Seek and Report the Truth
Everything a journalist must print must be accurate. Period. If a writer publishes something false, it puts their reputation and the reputation of their publisher at risk of backlash and even legal sanctions depending on the extent of the falsehood. This is why, if you are an aspiring journalist, you must always verify your information—never just use one source and never go on good faith that information is probably right. To ensure that your information is accurate, keep records of your research and sources that you can refer to if you are challenged by someone of spreading false information.
A good way to ensure you don't get the facts wrong is to only use credible, verifiable sources. Consider the motive behind what somebody says to you before you publish it—they don’t have to be ethical, but you do, and many a journalist has been led astray by a lying source. This is why interviewing authorities over regular people and using frames like "according to" protects you from the false statements that other people may say. When possible, get multiple perspectives on an incident and make sure that all the accounts line up. Speaking of getting quotes and witness accounts, make sure that you represent your sources accurately. Make sure that all facts and quotes are built around proper context and that you do not misrepresent what someone said. This is a good way to lose a source and your credibility at the same time. Also avoid stereotyping when you provide your context and never distort the facts, even if it means you have to change your story.
This all being said, you make make a legitimate error from time to time, when this happens, you need to alert your publisher and run a correction for your story to protect your credibility. If the error involves a source, personally apologize and make an effort to make it right.
Still, there are cases where you risk legal punishment. One of those is if you commit libel, or a published falsehood against a person intended to damage their reputation. Libel (and its spoken cousin, slander) are serious charges that, if found guilty, would result in a large fine and even jail time in some states. However, there is an ironclad defense to libel accusations: proof that you told the truth (though you may still be in trouble if your story violates someone's privacy). Libel laws are another reason that journalists tend to quote authority figures: it's harder for public figures to win libel suits (a private citizen only has to prove that a publisher was "negligent" in reporting, or just did a poor job researching the story, while a public figure like a politician or celebrity has to prove "actual malice," or that the reporter knew the information was false but intentionally used it anyway to hurt the figure's reputation). The reason that there is a difference between private figures and public figures is that, in the words of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in the majority decision of libel case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and [. . .] may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The best way to avoid libel is to always tell the truth, use public comments whenever possible, and talk about actions and effects instead of moral character--this keeps your prose more objective.
A good way to ensure you don't get the facts wrong is to only use credible, verifiable sources. Consider the motive behind what somebody says to you before you publish it—they don’t have to be ethical, but you do, and many a journalist has been led astray by a lying source. This is why interviewing authorities over regular people and using frames like "according to" protects you from the false statements that other people may say. When possible, get multiple perspectives on an incident and make sure that all the accounts line up. Speaking of getting quotes and witness accounts, make sure that you represent your sources accurately. Make sure that all facts and quotes are built around proper context and that you do not misrepresent what someone said. This is a good way to lose a source and your credibility at the same time. Also avoid stereotyping when you provide your context and never distort the facts, even if it means you have to change your story.
This all being said, you make make a legitimate error from time to time, when this happens, you need to alert your publisher and run a correction for your story to protect your credibility. If the error involves a source, personally apologize and make an effort to make it right.
Still, there are cases where you risk legal punishment. One of those is if you commit libel, or a published falsehood against a person intended to damage their reputation. Libel (and its spoken cousin, slander) are serious charges that, if found guilty, would result in a large fine and even jail time in some states. However, there is an ironclad defense to libel accusations: proof that you told the truth (though you may still be in trouble if your story violates someone's privacy). Libel laws are another reason that journalists tend to quote authority figures: it's harder for public figures to win libel suits (a private citizen only has to prove that a publisher was "negligent" in reporting, or just did a poor job researching the story, while a public figure like a politician or celebrity has to prove "actual malice," or that the reporter knew the information was false but intentionally used it anyway to hurt the figure's reputation). The reason that there is a difference between private figures and public figures is that, in the words of Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in the majority decision of libel case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and [. . .] may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." The best way to avoid libel is to always tell the truth, use public comments whenever possible, and talk about actions and effects instead of moral character--this keeps your prose more objective.
Act Independently
Journalists are beholden to the truth and their publisher—that’s it. Journalists need to remain independent to avoid accusations of personal bias. This will give a reporter a reputation as someone that people can trust to tell it like it is. Even reviews and opinion articles, which are naturally more subjective and biased, need to come from a place of expertise and professionalism in order for the journalist to maintain their journalistic ethos.
