shown a basic lack of journalistic ethics

Journalist Matt Taibbi on the House of Representatives investigating potential bias at NPR and the Biden's administration's 'delusional' rift with the New York Times.

• Copy to clipboard Copy to clipboard
• WHAT TO WATCH | VIDEOS
• LATEST NEWS | VIDEOS
• FOX & FRIENDS

Hi, what are you looking for?

University of Mary’s community for student moms celebrates its first graduate

Catholic Olympic champion swimmer awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom

Las limitaciones físicas no son un obstáculo para progresar

Washington Roundup: Biden condemns campus violence; proposal to ease marijuana restrictions

Kentucky Derby jockey says Catholic faith crucial in dangerous sport

Religious freedom among values threatened by world media, experts say at conference

Caritas Baby Hospital in Bethlehem remains a ray of hope in war-torn Holy Land

Shevchuk: Free women, medics and clergy in ‘all-for-all’ prisoner exchange

Ahead of synod, ‘Fiducia’ polarization is visible but African bishops are still enthusiastic

Ukrainian archbishop meets with military officials on missing priests, detained civilians

El Papa pide reparación al Sagrado Corazón por los abusos contra la dignidad de la persona

New photos reveal many sides of Padre Pio

En un mundo hostil, la vocación de los cristianos es la esperanza, dice el Papa

Pope backs peasant farmers in land dispute with Catholic group

El Papa dice a sacerdotes latinoamericanos: Sean iconos de Cristo, sequen las lágrimas como la Verónica

OSV News Showcase | May 3, 2024

Sanctifying work

‘Tortured Poet’ Taylor Swift offers troubled tales of our time

OSV News Showcase | April 26, 2024

OSV News Showcase | April 19, 2024

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

“Irena’s Vow,” Heroism in the Face of Evil

Embark with your child on a ‘Catholic Sacraments Adventure’

Entering into a ‘Dialogue’ with the loving and merciful Lord

Documentary covers FBI file kept on Archbishop Sheen

Iglesia católica de Arizona ‘totalmente destruida’ en un incendio

Congreso Eucarístico Nacional en Indianápolis: Oportunidad de unirnos como hermanos y hermanas en torno al Señor

Defensora de los derechos humanos: La dictadura profana las iglesias nicaragüenses

• Client Login

KRAKOW, Poland (OSV News) — The need for quality journalism and media ethics is increasingly high, experts underlined at the academic conference “Media for Man” organized by Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, Poland. “At this point, it is a matter of people’s security,” the organizers said.

“I’m both thrilled and terrified with a great interest in media ethics’ topics over the last few years,” said Katarzyna Drag, professor of communications at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow and organizer of the conference.

“I’m thrilled because media ethics is an important and fundamental part of journalism. And terrified, because this increased interest is a consequence of bad practices that are spreading more and more in the media,” Drag underlined.

Users of media are concerned that the media space is often lacking values and depreciating human dignity — “we went so far that we look for solutions on how to improve not only the content, but our security,” Drag said.

For Martin Kugler, president of Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC), the pattern that Drag mentioned is visible especially in the coverage of Christian persecution in the world.

Speaking at the conference April 23, he mentioned a breaking news social media post on X, formerly Twitter, when the terrorist attack on Catholic churches and hotels in Sri Lanka killed 269 people on Easter Sunday in 2019, most of them Christians celebrating Easter.

“The influential German politician, a Twitter user, only mentioned that the attack targeted ‘praying people and travelers,’ while in fact it was deliberate targeting of Christians and Catholics,” Kugler said.

He underlined that in regard to Christian persecution or covering “legal restrictions or legal threats for the freedom of Christians,” media normally “don’t cover these stories because they don’t have enough understanding,” Kugler told OSV News. Every day, OIDAC monitors media for stories misleadingly covered by the media, or not covered at all — and every single day, they find examples of such.

One of them, he said, is the coverage — or lack of it in mainstream media — of regular massacres of Christians in Nigeria.

“Even the European Parliament ignores the real reasons of violence in Nigeria,” said Kugler, raising awareness that in a Feb. 8 resolution of the European Parliament, among the “factors fueling the clashes” the European Union institution pointed “territorial disputes, ethnic tensions, access to scarce resources and environmental degradation” but not the deliberate violence against a religious group, Kugler said.

