• ADVERTISEMENT

    2014: The Year of Personalized Journalism Ethics

    by Stephen J. A. Ward
    December 15, 2014
    By Italian_Bicycles [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

    2014 brought us the year of My Journalism Ethics. It was the year that “personalizing” journalism ethics went mainstream. Big time.

    Major journalism associations, from the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) to the Online News Association (ONA) grappled with the problem of writing ethical guidelines for an increasingly personalized, opinionated, and politically biased media sphere.

    year in review 2014 image

    Click the image to read the whole series

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Some journalists embraced personalization – the idea that it is up to each journalist or each outlet to create and “customize” their own guidelines. Others rejected it. In either case, personalized ethics – “Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Ethics” – was topical and contested.

    More importantly, it has set the course for journalism ethics in 2015 and beyond.

    For this review, I could have focused on other developments, from the beheadings of foreign reporters and free press struggles in China and Egypt to a proposed Bill of Rights to control news media in Britain. I could have focused on bad behavior by journalists.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Instead, I focus on the personalized ethics movement because it speaks to the very future of journalism ethics in a digital age: What, if any, journalism ethics is possible?

    Toolkit Ethics

    What is personalized journalism ethics?

    Start with a few general principles – a minimum of “content” – and then give journalists the tools (e.g., forms of reasoning) to construct rules adapted to their practice and audiences.

    This is micro ethics: the ethics of specific platforms. It is not the traditional macro approach of journalism ethics which provides general norms for all journalists.

    Personalization asks us not to think of a code as a content-based document with many principles. Instead, think of a code as a process for those who wish to write their own codes. The code is a tool kit. It adopts only a few common principles, such as truth-telling and accuracy. Then the code provides advice, such as questions to consider for writing guidelines.

    Rather than a rich body of common principles for all journalists, there is a common process for code writing for types of journalists.

    A third response

    Photo by Jessica Spengler on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

    Photo by Jessica Spengler on Flickr and used here with Creative Commons license.

    DIY ethics did not emerge fully grown in 2014. The trend is the third and latest response to the current crisis in journalism ethics: the collapse of a craft-wide consensus on its ethics – on its aims, principles, and best practices.

    Everything is up for grabs.

    The first response occurred roughly between the late 1900s and 2006, from the rise of online journalism and the birth of Twitter. An ethics “civil war” erupted between professional journalists and citizen journalists as to who were the real journalists and whether principles of gate-keeping journalism, e.g., objectivity and pre-publication verification – were still valid. Some new media journalists said fuddy-duddy ethics did not apply to the free online world.

    The second response occurred between 2006 and 2011. The trend was mainstream accommodation. News outlets, from the BBC to the AP, wrote up guidelines on how their journalists should use social media and opine on their personal blogs. Perhaps the mainstream could civilize the online horde and re-establish order in the media universe.

    The third phase, from 2011 to today, is the growing popularity of personalization as a way to re-establish journalism ethics across many forms of journalism, not just legacy media.

    Personalization signaled that many journalists were skeptical of the possibility of a new consensus on ethics. In the end, journalism ethics may turn out to be a plurality of codes suited to particular practices, without overarching common principles. Pluralism, fragmentation and micro ethics was king; universal, macro ethics was not.

    A prime example

    The Online News Association is helping journalists create their own ethics codes.

    The Online News Association is helping journalists create their own ethics codes.

    The best example of personalized ethics in 2014 is the ONA’s current attempt to develop guidelines for members. The ONA site encourages its members to “build your own ethics” using the tools provided by the code. The ONA is “curating a toolkit to help news outlets, as well as individual bloggers/journalists, create guidelines that respond to their own concepts of journalism.”

    The toolkit starts with a small set of common principles such as tell the truth, don’t plagiarize and correct your errors. Journalists make a choice between traditional objective journalism, where your personal opinion is kept under wraps, and transparency journalism, meaning you can write from a political or social point of view as long as you’re upfront about it.

    Then, the toolkit provides guidance on constructing guidelines for about 40 areas of practice where journalists might disagree, such as removing items from online archives, use of anonymous sources and verification of social media sources.

    In a previous column, I contrasted this approach with the SPJ’s revision of its famous code of ethics, approved by members earlier this year. I said the SPJ used a de-personal approach because the revisions maintained the code’s commitment to speak for all professional journalists. It did not name specific forms of journalism. Also, unlike the personalized approach, the SPJ code remained rich in content, articulating many common principles and norms.

    For some, the DIY approach is a positive, inclusive and democratic approach, suited to a plural media world. The end of the dream of macro journalism ethics. For others, it is an abandonment of journalism ethics, an ill-timed concession to ethical subjectivism.

    A fourth response

    It is customary for year-end reviews to fearlessly predict the future. I will not shrink from this tradition, even if it may be foolhardy.

    I predict the continuing co-existence of, and tension between, the depersonalized and personalized approaches. Mainstream associations won’t abandon their depersonalize codes, and online associations won’t abandon their personalized guidelines. Nor should they. We need both forms of thinking. We need a healthy and experimental approach to code writing.

    However, I believe this third stage should give way to a fourth response, an integration of both approaches. This journalism ethics combines macro and micro, common principles and personalized applications.

