Do journalists need a new ethics pledge?

No application, no oversight body, no rules…hmmm yeah I got $25 to throw away. Hell anybody can start up their own organization and throw out a official looking seal….press photog associations have been doing it for years. Pay your money and get NOTHING in return!

Professional journalists don’t need an ethics pledge. We need JOBS. Positions in which we can pursue our passion of WRITING through interviews, investigations and research. Or, as editors, effectively line edit what others have written.

Despite the current trend to post a job offer for what essentially is three jobs, while calling it multitasking, most journalists are not graphic artists, nor did they pursue that course of study. However, in this brave, new world in which writers and editorial content has been devalued; young bloggers are accepting $2 for a 500-word article that typically pays $200 –– just to see their byline in print. While in the newsroom, which once reported actual NEWS, pictures are now worth much more than 1,000 words and take precedence over editorial content.

Thus, we can only surmise the only “journalists” being hired are young designer/paginators for whom true reporting and writing is
a side hobby. And for this we need an ethics pledge? Give me a break. It’s little wonder newspapers are going down the tube, a descent that began when bean counters took over publishing, pushing a product instead of a community service.

The problem with asking journalists to sign an ethics pledge is that the problem goes beyond journalists themselves. Granted, there are journalists who will ignore ethics in pursuit of the almighty dollar. But what is an ethical journalist to do when the publication s/he works for follows no code of ethics? I raised such an issue at the newspaper I worked for two years ago and was fired for it.

For such a pledge to have any value, it needs the endorsement of publishers and news organizations that employ journalists, not just the writers and editors. More than that, violating the pledge needs to be accompanied by consequences, such as a very public censure.

What is the equivalent for the term “greenwashing” when journalists promote their efforts as ethical while delivering less-than-ethical performance?

For the most part, major media companies already have ethical guidelines in place. A new brand name serves the companies more than it serves the public or the cause of ethical journalism.

If the use of the ethics-brand emblem required that the companies, at a minimum, committed to allow uncensored, anonymous online criticism of their practices and published works, the pledge — though not the “Tao” branded seal of approval — might mean something

Couched in the co-optation of an ancient religious brand with which the promoters have none but implied affiliation, and with nothing but an empty pledge to affect the brand’s benefits, the selection of name “Tao” suggests signors of the pledge are already willing to start off on the wrong foot, away from ethical practices. Since there is actual power involved — that of professional media that guides public involvement in political processes — the use of the stolen religious brand from an uninvolved and unrepresented other ethnic group could be described as racist.

Most journalists I have known and currently know are diligently opne, honest and ethical. The rub lies with corporate ownership and the dash for cash that overshadows everything else. They slash news staffs and heap additional tasks on reporters and editors that take time away from actual reporting, and in some cases force them into unethical situations by promising business owners editorial coverage in exchange for a certain level of advertising. They don’t give a damn about quality or the communities they are supposed to serve, except for how much money they can extract from them. The Internet isn’t the only thing killing newspapers – corporate ownership, and the accompanying lack of respect for journalistic quality and ethics, is far worse. And that slide started long before the electronic revolution.

They could keep their seal.

I don’t need a seal to confirm my principles.

I’m wary of a dubious fee for the right to post a vague badge to suggest my work is credible. In fact, my work will speak for itself, especially over time and in the bright light of scrutiny across the Web.

Codes of ethics make great starting points, especially for those who need refreshers or who are new to the work. Let’s post the ethical guidelines for good journalism and spread the word for bloggers and citizen journalists to understand and contribute to responsible journalism.

Rather than rather than foster a pile of pay-for-credibility badges for pro journalists to align with, I suggest a badge and code similar to the Creative Commons licensing system.

I won’t be joining this club, or any other that furthers the misguided notion that journalism belongs to pros or those who can afford to buy membership in a group.