The resolution made the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of the European Union, or COMECE, to issue a statement Feb. 9, saying that the European Parliament resolution “downplays the religious dimension of the conflict.”

Had the persecution of Christians in Nigeria been on the covers of mainstream papers in the EU, the situation may have been different.

“What’s the solution? Formation, formation, formation,” Kugler said, pointing that “leaving information out of the context,” is a plague and that “we need the formation of secular journalists.”

“If we don’t call persecution by name, we won’t bring change,” Kugler added, pointing to a 2022 Faith and News Study that indicated 61% of respondents to the survey said the media “perpetuates faith-based stereotypes” and 43% said that they feel “today’s news coverage of religion creates unease and anxiety (even more so in secular nations).”

Paul Wojda, associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, said that one of the reasons for ignorant or unbalanced coverage in the media is the “need for speed.”

Wojda underlined that with the unlimited spread and access to internet and social media, there is an “increasingly rapid cycle that puts pressure on journalists and people in media to create news.”

For Wojda, what made the news world a place of threat instead of opportunities is “the loss of what some have called slow journalism,” which allowed to investigate the story deeper and better. Lack of humility is also an issue, he said.

“Whether it’s law or medicine or teaching, one of the things that a profession does is that it requires a humility — a humility before standards that you didn’t create, but that you are answerable to,” Wojda told OSV News.

“When a profession is healthy, it has an internal set of standards, a code of conduct that each of the members hold themselves accountable for to each other. And I think with the explosion of social media, the explosion of outlets for getting news — everyone considers themselves an expert now,” Wojda said, pointing to “the loss of integrity within the profession,” as a real problem.

Drag, who also leads the Institute of Journalism, Media and Social Communications at Poland’s pontifical university agreed, adding the “media bubbles” that users function in are a threat to media ethics.

“If we follow only what the media feeds us, if we follow one way that the media shows us, as users we’re limited to only this one particular ‘bubble’,” Drag said, underlining that “it’s never going to develop us,” and that it leads to extreme polarization of societies, which threatens security.

“When we add to it the second issue — a very intense technological development where people and their interpersonal relationships are forgotten,” we have a recipe for disaster, Drag said.

She underlined that Catholic media play an important role in putting media spotlight into values, human relationships and balancing opinions. “The Catholic media is often lifting up instead of undermining, it highlights values instead of scandals, so what Catholic media do matters greatly,” she said.

• Paulina Guzik is international editor for OSV News. Follow her on X @Guzik_Paulina.

UPDATE: Methodist minister, partner receive same-sex blessing from Chicago parish in video

New Orleans Archdiocese investigated for child sex trafficking due to decades-old abuse claims

You May Also Like

Pregnant with conjoined twins, Detroit mother finds powerful strength in faith

By Karla Fierro DETROIT (OSV News) — Nicole Duque, 23, has always desired to become a mother. She was born and raised in the...

Basketball sisters now play for God: College teammates head out on different paths, wind up on same journey 40 years later

By Linda Reeves MIAMI (OSV News) — Divine intervention may be the only explanation for how two college teammates graduated, ventured off on different...

Walter Reed decision to cancel Catholic pastoral contract ahead of Holy Week ‘incomprehensible,’ says US military archbishop

BETHESDA, Md. (OSV News) — Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the U.S. Archdiocese for Military Services has called a decision by a U.S. military...

‘Pray for God’s hand’ over Mississippi: destructive tornado kills, injures dozens

ROLLING FORK, Miss. (OSV News) — No less than 23 people have been killed after at least one powerful tornado tore through rural Mississippi...

• SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS

Home > Ethics > Ethics Case Studies

Ethics Ethics Case Studies

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable. For an expanded explanation, please follow this link .

For journalism instructors and others interested in presenting ethical dilemmas for debate and discussion, SPJ has a useful resource. We've been collecting a number of case studies for use in workshops. The Ethics AdviceLine operated by the Chicago Headline Club and Loyola University also has provided a number of examples. There seems to be no shortage of ethical issues in journalism these days. Please feel free to use these examples in your classes, speeches, columns, workshops or other modes of communication.

