Cameron Knupp
ck900019@ohio.edu
The 1st Amendment to the U.S Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and guarantees a free press, but that does not mean that journalists should be free from the responsibility of the potential consequences of their speech.
The people have to be able to trust that the information they get from journalists is accurate, honest, and fair to make decisions about the world around them.
What's a code without enforcement?
The Society of Professional Journalists does not have a judicial system similar to those found in other professions like medicine and law. That is to ensure independence from government agencies and allow journalists to make their own decisions when balancing different interests.
For instance, a journalist may face balancing the public's right to know with protecting the interests of a victim of a violent crime. A traditional judicial system would leave little nuance for situations like these.
Without a black and white system to determine wrong-doing, journalism ethics codes are contingent upon the journalists themselves to take the codes to heart and make tough decisions based on the codes guidelines. Without the journalist taking that responsibility, the codes would be irrelevant.
Accuracy
According to a study conducted by the Media Insight Project https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/trust-news/single-page/ 85% of adults say accuracy is a critical reason they trust a news source.
The Society of Professional Journalists places a premium on accuracy in their code of ethics, urging its members to "Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Using original sources whenever possible."
Accuracy is an essential part of a journalist's ethics. The public has to be sure that they can trust the information being presented to them. If they feel that a journalist is presenting information that they know to be untrue, it may cause them to call the journalist's credibility into question.
Worse, if the public accepts the lies as fact, it can spread misinformation and cause societal damage to our democracy.
The Race to Be First
According to the same study, 76% of adults say having the latest details is a critical reason they trust a news source.
That is an example of an instance where a journalist must balance two interests at once. First, news must be timely, especially in the digital age, where news cycles seem to move faster than ever before.
And second, sometimes, details can be left on the back burner to get information out quickly. The SPJ Code of ethics urges its members to remain diligent in their accuracy, even under time constraints saying, "Remember that neither speed nor accuracy excuses inaccuracy."
Getting to the Point
The study found that the third most cited factor in why Americans rely on a news source is that the source is clear and concise, saying that 72% of adults value news reporting that's concise and to the point.
 |
| Jasmine McNealy Picture from www.nieman lab.org |
That is yet another instance where journalists must balance two interests. Yes, being clear and concise is essential for getting the information across. When irrelevant information is included, it could confuse the reader and take away from the overall point of the story. However, it is always essential to provide context. The SPJ Code of Ethics says, "Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story." If the context is left out of the story, it could change its meaning.
According to Jasmine McNealy, an associate professor at the University of Florida's College of Journalism and Communications, https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/12/a-call-for-context/"To be sure, a holistic approach, one that grounds data - reporting - in particular the social environment would go a long way in reversing the loss of trust in mainstream journalism."
No comments:
Post a Comment