Data Loading...
WFYI Ethics Guide Flipbook PDF
Building and maintaining a culture of ethics. From WFYI Public Media.
105 Views
100 Downloads
FLIP PDF 3.61MB
Building and Maintaining a
CULTURE ETHICS OF
WFYI ETHICS GUIDE 2020
HOW - TO
“Doing the right thing doesn’t automatically bring success. But compromising ethics almost always leads to failure.” - Vivek Wadhwa
WFYI is a lot of things to a lot of people. We are an informer, a convener, an educator, a catalyst, an advisor, a partner, a companion and a friend. What do all those relationships have in common? They are built on trust. Those relationships have taken decades to build and were made by thousands of WFYI employees who committed to treating our audience, partners and other members of the community with care, honesty and respect. But few things are as fragile as trust. A careless approach to the relationships we’ve built as an organization can result in a dramatic and potentially irreversible loss of trust. Think of trust as a pencil eraser -- it gets smaller and smaller with every mistake. One way in which we build and maintain the trust in our relationships is by applying consistently high standards of
ethical behavior. It’s what the community and our audience expect of us. Every action and interaction in which we engage them must be defensible and beyond reproach. While it may seem the maintenance of our relationships falls squarely on the shoulders of those who produce our content, our content is just a piece of a much larger puzzle. Regardless of your role at WFYI, you have an obligation to commit yourself and your work to our relationships in the community and to the ethical standards at their core. That’s why we didn’t write this guide exclusively for our journalists and content producers. We wrote it for all of us. It is our hope this guide will strengthen our culture of ethical decision-making, and that respect for our reputation and community finds its way into every decision you make that may be associated with WFYI.
When the WFYI Ethics Team set off on the journey to develop a guide, we originally imagined a how-to handbook that spells out the rights and wrongs of ethical behavior, in a “do this/don’t do that” format. But we soon realized few ethical decisions follow such a clear, easily navigable path. The path to action is often complicated by other important considerations, including personal integrity, professional reputation, technological standards, historical context and in some cases, economic risk. It often requires a great deal of thought and an even greater deal of honesty. Because of that, we’ve created a document that will help guide you through the process of making your own decision. Over time, we expect the steps outlined in this guide will become second nature.
Each chapter focuses on one of five values of journalism, as described by the Ethical Journalism Network: accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity and accountability. At the conclusion of each chapter, you will find a case study that illustrates the application of that value and in some instances, the complexity involved in making the proper decision. Following the case study, you’ll see two sets of questions:
For all employees of WFYI
For journalists & content providers
Answer each of the questions honestly, regardless of your responsibilities within the organization. Often, a conversation with a colleague will also help you achieve clarity. Check in with your supervisor.
If your job requires you to contribute to the production, distribution or promotion of WFYI content, these questions are more sharply defined to clarify the factors in your decision. Again, a conversation with a colleague or supervisor can be enlightening.
The ethical considerations placed on journalists and other content providers are more detailed and restrictive than those for other staff. Reporters generally understand these restrictions and accept them as prerequisites in the world of journalism. But what if you’re not a journalist? Even if your duties at WFYI don’t require you to interact directly with the public, it’s important to remember the public doesn’t necessarily understand that distinction. We are keenly aware of the internal demarcations that separate our journalists and producers from other employees, but members of the community see us all as
Connie Fraley Campbell Chief Financial Officer
representatives of WFYI. As such, they expect every one of us to exhibit the same respect for our values. In addition, you have a unique opportunity that your family, friends and neighbors don’t. By committing to our ethical guidelines, you are performing a critical function: Your diligence allows your colleagues in the newsroom and elsewhere at WFYI to do their work without fear that the organization’s motives are being compromised. It’s one of the most important ways you can support them. When using this guide, consult with your supervisor. They will help you walk through
Matt Shafer Powell Chief Content Officer
the various considerations and serve as a partner in the outcome. In addition, we will provide links to the various codes of conduct that exist elsewhere in the world of journalism, so that you can see how organizations like NPR and PBS address your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to work through this guide. But more importantly, thank you for your commitment to WFYI and its values. Sincerely, The WFYI Executive Leadership Team
David Slade Chief Development and Marketing Officer
Greg Petrowich President & CEO
2 | HOW - TO
ACCURACY The first step in building and maintaining an ethical culture is to commit to accuracy in everything we do. Failures in accuracy can be dramatic or subtle, but they always compromise trust. For example, a reporter who misidentifies a murder suspect does incalculable damage to the reputation of the innocent person whose name was used and opens up a gulf of credibility between the station and the audience. On the other hand, the simple mispronunciation of a person’s
name or a geographic location on-air may seem innocuous, but it can still create a measure of doubt in a user’s mind. That doubt diminishes trust in our ability to serve as an accurate, credible source of information. Cumulatively, the damage can be severe. And our commitment to accuracy isn’t limited to the newsroom. Our clients, constituents, members, tenants and community partners also count on us to be just as accurate as our reporters. The
damage caused by inaccuracy can be felt in every aspect of our work. Nor is this requirement for accuracy limited to our building. Your email communications and social media posts can also compromise WFYI’s credibility. Forwarding an online post that hasn’t been vetted for accuracy reflects negatively on our collective ability to find truth and report it.
