The Ethics of Journalists on Social Media

Emily Walsh 

ew845717@ohio.edu

 

As technology has developed over the years, there have been many changes to the journalism landscape in how we both produce and consume news and information. These changes have raised many questions about journalism ethics specifically when it comes to the topics of independence, transparency, and bias. 

What ethical standards should journalists follow in the age of social media? According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists are expected to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. However, how journalists and their employers interpret these codes is not always uniform. 

The topic of independence has been at the forefront of many discussions regarding journalism ethics and social media. Is it possible for someone to be both a good, impartial journalist and a human that shares their opinions online? 

Many major news entities such as the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal would say no. These entities have strengthened the social media policies that are in place for their journalists. The stances these two entities have taken is that their journalists represent their brand, therefore, should not post any opinions that are controversial, biased, or may harm their reputation as a news entity even on their personal accounts. 

Picture source: https://claytoonz.com/2015/04/07/sloppy-journalism/

                       

We have seen many reporters fail to meet these standards on their various social media platforms such as this reporter who was fired after he posted Tweets that "did not relate to the terms and conditions of his employment." 

However, there are some critics to this extremely limited posting approach. Is it harmful to pretend that journalists don't have their own opinions and are completely unbiased? Would it be more transparent for journalists to be upfront about their beliefs instead of pretending to be impartial? There are some pros to granting freedom to reporters regarding their digital footprint even if it is limited. This freedom and transparency could potentially help to gain the public's trust. When national stories are covered, it is near impossible to not have a single opinion about it. As a public figure that many people rely on for information, it may seem like an anomaly, if they don't have anything to say about it. It may even be offensive to not say anything. Is it fair for journalists to lose their voices to their title as a journalist?

It seems reasonable for companies to prohibit the posting of opinions that might be considered inappropriate or hateful. However, alluding to a political stance or having an opinion about anything in the news is proof that these reporters are human. Do we want that the career title of a journalist mean that we give up our voices?