The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics

[coti]

These are the standards accepted in the field of journalism as distinguishing journalists from bagmen, in their entirety.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

SPJ Code of Ethics

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

— Never plagiarize.

— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.

— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

[truedelphi]

1. Unfortunately the major news agencies don't know anything about this Code of Ethics

The TRUTH Versus the Mainstream Media

by Truedelphi

The TRUTH versus The Associated Press and Controlled Mainstream Media

In this article, I lay out how the Mainstream Media is carefully controlled. The control is so pervasive that an entire article will contain made up quotes from real people saying things that they would never ever say.

The Corruption of The Associated Press
The Truth and the Associated Press


In the mid 1990's a gas additive was being mandated for use in the fuels for California gasoline.

It was called "MTBE" and even various ecology-minded groups like the Sierra Club were among those pushing to legislate its use.

I began researching the story - happy at last to research a story that seemed to be "Win-Win." For the first time since Henry Ford switched the automobile to gasoline use, Corporate America was joining forces not only with scientists but also with the environmental movement for cleaner fuel.

Or so it seemed.

But on my first day of making calls, Chevron immediately began stonewalling me. They would not release any information.

I began to have California Air Resources Board send me information on MTBE. Soon, it became evident that that the scientific evidence between the product's touted safety and its touted health benefits was contradictory at best and possibly erroneous at worst.

After six months, I had some damning evidence against MTBE. I approached several large West coast papers. Including the Mercury News in San Jose and the San Francisco Chronicle.

My press release stated that I had ample research on what was promising to be the largest story of the decade in terms of public policy affecting human health and water quality.

Initially several newspapers responded to my press release. But when they found out the the story involved Big Oil, they all backed off.

Mind you, at the time, I was not expecting these newspapers to have me do the reporting. I was willing to turn over my research to whatever
news organization wanted it. I'm a tech writer, Gul Darn it! Not a reporter. But still, there was no response.

The story and its research sat on my shelves. As it gathered dust, the public mobilized. The toxic stuff was getting in the drinking water. Even at levels as low as four parts per billion, MTBE could make your local water supply taste like it was 100% kerosene.

People who drank and showered in MTBE-tainted water had immediate health problems. Surveys showed that the chance of any water aqueduct being impacted by this pollutant were as high as 50-50. A neighborhood in San Diego had to find an alternate water source when its water supply was contaminated.

The state of California's own research showed that a high proportion of the substance would be converted into formaldehyde, a seriously toxic chemical, once the MTBE hit the automobile's compression cycle.

Finally an independent newspaper, "The Coastal Post," wanted my story on MTBE. I wrote it and it went out. (www.coastalpost.com)

That issue came out in June of 1997. After that, Paul Hersch of "Water Online" re-edited my copy and put the word out on the Internet. Three months later, at the end of September, the SF Chronicle finally tackled the story. Yes, the independent monthly that published me beat out the San Francisco Chronicle by months!!

Next, a Blue Ribbon Panel was appointed by CA Gov Davis. It would be headed by John Froines. His team of researchers would look into MTBE and then determine if it posed a serious risk to the public's safety.

In late 1998, while browsing through a local paper, I saw a headline. It read: "MTBE PROVEN TO BE NON-CARCINOGENIC." The article carried an Associated Press byline. Apparently Froines had sold out. And thus he had compromised the Blue Ribbon Panel? How dare he!!

I was so mad, I was frothing. Various activists had told me that John Froines would never, ever be bought out. His respect reached across party lines. His years as an independent researcher encouraged most anti-MTBE activists to believe that his research on MTBE would remain independent as well. Most people felt that he was someone beyond the reach of the millions of bucks that the oil companies would offer for a scientist to taint the research.

From my research, I had conclusive evidence that the main reason that the oil companies loved MTBE was a sinister tale. Their love for MTBE was not because of its supposed environmental charms, but because it would save them money. MTBE was so entirely noxious, due to both its content of ether, and its propensity to turn into formaldehyde once inside a car's compression system, that it should have been carted off and buried at a SuperFund site. But instead of being placed in a SuperFund site, the MTBE was placed into the gasoline and then sold to the public.

The news that Froines had possibly sold out troubled me. He had been a childhood hero - he was one of the original Chicago Seven. The trial of these activists had given me hope at a time when the war in Vietnam oppressed the spirits of many young people.

By March or April of 1999, there were hearings in Sacramento. I heard Froines would be there. I decided I would attend - feeling that he was owed a punch in the face, if nothing else.

Got to the hearings. Told Froines why I was there. He said, "Well why are you upset with me?" I showed him the news copy and he laughed.

"Carol, please believe me, I SAID EXACTLY THE opposite of what that headline reads. I would never ever say that MTBE was not carcinogenic. In fact, all of my panel's study of that compound indicates that it deserves a prominent spot on Prop 65 list." (Prop 65 is a CA state law that requires that any chemical deemed a potent health risk must be listed as such, and that any place of business using a listed item must disclose that fact to the public.)

I felt relief that Froines had proven to stay above the corrupting processes of Big Industry. Apparently though, the media was not afraid of being corrupted by the Oil Companies. Apparently, Mainstream Media liked being corrupted.

Froines continued: "So Carol, all of the quotes attributed to me inside that AP article are made up as well. Since my announcement of what my panel's research was able to prove did not fit their agenda, they simply fabricated my words!" He went on to explain that although the Blue Ribbon panel could not yet PROVE that MTBE was a carcinogen, they felt that they were close to proving that.

So my involvement with the MTBE issue taught me an important concept- it takes a long time for a story against the better interests of the Big Oil, Big Banking, Military interests etc to arrive on the printed page.

And even once a subject is included in the day's news, its presence will be altered so that the Powers that Be can make the sale on the Major Industry's product. If lies are required to do that, the Press will go down as a willing accomplice!

Truth be Damned!
####