20 Ethics Issues in Visual and Audio Journalism
Seeking truth with the camera or microphone while minimizing harm
The public, aware how easy digital manipulation can be, must be able to trust the truthfulness of the news media’s photography and audio reports.
News organizations have adopted standards to ensure the integrity of their photography and audio reports.
The success of podcasts has created a new opportunity for audio journalism where ethics standards are still being formulated.
Recognizing that some news photography can offend the audience, journalists weigh its news value against the likely offense.
A number of news organizations are reducing their use of police arrest portraits because of fairness concerns.
The use of aerial drones for news photography is increasing, and ethics guidelines are being put in place to protect privacy and safety.
Case Study: The Falling Man, World Trade Center, 2001
Case Study: Photographing a Man Pushed to His Death
21 Stolen Words and Invented Facts
Dishonesty can kill a career in journalism
Plagiarism and fabrication are morally wrong. Plagiarism is stealing the creative work of another. Fabrication is making things up and presenting them as fact.
The offenses of plagiarism and fabrication destroy journalism’s credibility and cost offenders their jobs and their careers.
Committing illegal acts is unacceptable in the pursuit of news.
Following sound work practices can help you avoid any hint of impropriety.
Newsroom leaders have a duty to establish clear rules about journalistic misconduct and to enforce them.
22 The Business of Producing Journalism
Seeking financial stability in a turbulent era of transition
Technological and economic transition has caused tensions in today’s news media.
More people are getting their news digitally, but online sites are struggling to find stable sources of revenue.
Although advertisers have historically paid for news coverage, consumers are now being asked to pay for digital subscriptions.
Native advertising has found a home on news websites, where stringent rules are needed to protect integrity of news content.
The business and news executives of media companies frequently have a strained relationship, mainly because their cultures are so different.
Case Study: Sharing Ad Profits, Creating a Crisis
Thoughts to Take With You
Glossary
Index
Foreword
By Philip B. Corbett
The writer is associate managing editor for standards of The New York Times.
It feels like ancient history, but it wasn’t so long ago that our whole job in the newsroom of The New York Times was to put out the print paper once a day. It seemed hard at the time – unforgiving deadlines, lots of stress and pounding on keyboards. Now, looking back, I wonder what we actually did all day. One print edition every 24 hours? Sounds pretty cushy.
Everything’s different now, for The Times and every other news organization. A daily print paper, yes, many newsrooms still do that. But now we also have minute-by-minute digital deadlines, 24 hours a day. Constant social media posting on an ever-expanding range of platforms. Video. Audio. Interactive graphics. Live chats. Newsletters. Every day, it seems, brings a new journalistic tool, and every innovation brings new questions about journalistic standards and ethics.
What’s appropriate for a journalist to post on Twitter, and what’s off limits? Are there different standards for corrections on breaking-news alerts? What are the anonymity rules for podcast interviews? Do reporters always have to identify themselves on Facebook? Are tools like facial-recognition technology fair game for journalists? Does Google change how we think about archived stories?
It can feel deeply disorienting. But even as the journalistic ground shifts under our feet, it’s crucial to remember this: The most important parts of our work are not changing at all.
Get the facts right. Be fair and empathetic. Guard your independence. When it’s time to hit “publish,” tell your readers, viewers and listeners the truth, as best you can.
This book explores those fundamental principles and how to apply them, whether in traditional stories or new formats. You’ll wrestle with how to balance a subject’s right to privacy with a reader’s right to know. You’ll think hard about whether your personal views might skew your reporting, and how to cultivate sources while guarding your independence. You’ll consider whether your empathy as a person ever conflicts with your obligations as a journalist. And you’ll confront the complex challenges of covering a diverse society with sensitivity and rigor.
The basic principles – accuracy, fairness, independence – are clear. But the case studies in this book demonstrate something I’ve learned and relearned during nearly four decades in journalism. For many of the most important decisions we make, there’s no single, obvious right answer. Even when we agree on the principles, it’s not always clear how they apply to a messy set of circumstances. There are hard calls, gray areas and difficult balances to strike. This textbook doesn’t provide a convenient list of the right answers to all the problems you’ll face. It helps you learn how to think about those problems.
As you grapple with these issues of journalistic standards and ethics, here’s one simple tactic I often find helpful. Imagine a thoughtful reader – fair-minded and reasonable, but tough and skeptical as well. Not your mother, who’ll applaud everything you do. And not a bad-faith critic whose whole goal is to undermine your efforts. But a reader who cares about the topic you’re covering and wants you to get it right.
Now imagine that this fair-minded but skeptical reader knows everything about how you reported, wrote or edited the story you’re working on. Heard the very conversations you’re having with your editor. Saw what you chose to put in and what you left out. Knew how you dealt with your sources. Watched while you or your colleagues decided what picture to use, what anecdote to lead with, what headline to write.
What if you walked that reader through everything you did and explained every decision you made? Would the reader trust your journalism more, or less? If there are some things about your work that you’d rather a reader not know – well, maybe you should think again about that part of the process.
Sometimes this thoughtful-reader test isn’t just a theoretical exercise. One big step forward in journalistic practices in recent years is the trend