The Death of Gabby Giffords On January 8, 2011, U.S Rep Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head at point-blank range while leading a constituent meeting in the parking lot of a Tucson-area Safeway store. After shooting Giffords, the gunman opened fire on others in the parking lot. Six people died. But Giffords was not among them.
Giffords’ condition.
Soon, other media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, The New York Times and Reuters repeated the announcement, citing NPR as the source.
Among those who first believed the news was NPR’s Weekend Edition host Scott Simon, who is a close friend of Giffords and her husband. Simon told his two young daughters their family friend had died. But after receiving a call from the congresswoman’s family, he had to go back to his daughters and tell them she was still alive. “Take our pain and confusion and multiply by— oh--- a hundred or so for the Giffords family”, said Simon.
Giffords was not dead. In fact, she was in surgery. One of the doctors performing the surgery actually declared, “I’m very optimistic about her recovery.” The erroneous information about Giffords’ death had been passed onto the NPR Newsdesk by a reporter in Arizona and another in Washington D.C. Both quoted sources they believed were credible. However, history would prove those sources were too far removed from the facts of the case to know the truth about
NPR admitted its mistake and attempted to be transparent about the circumstances surrounding it. However, as noted by the network’s ombudsman Alicia Shepard, “Many people will remember the mistake and not the correction.”
Case study
However, many listeners to NPR thought otherwise. An hour after breaking news of the shooting, an NPR newscaster announced, “Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona has been shot and killed during a public event in Tucson, Arizona.” Within 15 minutes, the announcement appeared in an email to NPR subscribers and on NPR’s Twitter feed. It was also posted on NPR’s
newsblog The Two-Way.
For all employees of WFYI º How might an inaccurate piece of information affect
others who will come into contact with it? How might it affect your personal and professional reputation? How might it affect WFYI’s reputation?
For journalists & content providers º How many sources do you have that can verify your
information? Can you defend their credibility if your story is challenged?
º Before you communicate something, have you checked
and double-checked your facts? Can you defend its accuracy if someone challenges it? Will you be able to identify your sources for the information and defend them?
º If you have doubt about the accuracy of something,
why do you feel that way? How can you resolve your doubts?
º Does your email message or other correspondence
have typos or errors? Do your numbers add up?
º Have you asked someone else to look it over?
º Are your sources primary sources? If not, can you
verify the credibility of the secondary sources? Are you ready to defend their credibility?
º Are your sources independent of each other? Did
you go out of your way to ensure the sources aren’t representing the same organization or agency?
º Is your commitment to accuracy being
compromised by a deadline? Who can you talk with to make sure that doesn’t happen?
º Are you constantly asking yourself the question
“how do I know that?” Can you explain your answer to anyone else who asks it?
º Have you been through an edit? Has someone else
reviewed the script or content? Will it be factchecked?
4 | ACCURACY
INDEPENDENCE The Communications Act of 1934 requires all broadcast license holders to operate in the “public trust, convenience and necessity.” The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics states, “the highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.” In its ethics handbook, NPR draws a direct connection between serving the public and maintaining its trust: “To secure the public’s trust, we must make it clear that our primary allegiance is to the public.” In other words, we violate the public’s trust any time we choose to serve an alternative agenda or our own personal interests.
