Code of Ethics? Maybe, maybe not.

Ethics. We all have a general idea of where our moral compass points but we can’t always articulate why. Weighing in at ~3 lbs, our brains can only do so much.

BUT

Hank Green effortlessly covers metaethics in his Crash Course You-Tube video, “Metaethics: Crash Course Philosophy #32“. Unfortunately, I crashed pretty bad because towards the end everything I thought I knew was questioned.

There are several layers to morality and ethics.

Theories, principles, values, and attitudes help untangle the big complicated web that is Ethics. These influence the ways in which we judge and understand the world around us.

You’ve got the moral anti-realist and the moral realist. Under that, you’ve got the moral absolutist, moral relativist, cultural relativist, and moral subjectivity. So many morals and not all are in agreement with one another.

There is one thing most journalists agree on and that is the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Several independent publications echo similar values and principles, including the Associated Press. They’re highly respectable.

I can disagree with AP style for getting rid of the oxford comma but I definitely agree with points made in their outline. (Similar to SPJ’s code)

Unfortunately, as highlighted in Frontline’s “News War” documentary, journalists (and consequently publications) front several moral dilemmas especially in today’s political climate.

Gotta keep the shareholders happy, so producing content that people will click on is top priority. Sometimes the lines of SPJ’s code of ethics get a little blurry. Just ask the folks at Fox News, CNN, and TMZ. They’re as blind as a bat when it comes to adhering to those principles.

As pointed out in the documentary, people look at news the same way they look at entertainment.

With money in the equation, journalists scramble to provide content that will generate clicks. Sometimes, though, it gets disturbing.

Principles like accuracy, minimizing harm, and transparency fly out the window. If your publication has a big wig breathing down your neck because of $$$ these lines can easily be blurred.

For example, TMZ’s coverage of Kobe Bryant’s death was a huge breach of privacy and was a scramble to cover a breaking story that would generate site traffic. This CNN article explains how the publication released sensitive information too soon. They did the complete opposite of minimizing harm and acted impulsively with dollar signs in their eyes.

When important people influence publications because of funding and power, you can pretty much kiss ‘acting independently’ goodbye.

The documentary made a great point of holding journalists accountable to the content they produce. Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor for the Washington Post, made a ruthless point when talking about accountability.

“If your sources are wrong, you’re wrong and you have to accept responsibility,” he said.

Responsibility is a big factor in building accountability and credibility. Unfortunately, credibility is contingent on so much more than just facts now. Publications are credible to their readers, listeners, and viewers depending on the similarity in values and beliefs. As discussed in our last post, we tend to follow news outlets that confirm our biases.