Katana VentraIP

Journalism ethics and standards

Journalistic ethics and standards comprise principles of ethics and good practice applicable to journalists. This subset of media ethics is known as journalism's professional "code of ethics" and the "canons of journalism".[1] The basic codes and canons commonly appear in statements by professional journalism associations and individual print, broadcast, and online news organizations.

There are around 400 codes covering journalistic work around the world. While various codes may differ in the detail of their content and come from different cultural traditions, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy and fact-based communications, independence, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, respect for others and public accountability, as these apply to the gathering, editing and dissemination of newsworthy information to the public.[1][2][3][4]


Like many broader ethical systems, the ethics of journalism include the principle of "limitation of harm". This may involve enhanced respect for vulnerable groups and the withholding of certain details from reports, such as the names of minor children, crime victims' names, or information not materially related to the news report where the release of such information might, for example, harm someone's reputation or put them at undue risk.[5][6] There has also been discussion and debate within the journalism community regarding appropriate reporting of suicide and mental health, particularly with regard to verbiage.[7]


Some journalistic codes of ethics, notably some European codes,[8] also include a concern with discriminatory references in news based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical or mental disabilities.[9][10][11][12] The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved (in 1993) Resolution 1003 on the Ethics of Journalism, which recommends that journalists respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases that are still sub judice.[13]

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available and to seek . Properly using their sources and using accurate quoting and use of words from interview or conversation.[19]

reliable sources

Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.

Independent by another employee of the publisher is desirable. In 2018 "The Acton Plan" was created to help check information more effectively to hopefully get rid of false information.[20]

fact-checking

Corrections are published when errors are discovered. These corrections are called corrigendum in newspapers, they feature after on the next issue published.

Defendants at trial are treated only as having "allegedly" committed crimes, until conviction, when their crimes are generally reported as fact (unless, that is, there is serious controversy about ). In most publications, when defendants are convicted or pleaded guilty they will replace "allegedly" with "convicted of", "pleaded guilty to", or "found guilty of" in their reporting to avoid the small chance of a defamation issue in the event of a wrongful conviction.

wrongful conviction

Opinion surveys and statistical information deserve special treatment to communicate in precise terms any conclusions, to contextualize the results, and to specify accuracy, including estimated error and methodological criticism or flaws. Through this information can be properly analyzed and used without heavy bias.

Journalism today is built off true, accurate and objective information. To remove those aspects would be damaging to the very core of not just journalism but also the very way information is spread and given to viewers and others all around the world. The audience will see the lack of ethics and standards, making others question what is good, reliable information, or not.

[21]

Quality journalism that scrutinizes and criticizes social, political and economic authority is in a constant state of vulnerability to manipulation and censorship, particularly from those with money and power.

[22]

Self-regulation[edit]

In addition to codes of ethics, many news organizations maintain an in-house ombudsman whose role is, in part, to keep news organizations honest and accountable to the public. The ombudsman is intended to mediate in conflicts stemming from internal or external pressures, to maintain accountability to the public for news reported, to foster self-criticism, and to encourage adherence to both codified and uncodified ethics and standards. This position may be the same or similar to the public editor, though public editors also act as a liaison with readers and do not generally become members of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen.


An alternative is a news council, an industry-wide self-regulation body, such as the Press Complaints Commission, set up by UK newspapers and magazines. Such a body is capable of applying fairly consistent standards and of dealing with a higher volume of complaints but may not escape criticisms of being toothless.

The dealt with extremely difficult ethical dilemmas faced by journalists. Despite government intervention, The Washington Post, joined by The New York Times, felt the public interest was more compelling and both published reports. The cases went to the Supreme Court where they were merged and are known as New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713.[34]

Pentagon Papers

[35]

Brown envelope journalism

Chinese wall § Journalism

Citizen journalism

Code of ethics in media

Ethical Journalism Initiative

History of American newspapers

History of journalism

International Federation of Journalists

on the democratic role of journalism

Mediatization

Munich Charter

New York Press Club

Objectivity (journalism)

Order of the Occult Hand

Organisation of News Ombudsmen

Parachute journalism

Reporters Without Borders

- Associated Press (AP)

Statement of News Values and Principles