In public media, independence is often defined as being free of undue influence -- in thought or action -- from outside parties. The field of outside parties who could provide undue influence is vast and includes funders, station members, friends, family members, political figures and countless others who can create conflicts of interest. But it’s not enough to be free of undue influence. We have to take additional steps to avoid the appearance of undue influence. For instance, most reputable journalism organizations forbid their reporters and editors from displaying bumper stickers, pins or yard signs that advocate for a particular political party or
candidate. Even if reporters are careful to remove any biases from their work, their advocacy still gives the impression that they’re being influenced. And that can betray public trust. Of course, we are human beings and citizens of a democracy. We are allowed to have opinions and we are allowed to enter the voting booth to take part in that ultimate symbol of democratic advocacy. But the ways in which we express those opinions and actions in the public sphere can have a dramatic effect on our ability to operate as a credible journalism organization.
Erin Andrews’ New Shoes The controversy that followed surprised and confused Andrews, who told NewsDay reporter Neil Best she had gotten the information from TCU’s equipment manager and was just doing her job. In defending ESPN’s decision to allow the endorsement deal, the network suggested it was “rare she would cover stories about shoes.”
However, Andrews’ comments seemed to take on a new level of significance two weeks later, when she announced she had entered into an endorsement deal with Reebok, one of Nike’s chief competitors. Observers began to wonder if she had purposefully criticized the Nike shoes in an effort to discredit the company. Even if she didn’t, is it reasonable for someone to assume she did?
Even so, the incident inspired ESPN to take a deeper look at the endorsement deals of their on-air staff. The network soon adopted a new policy, prohibiting some of their reporters and anchors from endorsing any product type that might appear in their coverage. Andrews was allowed to continue her deal with Reebok, but could not renew it when her contract expired.
Media ethicists like Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute saw the incident as an opportunity to remind journalists that they sacrifice the public’s trust when they put their commitment to independence at risk. “Journalists can review products,” she wrote, “but they can’t take money from a company to endorse them. That totally ruins their credibility. (Think) about any type of journalist, like a tech reporter or health reporter. If those reporters were getting paid to endorse mp3 players or cholesterol drugs, no one in the audience would trust their judgment, because their independence would be compromised.”
Case study
During the 2011 Rose Bowl between the University of Wisconsin and Texas Christian University, ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews suggested Nike cleats might be the reason several TCU players were slipping on the field during the game. At the time, the remark seemed rather innocuous and standard fare for most football fans.
For all employees of WFYI
For journalists & content providers
º To what extent will my affiliation with a particular group
º In what activities do I participate that could be
or set of ideas affect my own opinions and actions? How might that influence find its way into the work I do for WFYI?
perceived as conflicts of interest? How might those conflicts affect my ability to act and work responsibly? How might those activities be perceived by someone who doesn’t know me?
º How contentious, controversial or politically sensitive is
the cause or figure I’m supporting?
º Is it reasonable to think my colleagues in the newsroom
might be reporting on this cause or set of actions? How might my involvement affect perceptions about my colleagues’ independence?
º Even if I’m comfortable with my ability to
compartmentalize outside influence, how will my actions appear to someone who doesn’t know me or believe me?
º Even if I’m comfortable with my ability to
compartmentalize outside influence, how will my actions appear to someone who doesn’t know me or believe me?
º If someone is offering me benefits, gifts or promising
financial support for WFYI, do they have any expectations in return? What might those expectations be? Is the relationship part of a sanctioned and approved trade agreement with a vendor? If not, does the giver understand a reciprocal relationship is inappropriate and that WFYI’s content is “not for sale”? How might our relationship be perceived by a third party?
º Is the public aware of my employment and connections
with WFYI? Do my social media profiles and other outward-facing materials suggest I have a working relationship with WFYI? Would a reasonable person be able to conclude I work for WFYI? If the answer to any of those questions is “yes,” how will my actions affect perceptions about my independence and that of WFYI’s?
º Am I being transparent about my relationship with
those people or organizations that may advocate for a particular viewpoint? Is the station being equally transparent?
º Do my relationships and affiliations suggest I should º If someone is offering me benefits, gifts or financial
support for WFYI, do they have any expectations in return? What might those expectations be? Is the giver aware that a reciprocal relationship may not be appropriate? How might our relationship be perceived by a third party?
recuse myself from working on a particular project or story?
º Am I being asked to ignore the firewall between
journalists and funders to engage with someone who may try to influence me or my work?
º Think for a moment from the perspective of someone
who would like to portray WFYI as an organization lacking any credibility or journalistic independence. Would my actions provide proof or circumstantial evidence of their claims?
º If someone is approaching me for an interview or
inclusion in any station content, what is that person’s agenda? What are his or her expectations? Do their views have a reasonable place in my story?
