Online journalism has opened the door for non-traditional journalists to enter the industry. However, as more and more people trickle into the field, the ethical concerns inherent in journalism evolve as well. Digital media ethics of all kinds exist, they serve to streamline the practices of all sorts of online journalism: blogging, writing, photojournalism, and even social media journalism. Many discussions circle around how online journalists, and those with an audience equal to or even surpassing print journalists, should research, publish, and interact with the text. Read on to learn about how the internet is changing the field of journalism, the basics of journalistic ethics, and what new questions are arising for online journalists.

Changes in the Water

Journalism is transforming at an alarming rate–paper sales of newspapers and magazines are down, and online consumption is at an all-time high. No matter the topic–daily news, celebrity gossip, sports analysis, or even legal news–it’s online. Part of this is because of the turnaround time. No longer is there a need for multiple newspapers depending on the outcome of an event. Instead, a journalist can write, edit, post, and interact on a topic in just a few seconds on social media platforms within minutes on a blog or website.

Change can be difficult to circumvent, especially for those who are used to doing things “the old fashioned way.” Shrinking physical sales equate to shrinking profits from sales, advertising, and usage. Still, online journalism leads to experimentation, integration, and collaboration. Most of the principles taught in college classrooms up until only a few years ago centered on the mass production of newsprint, dating back to the late nineteenth century instead of the current age. Schools are picking up on the advent of digital journalism, teaching ethics, and discussing best practices. Without clear cut guidelines, however, it can be difficult to get everyone to agree on just what the online journalistic ethics actually are and how to implement them. But the question isn’t just how to come up with ethics and how to implement them, but rather: how do we create online journalistic ethics that will work for everyone creating content?

What exactly is online journalism?

Before setting any ethics, there are a few questions to answer. There is a distinct lack of clarity over what it means to be a journalist, mostly among those who actually write, but not as much among those who consume. But still, the questions remain: what is journalism and what is online journalism? Like print journalism, the online variation requires  having the skills to investigate, research, work with technology, and write clearly. Ethics wise, all of these skills are used to verify truth and promote accuracy.

Types of Online Journalism

There are countless different types of online journalism. While this list isn’t exhaustive, some examples include: websites affiliated with major media companies, the websites that mesh articles and blogs, and those websites that are comprised of all blogs.

Traditional News Sites

The Washington Post has been a major American paper for more than a century. It has a completely separate print newspaper from its website and stories that originally premiered on the website rarely, if ever, end up going to the printer; however, stories that run in the newspaper do appear on the website. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, require readers to subscribe to the service in order to read stories and access some content online. Today this type of journalism has a smaller staff of writers that may also dip into the print writing. As such, many of their ethical issues mirror those of print writers.

Hybrid News Sites

For websites that mix blogs and news articles like the Huffington Post, you will see a combination of ethics coming into play–including those surrounding images and the concerns of a 24-hour news cycle. These websites may pool from a greater number of writers  with a varying amount of skills and knowledge. In addition, they may aggregate content in addition to or instead of creating original content more than traditional news sites.

Comment News Sites

Comment-based news sites, most commonly blogs, are another way to share news. Most often, editorial content that was produced by a variety of journalists is dissected and discussed by the blogger and then through audience participation. This content is often the shortest form of news, ranging up from the 140-character limits of Twitter into full blog postings. Whether or not this is truly journalism is up for debate–but there are definitely bloggers who follow journalistic principles, and those who focus entirely on opinion.

Journalism Code of Ethics

Print journalism has had a code of ethics for decades. As per the Society of Professional Journalists, there are four categories to the code:

Seek Truth and Report it

Whenever possible, journalists need to be able to ensure that what they are reporting is true and reported fairly and accurately, without bias. This includes providing appropriate context, following up on a story if facts evolve, reporting sources fairly,  and avoiding stereotypes and assumptions.

Minimize Harm

Journalists are present to report, but must remain observers. That means that they need to be respectful of the subjects and take precautions such as the ability to “balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.”

Act Independently

This principle is simple–a journalist shouldn’t report on a topic if he or she has a vested interest in it, such as a personal relationship with a subject.

Be Accountable and Transparent

Whenever possible, journalists should allow the public to understand the reasoning behind the information included, and the validity of that information. In addition, journalists have a responsibility to correct any errors they may have made.

While online journalists are still held to these standards, there are additional ethical concerns that online journalists have to take into account; however, many of these ethical concerns fit into the categories of the code.

New Concerns in Online Journalism

Anonymity

Online journalism gives people the chance to be anonymous, and not in a “Dear Abby” sort of way. Anonymity is a prominent facet of the internet. Today, someone can just create a name and start posting content–few would even know if that person isn’t who he or she says wrote the article. Some portals require identification, but it can be as easy as taking someone else’s photo, duping the program with a fake email, and turning off location services.

Anonymity takes away the risk of journalism and allows people to be honest and free with their thoughts; however, some worry it also creates an environment filled with irresponsibility and hurt. Even if online platforms take the extra steps to remove the anonymity of it all, comments and shares aren’t protected from “trolls” or those with ill will.