One way for a reporter to avoid personal bias is to present views from all stakeholders, even if they disagree. The writer should also never take sides in social or political articles and let the stakeholders be the voice of their side. However, this doesn't mean the reporter has to waste their time on sophist arguments, or those made by people who want to argue for the sake or argument or ignorance. For example, in an article about the Holocaust, a journalist does not have to also discuss Holocaust denial, as the Holocaust is a historical fact and those who deny it are objectively wrong (and ultimately doing it for racist reasons). In fact, by presenting "both sides" of some issues will actually help spread ignorance by creating a false equivalency and making a fringe group of sophists look like legitimate experts.
Journalist must also avoid gifts or favors from stakeholders who want coverage or who want stories about them to be positive. This may seem obvious, but journalists get into complex situations all the time. For example, what is a journalist to do if they want to review a new restaurant and the restaurant insists that the journalist doesn't have to pay? Is this the same as a free, invite-only press screening for the new Shrek movie? What about a journalist interviewing her old boyfriend who has just become mayor in their small town? Or a journalist who accepts a diplomatic invite from a third-world dictator for a tour of their capital city?
There are unfortunately no easy answers, as every situation is unique. However, there are some guidelines if you, as a journalist, want to remain independent. First, lean on your publisher to give assignments as an impartial employer. When potential conflicts of interest occur (such as needing to interview a close friend), disclose them when they are unavoidable. Never pay for access to a story or a source and deny anyone favored treatment in exchange for access. Only accept a "free" meal or event pass if it is being offered to lots of different media agencies with no expectation of positive coverage.
A common frustration in acting independently is when encountering advertiser. Lots of websites and magazines today host "sponsored content" which appear to be news stories but are, in reality, ads to sell a product. A good publisher will not blur the line between their ads and news, and will make sure sponsored content is absent from their publications. Journalists should never compromise their stories for an advertiser or publication owner and should refuse anything that seems like favoritism of patronage.
One way for a reporter to avoid personal bias is to present views from all stakeholders, even if they disagree. The writer should also never take sides in social or political articles and let the stakeholders be the voice of their side. However, this doesn't mean the reporter has to waste their time on sophist arguments, or those made by people who want to argue for the sake or argument or ignorance. For example, in an article about the Holocaust, a journalist does not have to also discuss Holocaust denial, as the Holocaust is a historical fact and those who deny it are objectively wrong (and ultimately doing it for racist reasons). In fact, by presenting "both sides" of some issues will actually help spread ignorance by creating a false equivalency and making a fringe group of sophists look like legitimate experts.
Journalist must also avoid gifts or favors from stakeholders who want coverage or who want stories about them to be positive. This may seem obvious, but journalists get into complex situations all the time. For example, what is a journalist to do if they want to review a new restaurant and the restaurant insists that the journalist doesn't have to pay? Is this the same as a free, invite-only press screening for the new Shrek movie? What about a journalist interviewing her old boyfriend who has just become mayor in their small town? Or a journalist who accepts a diplomatic invite from a third-world dictator for a tour of their capital city?
There are unfortunately no easy answers, as every situation is unique. However, there are some guidelines if you, as a journalist, want to remain independent. First, lean on your publisher to give assignments as an impartial employer. When potential conflicts of interest occur (such as needing to interview a close friend), disclose them when they are unavoidable. Never pay for access to a story or a source and deny anyone favored treatment in exchange for access. Only accept a "free" meal or event pass if it is being offered to lots of different media agencies with no expectation of positive coverage.
A common frustration in acting independently is when encountering advertiser. Lots of websites and magazines today host "sponsored content" which appear to be news stories but are, in reality, ads to sell a product. A good publisher will not blur the line between their ads and news, and will make sure sponsored content is absent from their publications. Journalists should never compromise their stories for an advertiser or publication owner and should refuse anything that seems like favoritism of patronage.
Avoid Harm
Like doctors, journalists commit to doing no harm. While that seems a little more natural for a doctor prescribing potentially-fatal medicine and surgeries, a journalist can also put lives at risk by ruining a person's reputation, promoting a dangerous ideology, or exposing everyday people to the spotlight of the public eye. Journalists have taken down presidents, helped regimes take power, inspired mass panic, and have resulted in the deaths of subjects and reporters alike. Stories always have public consequences.