6 | INDEPENDENCE
IMPARTIALITY Throughout most of the 21st century, news media organizations have spent a good deal of their time and energy defending themselves against what their detractors refer to as “bias”. But in recent years, the tone of those rebuttals has shifted from denying the existence of personal bias to acknowledging it, naming it and managing it.
in which we engage. To deny we have personal biases is to deny we are human.
The reason is simple. We are thinking, feeling human beings who take our own experiences and biases into every transaction, interaction and relationship
Most of the major professional journalism organizations like NPR, The New York Times and the Washington Post prohibit employees from displaying politically
Our duty to the public requires us to recognize those biases and go to extraordinary lengths to make sure they don’t find their way into our work or create the impression that they are a reflection of WFYI’s.
motivated bumper stickers, buttons and yard signs. They also prohibit staff from posting or re-tweeting items that could suggest a political bias on behalf of the individual. And while some employees are allowed to take on a passive role at politically centered rallies and parades, they are prohibited from wearing any apparel or clothing that would indicate their connection to the organization. When we fail to recognize and work around our biases, we fail in the eyes of our most sacred constituency: the public.
Smile, You’re On Camera activists who were taping the entire conversation with a hidden camera. They were working on behalf of James O’Keefe, a conservative filmmaker who specializes in capturing and exposing members of “left-leaning” organizations making embarrassing and controversial statements.
During the lunchtime conversation, Schiller disparaged Republicans and offered his personal belief that members of the conservative Tea Party movement were “racist”, “scary” and “weird”. He also suggested NPR would “be better off in the long run without federal funding”.
Three weeks later, O’Keefe released an edited version of the video online. The reaction from conservative groups, politicians and pundits was swift and condemnatory. For those who believed NPR had always reported the news from the left side of the political spectrum, this appeared to be consummate proof. Although the edited video was found to be “highlydoctored”, there was no way the network could deny that one of its
Schiller didn’t know the men on the other side of the table from them were actually conservative
employees had indeed made those damaging statements. The fact that Schiller did not work in the newsroom was of no significance. The timing of the video’s release made the situation even more challenging. It arrived shortly after the termination of commentator Juan Williams, another incident that placed NPR squarely in the sites of its conservative critics. Although Schiller had already planned to leave NPR for another job, his departure was expedited. And the spate of controversies led NPR’s Board of Directors to request the resignation of President and CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron). She announced her resignation on March 9, 2011.
Case study
In February of 2011, NPR’s Senior Vice President of Development Ron Schiller and an NPR colleague sat down for a lunch meeting with two members of a group calling itself the Muslim Education Action Center. They claimed to have $5M and were hoping to spend it on public media.
8 | IMPARTIALITY
For all employees of WFYI º What are my personal biases? How do I personally feel
about the prevailing issues of the day? Where do my biases come from? Who might find them controversial?
º How might my personal biases affect the way I conduct
myself in the office or when dealing with WFYI’s tenants, partners and external clients? How should they?
º How might my personal biases reflect on WYFI’s
obligation to serve the public as objective arbiters of controversy and dialogue?
For journalists & content providers º Am I examining my own personal biases about a story,
topic or issue? Where do I fall on the spectrum of opinions regarding that issue? Why do I feel the way I do?
º How do my biases affect my ability to responsibly report
on this topic? How should they?
º Are biases ever important to a story? How? Am I
applying those biases responsibly?
º If I have the facts in front of me, how might my biases º Will the person to whom I’m communicating my
biases conclude that these are my opinions and don’t represent those of my colleagues or WFYI? How can I be sure?
º How visible is my affiliation with WFYI? Is my name
directly connected with WFYI in any way? Do I identify myself and my affiliation with WFYI through my social media profiles, my clothing or my actions?
affect my interpretation of them?
º When choosing to interview or not interview someone
for a story, do my personal biases affect the sources I approach? Am I asking my questions in a way that elicits response but doesn’t betray my personal opinions?
º Am I researching, interviewing, writing and reporting in a
way that emphasizes my role as an objective third-party observer?
º If someone from outside of WFYI was to read my
email messages and other correspondence, what conclusions could they make? How could that affect their impression of WFYI?
º Is it possible a reasonable person could extrapolate my
personal opinions by the way I conducted myself? Based on the final product? Would a reasonable person say it was fair?
º If word spread about my biases to those who don’t
know me personally, how might that affect the public’s perception of WFYI?
