A Journalistic Code of Ethics

Michaela Leach
ml456913@ohio.edu

When journalists begin reporting to the public, they may not recognize all of the responsibilities that they have taken on. First and foremost, journalists primary task is to inform the public, but just as important is their responsibility to do so in an ethical manor.

All journalists have a code of ethics that they are encouraged to follow regardless of which journalism society or association they belong to. Though the code of ethics for Society of Professional Journalists, or SPJ, is different from the code of ethics put in place by the Public Relations Society of America, or PRSA, all journalistic codes of ethics boil down to a similar common goal: to accurately report the truth while staying true to one's ethical values.

A code of ethics cannot dictate what journalists do in any given situation, but rather, it provides journalists with the tools necessary to make an ethical decision when faced with a challenging topic. The trouble with remaining ethical is that there is no clearly defined right or wrong decision, so it is crucial for journalists to be provided with resources like a code of ethics in order to make the best decision for themselves and the public.

A question that often rises from this discussion of ethical decision-making in journalism is, when does this ethical decision-making occur? The Radio Television Digital News Association, or RTDNA, believes it should occur constantly.

RTDNA states, "ethical decision-making should occur at every step of the journalistic process, including story selection, news-gathering, production, presentation and delivery." Journalists are encouraged to remain ethical both on and off the job so that ethical practices become a natural response to challenging situations.

The language used in a journalistic code of ethics clearly explains that acting ethically is something that is expected of journalists, but cannot be enforced. There is no legally defined way to investigate complaints and enforce a code of ethics, and for good reason.

Most, if not all, journalistic societies and associations can agree that legal involvement of governments, courts and their proxies would "restrict the rights to free speech and free press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution" (SPJ Code of Ethics).

Without legal involvement, how is a journalist held responsible for the decisions he or she makes while reporting? That is where the public comes in. Just as journalists are responsible for keeping the public informed, the public is responsible for holding journalists accountable to the information that they chose to report.

The public is not afraid to speak up about unethical or overall poorly done reporting, and are encouraged to do so. That is the best way to, for lack of a better term, punish a journalist. Negative exposure has the potential to destroy a journalists' career, and all it takes is one poorly made ethical decision to receive a lifetime of backlash.

All journalists are held to a very high standard when it comes to remaining ethical in reporting, and no one receives special treatment when the public is in charge of accountability. Most people live by a code of ethics for the plain sake of being a decent human being, while journalists also do so for the sake of having a successful career.