So what can a journalist do to avoid harm? Remember that everyone, from readers and subjects, are humans deserving of respect. Consider if printing a story would cause undue harm on an individual or group. This is why journalists provide anonymity (complete secrecy of their identity) to their sources in some cases. For example, if a police officer tells a reporter about the corruption in her department, she may be fired in retribution, or worse, left without backup in a dangerous situation. Journalists need to respect the privacy of others and the harm that may come to them if their privacy is exposed. This is not just and ethical requirement but a legal requirement, as more journalists have been prosecuted over privacy violations than libel accusations. Thus, a good journalist will always respect the privacy of others and be aware that even composite, general subjects could still reveal an anonymous source.
Journalists must also consider the precarious situations that they may be in. Their name is on the story in the byline, making them subject to backlash and repercussions. Even if a story is important, it may affect the safety and livelihood of the reporter. However, as we'll see later, if withholding a story may cause the public harm, a journalist has a duty to go forward with a story. The journalist in my example who discovered the police corruption must publish the story, as a corrupt police force certainly harms a community. This may mean that the corrupt local police force could start pulling the journalist over and harassing them if they live in the area, so the journalist should make sure to take extra precautions, such as co-writing the story with an editor (who by virtue of their position can't be threatened as easily) or by working with a larger media outlet that is not subject to local authority to release the story.
So what can a journalist do to avoid harm? Remember that everyone, from readers and subjects, are humans deserving of respect. Consider if printing a story would cause undue harm on an individual or group. This is why journalists provide anonymity (complete secrecy of their identity) to their sources in some cases. For example, if a police officer tells a reporter about the corruption in her department, she may be fired in retribution, or worse, left without backup in a dangerous situation. Journalists need to respect the privacy of others and the harm that may come to them if their privacy is exposed. This is not just and ethical requirement but a legal requirement, as more journalists have been prosecuted over privacy violations than libel accusations. Thus, a good journalist will always respect the privacy of others and be aware that even composite, general subjects could still reveal an anonymous source.
Journalists must also consider the precarious situations that they may be in. Their name is on the story in the byline, making them subject to backlash and repercussions. Even if a story is important, it may affect the safety and livelihood of the reporter. However, as we'll see later, if withholding a story may cause the public harm, a journalist has a duty to go forward with a story. The journalist in my example who discovered the police corruption must publish the story, as a corrupt police force certainly harms a community. This may mean that the corrupt local police force could start pulling the journalist over and harassing them if they live in the area, so the journalist should make sure to take extra precautions, such as co-writing the story with an editor (who by virtue of their position can't be threatened as easily) or by working with a larger media outlet that is not subject to local authority to release the story.
Be Open and Accountable
As we've seen in the harm that could possibly come to journalists, reporters are responsible for the stories they write and have to face reactions to their work. In order to face challenges by the public, political officials, and even other journalists, a good reporter needs to be open about their reporting. A journalist should be able to explain their research process and show their notes are verifiable with legitimate sources.
This is why the choice to keep a source anonymous is seldom used by journalists--they only use anonymous sources if there are no other sources that are as informative and if knowing the source's identity would put them at a real risk of harm. So if this is the case, how does one stay open and transparent? One way is through having other publications verify the story through their own independent investigations, where they can find their own sources. Another way if for an expert or source to come forward and break anonymity by verifying the information. However, the best way to stay open and transparent when you can't reveal sources is by having a strong ethos--that is, a good reputation for consistently telling the truth and reporting stories fairly and accurately. This is why newer reporters seldom get assignments that will result in controversy or the need to use anonymity--they lack the history of good reporting that will help shield them from undue criticism.
Accountability is also why journalists don't just accept anonymous information sent to their email--it's not verifiable. Journalists also avoid gathering information by illicit or undercover means--while this may be the only way for reporters to get information on gangs or criminals, it also leaves them open to arrest or suppression of their stories. In order to be accountable to their publisher and the public, journalists also need to respond quickly to questions about their work, defending their right to report and acknowledging and correcting any mistakes or misconceptions.
Journalists are also subject to copyright laws. Journalists never plagiarize, sourcing every quote and image that they use in the article. If a journalist does violate copyright, they can be fined or jailed and are almost always fired. This even applies to a journalist's previous works: if a reporter references a previous article they wrote, they have to cite it in their new article or else they can be guilty of self-plagiarism. This is also why a journalist who rewrites and updates an article as more news breaks must add a correction instead of merely adding more sentences--to do so otherwise constitutes self-plagiarism. Even though there is solid logic behind this practice, it goes to show that journalism can be weird sometimes.