º Do my personal views about an issue suggest I should
recuse myself from working on that particular project or story?
º Think for a moment from the perspective of someone
who would like to portray WFYI as an organization lacking credibility and journalistic independence. Would my actions provide proof or circumstantial evidence of their claims?
º How would a member of the general public react to my
opinion about a particular subject? How might that affect their views of WFYI? Of journalists in general?
8 | IMPARTIALITY
HUMANITY In its oft-quoted Code of Ethics, the Society of Professional Journalists directs reporters to “Minimize Harm.” This means they should treat “sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.” This may seem like a basic tenet of civilized thought, but in the rush of our busy lives, it’s an easy one to unintentionally dismiss. Because our words and actions are broadcast and distributed to a large audience, their implications on individuals can be far-reaching and profound. Lives can be dramatically altered when we fail to recognize the enormous responsibility we have to consider humanity in our work. Journalists are often asked to balance the public’s right to know with the harm that
could result from distribution of certain facts. Would the release of a military report result in the death of soldiers? Would reporting of the victim’s name cause them to face painful scrutiny from a cynical public? Would parents be further traumatized by a graphic illustration or depiction of their son’s death? As extreme as those examples are, our consideration for the experiences of others easily translates to our daily tasks at WFYI. How do we treat listeners, viewers or guests? How do we treat our colleagues? How about vendors and clients? Are we considering the human toll of our actions? And how does our treatment of others reflect on WFYI as an organization, one that survives on the public’s trust? So much of our ability to recognize
the humanity of others is rooted in the recognition of our own humanity. “The (purpose) of journalism, I believe, is to serve people in the most profound way possible,” wrote the late William F. Woo, long-time editor of the St. Louis PostDispatch, “so you will need intelligence and experience to do this kind of work and also a sense of your own humanity.” Resting at the foundation of all of our meetings, spreadsheets, strategic plans and policies is the simple fact that WFYI is a human endeavor, managed and executed by human beings for human beings. It’s a truth we can never allow ourselves to forget.
Richard Jewell’s New-Found Fame
The pipe bomb that detonated in that crowded park on July 27, 1996 killed one person and injured more than a hundred others. Among the first names to emerge from the chaos was Jewell’s. Jewell was working at the park
as a security guard. After discovering the bomb only moments before it exploded, he cleared people away from the site, seriously limiting the number of potential casualties. For his actions, he was immediately hailed as a hero. But when the news media learned he was a person of interest in the FBI investigation of the bombing, his fortunes changed. Reporters and news organizations hungry to scoop each other descended upon and laid siege to his small Atlanta home, where he
lived with his mother. They exposed his quiet life to a worldwide audience, referring to him as a “lone wolf” and calling into question his morals, relationships, history and sanity. Eventually, Jewell was exonerated and nine years later, police arrested Eric Rudolph, who confessed to the crime. Looking back on the media circus, Jewell remembered, “I felt like a hunted animal, followed constantly, waiting to be killed.”
Case study
Prior to the Centennial Park bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Richard Jewell was known by a select few friends, family members and coworkers. But that would change in a way that irreversibly cost Jewell his privacy and his personal reputation.
For journalists & content providers º How might my reporting affect the lives of those
involved? Am I treating them fairly, with dignity and respect?
º Victims rarely choose to place themselves in the
public eye. Am I considering the victim’s involuntary role in the story? How would I respond to the story if I was the victim? What if it was my child or sibling or best friend?
º When reporting on suspects or persons of interest,
do I have the facts? Am I considering that I don’t know details that won’t be revealed until much later in the legal process?
º Will my reporting lead others to come to a specific
For all employees of WFYI º How might others respond emotionally to my actions?
Am I considering their views and recognizing the validity of those views?
conclusion about the person’s guilt or innocence? How can I make sure that doesn’t happen?
º Am I checking my own biases, implicit or otherwise?
Am I perpetuating destructive stereotypes? How might my actions affect different communities of people?
º Imagine you are hearing your own words, but they’re
directed at you. Are they hurtful or disrespectful? How could you rephrase them so they’re more appropriate?
º When I speak or act, am I taking into consideration the
other person’s experiences? Circumstances? Personal challenges? How can I take the high road in my conversations or correspondence with them?
º How might my words or actions be interpreted and
attributed to WFYI’s respect for the humanity of others?
º By reporting these details, am I placing anyone in
physical, financial or emotional harm’s way?