Kobe Bryant’s Past: A Tweet Too Soon? On January 26, 2020, Kobe Bryant died at the age of 41 in a helicopter crash in the Los Angeles area. While the majority of social media praised Bryant after his death, within a few hours after the story broke, Felicia Sonmez, a reporter for The Washington Post , tweeted a link to an article from 2003 about the allegations of sexual assault against Bryant. The question: Is there a limit to truth-telling? How long (if at all) should a journalist wait after a person’s death before resurfacing sensitive information about their past?

A controversial apology After photographs of a speech and protests at Northwestern University appeared on the university's newspaper's website, some of the participants contacted the newspaper to complain. It became a “firestorm,” — first from students who felt victimized, and then, after the newspaper apologized, from journalists and others who accused the newspaper of apologizing for simply doing its job. The question: Is an apology the appropriate response? Is there something else the student journalists should have done?

Using the ‘Holocaust’ Metaphor People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is a nonprofit animal rights organization known for its controversial approach to communications and public relations. In 2003, PETA launched a new campaign, named “Holocaust on Your Plate,” that compares the slaughter of animals for human use to the murder of 6 million Jews in WWII. The question: Is “Holocaust on Your Plate” ethically wrong or a truthful comparison?

Aaargh! Pirates! (and the Press) As collections of songs, studio recordings from an upcoming album or merely unreleased demos, are leaked online, these outlets cover the leak with a breaking story or a blog post. But they don’t stop there. Rolling Stone and Billboard often also will include a link within the story to listen to the songs that were leaked. The question: If Billboard and Rolling Stone are essentially pointing readers in the right direction, to the leaked music, are they not aiding in helping the Internet community find the material and consume it?

Reigning on the Parade Frank Whelan, a features writer who also wrote a history column for the Allentown, Pennsylvania, Morning Call , took part in a gay rights parade in June 2006 and stirred up a classic ethical dilemma. The situation raises any number of questions about what is and isn’t a conflict of interest. The question: What should the “consequences” be for Frank Whelan?

Controversy over a Concert Three former members of the Eagles rock band came to Denver during the 2004 election campaign to raise money for a U.S. Senate candidate, Democrat Ken Salazar. John Temple, editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News, advised his reporters not to go to the fundraising concerts. The question: Is it fair to ask newspaper staffers — or employees at other news media, for that matter — not to attend events that may have a political purpose? Are the rules different for different jobs at the news outlet?

Deep Throat, and His Motive The Watergate story is considered perhaps American journalism’s defining accomplishment. Two intrepid young reporters for The Washington Post , carefully verifying and expanding upon information given to them by sources they went to great lengths to protect, revealed brutally damaging information about one of the most powerful figures on Earth, the American president. The question: Is protecting a source more important than revealing all the relevant information about a news story?

When Sources Won’t Talk The SPJ Code of Ethics offers guidance on at least three aspects of this dilemma. “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.” One source was not sufficient in revealing this information. The question: How could the editors maintain credibility and remain fair to both sides yet find solid sources for a news tip with inflammatory allegations?

A Suspect “Confession” John Mark Karr, 41, was arrested in mid-August in Bangkok, Thailand, at the request of Colorado and U.S. officials. During questioning, he confessed to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Karr was arrested after Michael Tracey, a journalism professor at the University of Colorado, alerted authorities to information he had drawn from e-mails Karr had sent him over the past four years. The question: Do you break a confidence with your source if you think it can solve a murder — or protect children half a world away?

Who’s the “Predator”? “To Catch a Predator,” the ratings-grabbing series on NBC’s Dateline, appeared to catch on with the public. But it also raised serious ethical questions for journalists. The question: If your newspaper or television station were approached by Perverted Justice to participate in a “sting” designed to identify real and potential perverts, should you go along, or say, “No thanks”? Was NBC reporting the news or creating it?

The Media’s Foul Ball The Chicago Cubs in 2003 were five outs from advancing to the World Series for the first time since 1945 when a 26-year-old fan tried to grab a foul ball, preventing outfielder Moises Alou from catching it. The hapless fan's identity was unknown. But he became recognizable through televised replays as the young baby-faced man in glasses, a Cubs baseball cap and earphones who bobbled the ball and was blamed for costing the Cubs a trip to the World Series. The question: Given the potential danger to the man, should he be identified by the media?

