AP sets guidelines for tweeting

In November of this year, the AP revised their social media guidelines for their employees cracking down on restrictions in the name of affiliation. It is their idea that all their journalists are directly linked to AP and therefore always represent them.

The idea of re-tweeting entered their guidelines for fear that a "naked" retweet would suggest a journalist endorses something (and that's against journalist ethics 101, isn't it?)

A naked re-tweet simply means a journalist retweets something without a lead-in for context, which could be mistaken for endorsement.

Does this limit journalist's freedom? does it counteract the changing ideas of social media? or is it a simple way of covering yourself, once again?

The 'Naked' Retweet Dilemma

Are you endorsing someone or something when you blindly - or, nakedly - retweet? When RT'ing without a lead in, journalists may be considered to be endorsing, and therefore, unbiased.

"The Naked Retweet Dilemma," from American Journalism Review

THIS sounds like the beginning to my term paper...

Ethics Aren't Automatic

An article recently published in the New York Times says one more time what we all thought might be true: "Doing the Ethical Thing May Be Right, but It Isn’t Automatic."

"As much as we would like to think that, put on the spot, we would do the right — and perhaps even heroic — thing, research has shown that that usually isn’t true, " the article says. The writing doesn't directly refrenece journalism, but by now we all know the inherent links between ethics and journalism, and can infer that these statements can also apply to our everyday journalistic quandries: to publish or not to publish? to give up the source or not? do we ask for that last detail, or leave it out?

A Journalist's Own Code of Ethics

With freedom comes responsibility. This is perhaps the single-most important maxim in the practice of journalism; all else falls underneath this idea. With the protection of the Constitution and its First Amendment, journalists are given the right to free speech. Without diving into the restraints and specifics of the freedom of speech, we can still note that by being given this right, a great amount of responsibility is bestowed upon journalists to uphold it. Within this, one has both a responsibility to the people and maintaining the functionality of our democracy, and to themselves personally as journalists. For without the right to criticize those who govern us, we are not free as a nation. Journalists have the responsibility to uphold this to be true, and in doing so, must act in a manner of true ethical stability. With this said, we define ourselves as journalists by having a personal code of ethics—both tailored to ourselves as individuals and bonding together on a greater plane.

It is my general belief that when pertaining to the treatment of subjects in a piece, the line lies somewhere in-between the Judeo-Christian “do unto others” and a hard-edged “you make your bed you lie in it” approach. Meaning exactly if a person has done something wrong, it is necessary to report on it, but there is an area between the two ends of the spectrum that allows you to truthfully tell a story about someone without villainizing or idolizing him or her.

  

-       Abide by the law.

-       Question the motives of all parties: editors, publishers, sources, and subjects.

-       Sensitivity has its place; journalists should be human.

-       Value detachment and avoid favoritism.

-       Do not accept money.

-       Admit mistakes.

-       Work to maintain the goal of holding those in power accountable.

-       Identify sources unless explicitly forbidden and you are in agreement with the   

         justification for needing to remain anonymous.

A code of ethics is “a set of ideals that recognizes a complexity of challenges and the reality of human imperfection,” writes Bob Steele for Poynter. This is an important realization; a journalist’s code need not be laws but instead a guideline that recognizes we as journalists are sometimes up against extreme challenges and that our field is one that comes with a lot of grey area.

More on phone hacking scandal: "Journalistic ethics on trial in Britain"

When I was living in London last year, it seemed as though you couldn't pick up one of the free metro papers or tune into BBC without hearing something of the phone hacking scandals involving The News of the World, the British newspaper holding of Richard Murdoch's News Corp.

The inquiries begin today with the stated purpose to "investigate the way journalists operate and the elusive balance between press freedom and individual rights to privacy." These hearings will undoubtedly become a seminal example in news history and their outcome very important to the future of journalistic ethics. 


Read it here from the New York Times


Read it here from UPI.com

Google Fights Censorship?

Google has launched Transparency Report, a set of tools — including an interactive map — that shows which governments have asked for information about users or requested Google to censor or take down content in a certain time frame.

http://mashable.com/2010/09/21/googles-transparency-report/

http://mashable.com/2011/10/27/google-police-brutality-videos/?WT.mc_id=obinsite

Publishing Personal Contact Information? yes, no, or depends on who...

It seems to me through our exploration of questions in the newspaper publishing world, there are always three answers (and sometimes more) to every ethical dilemma: yes, publish it - no, do not publish it - and, hmm it depends.

This week, in the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, Gawker has published the phone number of Vikram Pandit, the C.E.O. of Citigroup. Last week at a Fortune conference, Pandit announced he would "be happy to talk to" Wall Street protestors "any time they want," so Gawker decided to see if he could put his money where his mouth was and published his cell phone and office number for all to see.

Is this ethically sound? Normally, I think we all might say no unless our interviewee asked us to or confirmed we could, or, if it was relevant to the story. But this is something quite different, and we're seeing quite a bit on unconventionality with the 'Occupy' protests...