º Will my depiction of the crime or incident cause
undue stress or harm for the survivors and the victim’s family and friends?
º Remember that your story will “live” forever on the
internet. Are you considering the long-term effects of your story, especially when reporting about minors and those who are most vulnerable?
10 | HUMANITY
ACCOUNTABILITY As mentioned earlier in this guide, our collective role at WFYI requires us to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure our work is accurate, whether it’s a feature story on the radio or an invoice being sent to an underwriting client. Across the organization, our credibility and worth rely on a commitment to accuracy. We all represent WFYI as a trustworthy news source and community partner. But sometimes, we make mistakes. When that happens, we correct our errors in
a timely, public and respectful manner. We reflect on what happened and what we can learn from it. Then we create safeguards to assure it doesn’t happen again.
to the best of our ability, we respond with transparency and humility.
Because we take full responsibility for our work, we must always be ready and willing to answer for it. Just as careful attention to sources makes our journalism stronger, careful attention to public feedback makes WFYI better. So we welcome questions or criticisms from our stakeholders and
As ethics blogger Craig Silverman notes, “To admit your errors is to show vulnerability. To show vulnerability is to enable yourself to be really seen. Our flaws are what connect us, not perfection. It’s true for humans, and that’s why it’s true for journalists and news organizations.”
How Jayson Blair Helped Rebuild The Times In journalism circles, former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair’s name is synonymous with deceit, recklessness and the extent to which one reporter can violate the public’s trust.
After a thorough investigation of Blair’s work, the paper revealed the 27-yearold reporter had “committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud,” including stories in which he “fabricated comments…concocted scenes…lifted
installed in the Times’ editorial process is a requirement that editors randomly investigate the identity of unnamed sources, the appointment of an editor who oversees a highly-transparent relationship with the public, a system that tracks reporter errors (Blair was a repeat offender when it came to errors in his reporting) and a more structured process for performing staff evaluations.
But the paper wasn’t done. Two of the Times’ top editors resigned in an attempt to restore the paper’s credibility. Management at the Times appointed a 25-member committee to recommend changes to the paper’s operation. Among the safeguards
In summarizing Blair’s offenses, Executive Editor Howell Raines described the Times’ reaction in the most concise of terms: ‘’When you’re wrong in this profession, there is only one thing to do. And that is get right as fast as you can.’’
Case study
In 2003, the Times discovered Blair had plagiarized a story that appeared two days earlier in a San Antonio paper. Blair turned in his resignation, but the inquiry into his misdeeds was just beginning.
material from other newspapers and wire services…selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere when he had not.” An extensive front-page article detailing Blair’s deception referred to the revelations as a “low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.” For the Times, the article represented an unprecedented act of accountability and transparency.
For all employees of WFYI º How am I responding to a claim that I made an
error? With humility or defensiveness? Am I taking it personally or viewing it as an opportunity to improve?
º Am I genuinely listening to the person making the
claim?
º Is there merit to the claim? Even if I believe I’m right,
how do I engage the claim and the person who made it in a respectful, professional manner?
For journalists & content providers º How am I responding to a complaint about my
work? Am I respecting the complainant’s right to criticize it? Am I genuinely listening? Am I prepared to respond in a professional, curious manner? What if I’m right?
º In the case where the claim is communicated in a
rude and disrespectful manner, am I taking the high road? What are the long-term consequences if I don’t?
º In the case where the claim is communicated in a
rude and disrespectful manner, am I taking the high road? What are the long-term consequences if I don’t?
º Am I responding to the complainant in a timely
manner? Should I wait a short time until I can think more clearly? Given the details of this situation, how much time is appropriate?
º Am I responding to the complainant in a timely
manner? Should the response come from someone else within the organization, possibly my supervisor? Am I mentally prepared to offer a well-vetted response? Should I give it a little more time or ask a supervisor to respond? º º How does the ability to own my mistakes and
account for them reflect on me? My colleagues? WFYI as an organization? Journalists in general? º How does my ability to own my mistakes and account
for them reflect on me? My colleagues? WFYI as an organization?
º Am I being as transparent as I need to be? Who else
should know what happened? How should we inform them? º Am I being as transparent as I need to be? Who
else should know what happened? What kinds of safeguards can be implemented to assure the mistake doesn’t happen again?
º What kinds of safeguards can be implemented to
assure the mistake doesn’t happen again?