Publishing Drunk Drivers’ Photos When readers of The Anderson News picked up the Dec. 31, 1997, issue of the newspaper, stripped across the top of the front page was a New Year’s greeting and a warning. “HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR,” the banner read. “But please don’t drink and drive and risk having your picture published.” Readers were referred to the editorial page where White explained that starting in January 1998 the newspaper would publish photographs of all persons convicted of drunken driving in Anderson County. The question: Is this an appropriate policy for a newspaper?

Naming Victims of Sex Crimes On January 8, 2007, 13-year-old Ben Ownby disappeared while walking home from school in Beaufort, Missouri. A tip from a school friend led police on a frantic four-day search that ended unusually happily: the police discovered not only Ben, but another boy as well—15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck, who, four years earlier, had disappeared while riding his bike at the age of 11. Media scrutiny on Shawn’s years of captivity became intense. The question: Question: Should children who are thought to be the victims of sexual abuse ever be named in the media? What should be done about the continued use of names of kidnap victims who are later found to be sexual assault victims? Should use of their names be discontinued at that point?

A Self-Serving Leak San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams were widely praised for their stories about sports figures involved with steroids. They turned their investigation into a very successful book, Game of Shadows . And they won the admiration of fellow journalists because they were willing to go to prison to protect the source who had leaked testimony to them from the grand jury investigating the BALCO sports-and-steroids. Their source, however, was not quite so noble. The question: Should the two reporters have continued to protect this key source even after he admitted to lying? Should they have promised confidentiality in the first place?

The Times and Jayson Blair Jayson Blair advanced quickly during his tenure at The New York Times , where he was hired as a full-time staff writer after his internship there and others at The Boston Globe and The Washington Post . Even accusations of inaccuracy and a series of corrections to his reports on Washington, D.C.-area sniper attacks did not stop Blair from moving on to national coverage of the war in Iraq. But when suspicions arose over his reports on military families, an internal review found that he was fabricating material and communicating with editors from his Brooklyn apartment — or within the Times building — rather than from outside New York. The question: How does the Times investigate problems and correct policies that allowed the Blair scandal to happen?

Cooperating with the Government It began on Jan. 18, 2005, and ended two weeks later after the longest prison standoff in recent U.S. history. The question: Should your media outlet go along with the state’s request not to release the information?

Offensive Images Caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad didn’t cause much of a stir when they were first published in September 2005. But when they were republished in early 2006, after Muslim leaders called attention to the 12 images, it set off rioting throughout the Islamic world. Embassies were burned; people were killed. After the rioting and killing started, it was difficult to ignore the cartoons. Question: Do we publish the cartoons or not?

The Sting Perverted-Justice.com is a Web site that can be very convenient for a reporter looking for a good story. But the tactic raises some ethical questions. The Web site scans Internet chat rooms looking for men who can be lured into sexually explicit conversations with invented underage correspondents. Perverted-Justice posts the men’s pictures on its Web site. Is it ethically defensible to employ such a sting tactic? Should you buy into the agenda of an advocacy group — even if it’s an agenda as worthy as this one?

A Media-Savvy Killer Since his first murder in 1974, the “BTK” killer — his own acronym, for “bind, torture, kill” — has sent the Wichita Eagle four letters and one poem. How should a newspaper, or other media outlet, handle communications from someone who says he’s guilty of multiple sensational crimes? And how much should it cooperate with law enforcement authorities?

A Congressman’s Past The (Portland) Oregonian learned that a Democratic member of the U.S. Congress, up for re-election to his fourth term, had been accused by an ex-girlfriend of a sexual assault some 28 years previously. But criminal charges never were filed, and neither the congressman, David Wu, nor his accuser wanted to discuss the case now, only weeks before the 2004 election. Question: Should The Oregonian publish this story?

Using this Process to Craft a Policy It used to be that a reporter would absolutely NEVER let a source check out a story before it appeared. But there has been growing acceptance of the idea that it’s more important to be accurate than to be independent. Do we let sources see what we’re planning to write? And if we do, when?