In addition, it makes many question the validity of online reporting from anonymous platforms. After all, it’s inherently not transparent. Whether or not anonymous journalists can truly be considered “journalists” is a hot topic for debate.

24-Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle that is possible because of online journalism is also one of the biggest things to cause concern in the online news market. Journalism ethics do require reporters to be accountable and seek to report truthfully, but that becomes more difficult when everything is moving so quickly. Reports, images, and opinions circulate the world faster than ever through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, cell phones, and hashtag activism. This speed does not always promote quality, clarity, or accuracy. Instead, it is sometimes a gut reaction to the events at hand, leading to misunderstanding, and at times, fear. Major news sources like CNN often pick up rumors that are later found to be untrue, especially in situations where there is little other information. These reports can cause a “trickle down” effect where incorrect information gets reported once and then repeated, as recently seen in the Ferguson case.

Impartiality: Editors Wanted

When people write about things that they are very passionate about, which is often the case for online journalists, there is a tendency to not remain as impartial as one would wish. Online media sometimes encourages people to tell their opinion and back it up without ever posting the “flip side” of the argument. Many bloggers, in particular, take pride in this, seeing themselves as activists for particular causes or movements, rejecting neutrality; however, that doesn’t neatly fit into the ethical guidelines that require journalists to stay unbiased and truthful.

Of course there has always been an opinion sector in journalism. In fact, some even claim that we are seeing a return to the partisan journalism that colored the profession throughout the early 1900s. Some argue that the responsibility may just fall to the reader on this one: it’s important to search out people on both side of the argument.

Social Media + Reporting = Journalism?

News organizations often send their reporters “into the field” to use social media to pass on information to the general public, creating a brand and influencing traditional reports. Typically they use Twitter, but have been known to use Instagram and even Snapchat as well; however, the new world of online personas creates an ethical gray area.

Take, for example, a reporter who writes political think pieces. In her published articles, she remains impartial on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; however, on her Twitter account, she follows @ReadyForHillary and constantly tweets about her desire for Clinton to run. Could these comments give a critic something to chew on regarding authenticity in reporting? In the past, the ability to figure out a writer’s political leanings was much harder because there was less information out there for public consumption.

The ethical challenge for news organizations that use online and offline reporting is to develop social media guidelines that allow reporters or staff members to explore the online media world while also having an online presence. That sometimes means requiring that journalists take on multiple personas, a private one and a public one, in the aims of keeping their public name neutral.

Image Ethics

Photojournalism has only boomed in popularity relatively recently since the start of the internet. Photos and videos now make it easier than ever to capture historical events; however, those same programs that allow us to snap photos and share them in just a few minutes also allow for those photos to be altered and manipulated in a relatively short amount of time. If there was no one else at the event, manipulating an image could manipulate a whole event. Take for instance the latest video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off of a chair. Said to be punishment for him supporting an opposing football team, the Philadelphia radio station added music and doctored the video, making Christie seem like a clown.

Can news sources trust the images that come from regular citizens? In the past it wasn’t as confusing, as pictures were more difficult to manipulate unless you had intense training. Now, most people know how to use at least some of the tools on Photoshop. According to the Center for Journalism Ethics: “Photojournalists often talk about how it is permitted to change the ‘technical’ aspects of a picture such as altering slightly the tone or color of a photo. But they draw the line at any further changes. Changing the meaning or content of the image so as to mislead viewers is considered unethical.”

Conclusion

In the end, we are left with a lot of questions and very few answers. The problem is that we are currently in the midst of a huge change in journalism. Ten years ago no one would have predicted the rise of websites like Instagram and Twitter because we just didn’t have that technology yet.

Until we have the answers for those questions, and the thousands more that stem from them, the answers of ethics for online journalism is left up to the individual–company, blog, person, or website. Soon enough, we will start to see a convergence on topics like anonymity and image use–it’s already happening. Colleges are slowly rolling out courses only on online journalism. The best we can do, for now, is work with integrity and professionalism and try to hold our news sources to those same standards.

While the principles of journalistic ethics still do hold true, new questions are popping up every day. Journalists do still have an obligation to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. The internet may make it more difficult to parse out how those ethics apply in every situation, but they remain the standards of professional journalism.

Resources

Primary

SPJ: Code of Ethics

Additional

MIT: Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, Future

Boise Weekly: Ferguson Case Reveals Media Flaws

Atlantic: How is Social Media Changing Journalism

Huffington Post: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value

Huffington Post: Journalism in a New Era

State of Media: Newspapers by the Numbers

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics – Photojournalism

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics

Poynter: Online Journalism Ethics

SABEW: Online Journalism Poses Challenges, But Doesn’t Require New Ethical Guidelines 

Guardian: Authenticity Has Replaced Authority

Indiana University: Journalism Ethics Cases Online

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to the Center for Journalism Ethics. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What New Ethical Concerns Affect Online Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.