12 | ACCOUNTABILITY
RESOURCES
This Ethics Guide wasn’t designed to be prescriptive, but there are several codes of conduct and ethics handbooks available on the Internet. Among the most popular resources for reporters and editors are guides developed by the Society of Professional Journalists, the Radio Television Digital News Association and the Associated Press. Earlier in this guide, we referred to Ethical Journalism Network’s Five Principles of Ethical Journalism. Because NPR’s objectives are similar to those of WFYI, it’s worth spending some time with the NPR Ethics Handbook. For similar reasons, the PBS Editorial Standards and Practices site offers an excellent perspective from the video side. Among our colleagues at NPR and PBS member stations, Wisconsin Public
Broadcasting has one of the best guides, divided into separate guides for editorial staff and for all staff. WUNCFM and Colorado Public Radio have also developed their own guides. Many of our colleagues subscribe to the Public Media Code of Integrity. Newspapers like The New York Times and the Washington Post have a long history of ethical diligence.You can find a more extensive list of newspaper codes of conduct at the American Society of Newspaper Editors website and a list of policies from around the world at the iMediaEthics page. WFYI is primarily an organization in the business of journalism, but many of our support areas are guided by ethics guidelines unique to their industries. For instance, the Association of Fundraising Professionals, the International Ethics
Standard Board for Accountants, the Public Relations Society of America and the Association for Computing Machinery all espouse similar ethical diligence. Case studies are an excellent and interesting way to see how ethics are applied in the real world. Check out Indiana University’s Media School collection, this series from the Poynter Institute or this list from the Society of Professional Journalists. The best resources you have might be within earshot. Don’t try to resolve an ethical dilemma by yourself. Talking it through with your supervisor can give you valuable perspective that you may not have considered. Sometimes the mere act of describing an ethical puzzle out loud to another person can help bring the solution to light.
SOURCES www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/01/11/132812196/nprs-giffords-mistake-re-learning-the-lesson-of-checking-sources www.huffpost.com/entry/rep-giffords-dead-before_b_806470? www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/01/18/132964802/how-nprs-giffords-mistake-hurt-the-families training.npr.org/digital/npr-ethics-handbook/ www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/sports/30espn.html http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2011/01/espn_reporter_erin_andrews_end.html www.imediaethics.org/espn-reporter-erin-andrews-endorses-reebok-products/ www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/04/14/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/ESPN-endorsements.aspx www.newsday.com/sports/media/erin-andrews-bounces-back-1.2716086 www.startribune.com/minnesota-tv-reporter-fired-for-wearing-trump-hat-at-rally/495312541/ www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/10/06/tv-reporter-wore-maga-hat-trump-rally-he-was-fired-nextday/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dcc519528736 www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/understanding-bias/ www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/10/134388981/npr-ceo-vivian-schiller-resigns www.projectveritas.com/npr-videos/ www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/vivian-schiller-national-public-radio-quits niemanreports.org/articles/where-does-journalism-end-and-activism-begin/ www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/jewell.html www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/why-journalists-make-mistakes-what-we-can-do-about-them/ www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/opinion/18public.html www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html www.plagiarismtoday.com/2013/05/01/looking-back-10-years-after-jayson-blair/
14 | SOURCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The process for assembling this guide began in September of 2017 and continued through February of 2020. Ethics team members were chosen to represent various departments and perspectives at WFYI, including support departments like Development, Marketing and Finance. Along the way, we examined case studies, played Ethics Bowl and developed a deep understanding for the importance of an ethical culture. To each gathering of the team, members brought with them curiosity, enthusiasm, energy and a desire to open their minds. WFYI owes the following a debt of gratitude: Kathy Billiard Chris Bowman Roxanna Caldwell Lauren Chapman Melissa Davis Pam Elliot Swati Gunale Aric Hartvig Doug Jaggers
Andy Klotz Lisa Krick Sarah Neal-Estes Epha Riche Pam Smith-Rodden Gail Thomas Strong Stacey Stuteville Clayton Taylor Eric Weddle
Pam Smith-Rodden, Sarah Neal-Estes, Scott Cameron and Maura Broderson deserve extra thanks for editing and designing this document, even while they had a million other plates in the air. And we would like to thank the following for their significant contributions of time and experience in the assembly of this guide: Ken Barcus, NPR Andy Cullison, Prindle Institute for Ethics at Depauw University Emily Knuth, Prindle Institute for Ethics at Depauw University Mark Memmott, NPR Aidan White, Ethical Journalism Network
WFYI.ORG