SPJ News –  SPJ condemns arrest of freelance reporter at UCLA and demands charges be dropped –  SPJ-led coalition demands Texas authorities drop charges against photojournalist Carlos Sanchez –  Region 8 Mark of Excellence Awards 2023 winners announced

• Manage Subscription

Review: James Seay’s essay collection reflects on mortality, literature and the natural world

May 4, 2024 at 12:00 p.m.

by Bradley Sides / Chapter16.org

"COME! COME! WHERE? WHERE?" by James Seay (University of North Carolina Press, 184 pages, $23).

James Seay takes readers to Mississippi, Moscow and many places in between in his latest book, a reflective and tender essay collection titled "Come! Come! Where? Where?"

In the opening essays, the author reflects on his own loss and grief. For example, "Down Among the Bones, the Darks, the Sparrows" finds Seay at his son's grave, observing a bee. Seay remarks, "At the moment, a bee is testing a plastic flower at the base of Josh's gravestone, then it moves on to the asters and marigolds, Russian sage and rosemary I have brought to his grave today." We, as readers, see — and feel — the presence of death, but we also, as the essay reveals itself, see life in the memories and objects that exist at the edges.

A similar careful juxtaposition exists within the next essay, "Wheat Field With Crows," which goes back in time and captures "a birthday trip to New York City" with the author and his son. We see the life and joy of the moment, but, with the knowledge of the preceding essay, we also know the pain of how the story will ultimately end.

In "Through the Trees," the author again reflects on mortality, but this time his own. Through "pale blue neon light" from a nearby funeral home, filtered on his childhood bedroom wall through a few trees, the presence of death makes its haunting entrance. It lingers, too, as family sickness becomes a frequent occurrence.

Seay, a Mississippi native who taught for a time at Vanderbilt University, is the author of four books of poetry and directed the creative writing program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1987 to 1997. His poetic sensibilities, which come to life through his command of language, shine when he discusses the convergence of literature and the natural world.

"One Corner of Yoknapatawpha" reflects beautifully on this very relationship, as Seay examines Faulkner's fictional county and his own experience of Faulkner's world: "I was aware too of another phenomenon having to do with literature and place. If I had never read Faulkner and you took me to this bean field and told me all about it and the clubhouse, which resembled the house of a tenant farmer more than a hunting lodge, I would nod and agree, but in truth it would be little more than just another bean field to me. When an author sets a narrative in motion around an actual place that we recognize, however, that place becomes invested with a kind of extra-reality, if the fiction has established a valid claim on our imagination. In addition to its own history, the place takes on that of the fiction as well."

Elsewhere, in "Avian Voices: Trying Not To Kill a Mockingbird," Seay summons Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird," as well as David Lynch's film "Blue Velvet," Seamus Heaney's translation of "Beowulf" and Bede's "Ecclesiastical History of the English People." In this standout essay, Seay writes about trying to protect his garden from deer, an aggressively protective mockingbird and the monitored behavior of other types of birds. Readers with a special awareness of the avian world will likely find much kinship with the observations in this particular essay.

"I am not going to kill the mockingbird," Seay writes. "Truth to tell, I have become amused at his antics. Yesterday morning I walked out toward my garden and he took flight from the fence. I have a screenhouse that is elevated on wood pilings, but there is only a three-foot space between its floor beam and the ground. The mockingbird made a straight course for that restricted opening and flew under the screenhouse and out the other side. Showoff. But maybe a hint of détente. He didn't swoop down on me."

One of the most appealing qualities of "Come! Come! Where? Where?" is how richly diverse the contents are. Outside of the essays focused on mortality, grief, literature and the natural world, Seay writes about his grandmother's fried chicken ("Our Hands in the History of It"), life in a single-wide trailer ("The Single-Wide Wars") and how dogs get their perfect and intentional names ("Dogs With Agency").

"Come! Come! Where? Where?" is the kind of book that, by its end, reminds us of our world and our place in it. Even when it focuses on death, it is still buzzing with life.

For more local book coverage, visit Chapter16.org , an online publication of Humanities Tennessee.

Upcoming Events