    Getting the balance right will be difficult.

    Nonetheless, journalism ethics will have little future, and certainly little public credibility, unless it has the following features:

    • New unifying principles: We construct a consensus around aims and principles for all responsible journalists. We focus on common values. The key is to develop principles that express the mission of a diverse news media serving an open democracy and a global world. The content will include new aims and principles, such as advocating for global humanity, and the re-interpretation of principles such as impartiality and independence.
    • Personalized value systems for new practices: We construct specific best practices for entrepreneurial journalism, non-profit journalism, social media journalism, and other new and innovative forms of journalism.
    • Public basis for all of journalism ethics: We place a crucial restraint on the types of personalized values and practices that can be proposed. Whatever these practices are, they must be consistent with the unifying principles of democratic journalism. We recognize that the basis of journalism ethics is public, not subjective. We should be able to justify any personalization of ethics by reference to the public good, not the personal interests of individual journalists. The ultimate moral authority of any journalism ethics is not the fact that the values are “mine,” but because they promote a flourishing society, however we define it.

    Fourth-response journalism ethics will be a more complicated, sophisticated enterprise than in the past. There is no avoiding the complexities.

    Suppose that journalists ignore this advice and create a simpler personalized ethics that is subjective or idiosyncratic. It announces what they, as individuals, believe, and what ethical restraints they accept. Full stop. There is no serious attempt to link these values to the practice of journalism at large, or to provide more objective reasons for affirming their values. Then they ask the public to accept their values, and to trust that they will follow their self-created, and self-announced, ethical values.

    Given the level of public cynicism about journalists, they will be laughed derisively out of the court of public opinion. The public simply will not buy the idea of journalism ethics and self-regulation as anything less than a practice-wide accountability based on public principles.

    The public will not buy an individualized My Journalism Ethics.

    Am I dreaming?

    Is a new integrated ethics possible? It does not exist. Will it ever exist?

    That is the trouble with predicting the future. One can always think of many obstacles. The world does not always satisfy our wishes, especially in ethics.

    However, the rise of personalized ethics in 2014, especially in the form that it has taken in the ONA, advances our evolving response to ethical problems.  Personalization forces out into the open the key questions of journalism ethics today.

    Gradually, we get glimpses of how to redefine responsible journalism for a digital world.

    Stephen J. A. Ward is an internationally recognized media ethicist, author and educator. He is ethics adviser/lecturer at the University of British Columbia, Courtesy Professor at the University of Oregon, and founding director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin.

    Tagged: DIY ethics ethics codes journalism ethics media ethics ona code of ethics
    • Thank you for addressing this topic. When leaving 30 years of legacy media to focus full-time on our own community news enterprise seven years ago, I brought a strong ethics code along and made it even tighter … and now for me, the frustration is that the legacy media reps are often the ones who have loosened their ethics, leaving us on a little ice floe all our own. Online journalists too often get an undeserved rap. In the market we serve, for example, while we refuse all gifts/comps/preferential treatment/etc., many (if not most) legacy-media types do not, so when we say, “We can’t, we’re journalists,” those who’ve dealt with the others wind up confused. Similarly, we decided to always identify our sponsors (advertisers) when mentioned in any context … and that is still such a rare thing for any media, it also can lead to some head-scratching. Finally, while we keep some policies such as “no identifying suspects until they are charged” (in most cases), varying policies in legacy media leave us sometimes staunchly sticking to our guns even though some legacy op has already identified the uncharged suspect and commenters, seeing this, post a link to their story beneath ours. On the other hand, we are glad to be able to eschew some misguided, widely held legacy-media beliefs such as “don’t mention suicide, it can be contagious,” knowing that suicide-prevention groups don’t say that – what they do say is to not romanticize it nor dwell on the method; reporting on it responsibly could actually lead to more suicidal people getting help. One last thing … your ethics and policies also have to be right for the community you report to and report on. While regional media have a certain disconnect with the lives of those caught in the tragedies they cover, if you are in neighborhood media, for example, everything is closer, more vivid, more sensitive … and being acutely aware of that can affect your storytelling decisions

  • About EducationShift

    EducationShift aims to move journalism education forward with coverage of innovation in the classroom as journalism and communications schools around the globe are coping with massive technological change. The project includes a website, bi-weekly Twitter chats at #EdShift, mixers and workshops, and webinars for educators.
    Amanda Bright: Education Curator
    Mark Glaser: Executive Editor
    Design: Vega Project

    MediaShift received a grant from the Knight Foundation to revamp its EducationShift section to focus on change in journalism education.
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • ADVERTISEMENT
  • Who We Are

    MediaShift is the premier destination for insight and analysis at the intersection of media and technology. The MediaShift network includes MediaShift, EducationShift, MetricShift and Idea Lab, as well as workshops and weekend hackathons, email newsletters, a weekly podcast and a series of DigitalEd online trainings.

    About MediaShift »
    Contact us »
    Sponsor MediaShift »
    MediaShift Newsletters »

    Follow us on Social Media

    @MediaShiftorg
    @Mediatwit
    @MediaShiftPod
    Facebook.com/MediaShift