This is why the choice to keep a source anonymous is seldom used by journalists--they only use anonymous sources if there are no other sources that are as informative and if knowing the source's identity would put them at a real risk of harm. So if this is the case, how does one stay open and transparent? One way is through having other publications verify the story through their own independent investigations, where they can find their own sources. Another way if for an expert or source to come forward and break anonymity by verifying the information. However, the best way to stay open and transparent when you can't reveal sources is by having a strong ethos--that is, a good reputation for consistently telling the truth and reporting stories fairly and accurately. This is why newer reporters seldom get assignments that will result in controversy or the need to use anonymity--they lack the history of good reporting that will help shield them from undue criticism.
Accountability is also why journalists don't just accept anonymous information sent to their email--it's not verifiable. Journalists also avoid gathering information by illicit or undercover means--while this may be the only way for reporters to get information on gangs or criminals, it also leaves them open to arrest or suppression of their stories. In order to be accountable to their publisher and the public, journalists also need to respond quickly to questions about their work, defending their right to report and acknowledging and correcting any mistakes or misconceptions.
Journalists are also subject to copyright laws. Journalists never plagiarize, sourcing every quote and image that they use in the article. If a journalist does violate copyright, they can be fined or jailed and are almost always fired. This even applies to a journalist's previous works: if a reporter references a previous article they wrote, they have to cite it in their new article or else they can be guilty of self-plagiarism. This is also why a journalist who rewrites and updates an article as more news breaks must add a correction instead of merely adding more sentences--to do so otherwise constitutes self-plagiarism. Even though there is solid logic behind this practice, it goes to show that journalism can be weird sometimes.
Do Good
Finally, good journalism is about using the truth to lift people up. While we've looked at how bad journalism can cause harm, good journalism does more than avoid harm--it is a public good that will make the lives of those living in a community better. A good journalist will always consider the human element of every story--news is for humans, after all. Stories should be as positive as possible--even articles about terrible things like murder, corruption, celebrity deaths, and sports losses should try to look optimistically and offer solutions rather than dwell on misery.
That being said, journalists have an obligation as a public watchdog, trusted to expose those that are doing harm to the community. Good journalists help speak truth to power and give voice to the voiceless--they address community injustice and threats to citizens of every ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and income level. Journalist protect these groups by considering them as stakeholders, spotlighting their struggles, and giving them a platform to tell their stories. Even when a journalist or their audience will find the views of a voiceless stakeholder repugnant, such as interviewing a rapist or murderer alongside of their victims, journalists have a duty to hear their stories not to promote them but to understand and reveal the entire picture.
As a platform, news media also serves as a forum for the civil exchange of views. Instead of yelling about politics in the streets (or on Twitter), media allows debate with the advantages of rules of decorum (as comments need to be printable) and fact-checking. However, journalists also must fight incivility using their platform: any perspective that seeks to dehumanize, debase, or degrade others is not ethically allowable. True journalists never endorse racists, sexists, or demagogues who hope to limit the power of the press or pressure the press into silencing voices in the community. Even when it is not easy, a journalist must always do the right thing.
That being said, journalists have an obligation as a public watchdog, trusted to expose those that are doing harm to the community. Good journalists help speak truth to power and give voice to the voiceless--they address community injustice and threats to citizens of every ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and income level. Journalist protect these groups by considering them as stakeholders, spotlighting their struggles, and giving them a platform to tell their stories. Even when a journalist or their audience will find the views of a voiceless stakeholder repugnant, such as interviewing a rapist or murderer alongside of their victims, journalists have a duty to hear their stories not to promote them but to understand and reveal the entire picture.
As a platform, news media also serves as a forum for the civil exchange of views. Instead of yelling about politics in the streets (or on Twitter), media allows debate with the advantages of rules of decorum (as comments need to be printable) and fact-checking. However, journalists also must fight incivility using their platform: any perspective that seeks to dehumanize, debase, or degrade others is not ethically allowable. True journalists never endorse racists, sexists, or demagogues who hope to limit the power of the press or pressure the press into silencing voices in the community. Even when it is not easy, a journalist must always do the right thing.