This is hardly a new idea. The reason journalism remained (yes, past tense) a craft and never became a profession is because it refused (in its arrogance) to police itself and limit its unqualified practitioners by adopting a standardized ethical code, unlike law and medicine, also former crafts. So, now it’s just a bunch of guys looking for a job in “strategic communications.”

Ahhh, Matt D. is yet another “new” journalist, i.e., one whose cred doesn’t merit a job offer? So, let’s rely on the “wisdom of the crowd.”

Most journalists most definitely need to practice better ethics. But how will this help? In my town a lot of money was spent to put up signs that say “No Room for Racism.” I doubt that has changed the mind of a single racist, but they… the intent was good.

There was a movie a few years ago, in which someone asked if a particular woman was a journalist. She worked for a newspaper, but she emphatically said something like, “No, I’m a writer.” The explanation was that “journalists” have fallen into such disrespect, mainly because they they cannot seem to keep their opinions out of their reports. What a shame… these people who are supposed to report the facts either omit part of the story that doesn’t support their opinions, or they skew the facts to put them in a different light.

John Hamer • Glad this idea has stirred so many thoughtful comments. Since I came up with the “TAO of Journalism” idea (www.taoofjournalism.org), I’d like to respond. First, thanks to Rick Martinez and Deborah Potter for posting this item on NewsLab and inviting feedback. As for the fee, we actually call it a “requested donation” to help cover our costs of developing the website, trademarking the seal, printing up T-shirts, promoting the concept, and tracking its use. Rick is right that the cost is low: $25 for individuals and $50 for media organizations, but if someone really wants to use the seal and doesn’t want to pay anything, call me! (Phone: 206.262.9793)
STEVE — Sorry you’re so down on the idea, but I think TAO pledgers would get something in return — i.e., an increase in public trust, which is invaluable, isn’t it?
CJ — You’re right that journalists need more jobs, but I believe that if journalism is to matter and thus provide jobs, it must be trusted, and to be trusted it must be transparent, accountable and open. Those are all essential keys to public trust.
BOB — Sorry you were fired for trying to uphold ethics; that’s unconscionable. My hope is that publishers and editors, as well as individual reporters, will decide to take the TAO pledge because they will realize it will help their bottom line. But I could be wrong about that….
DC — Racist? Absolutely not. TAO means “the path” or “the way” and is widely used (just do a simple search and you’ll see how widely) and that symbol is now generic. Our intention is to honor and respect the concept.
T.D. — Most journalists I know are ethical too (or want to be), and the current business crunch has made that more of a challenge. But isn’t it still worth pursuing, even as individual writers/bloggers or whatever? CLARISEL — I’m glad you don’t need a seal to confirm your principles. But how do your readers know that? Maybe the TAO seal would help. Why don’t you ask them and see what they think?
MATT — Wariness is fine, but in the wild, wide world of the Web, where we’re blinded by so many bright lights, can your work speak for itself? Maybe, but a TAO seal might draw eyeballs and add a bit of credibility. We’re not proposing a single set of ethical guidelines; just tell the public what ethical codes you follow — and let them judge you by your own standards. Isn’t that what journalists do to every other profession? (Yes.)
And we’re not saying that journalism “belongs to pros” or those who can afford a small fee. “We’re All Journalists Now,” as Scott Gant’s excellent book puts it. See also Clay Shirky’s terrific new book, “Cognitive Surplus.” The problem for the public is how to sort it all out — and whom to trust?
RICHARD — You’re right that it’s not a totally new idea, but as a voluntary, self-affixed and crowd-sourced seal, it’s a little different from anything else out there. Hey, it’s admittedly an experiment. But what else is working to increase public trust? Answer: Not much.
TERESA — The “No Room for Racism” signs might have at least gotten people thinking, and maybe changed some minds in the long run. Look what the “Don’t Litter” and “No Smoking” signs have done nationally. A TAO of Journalism seal might just gently remind folks to be Transparent, Accountable and Open, don’t you think?

Just ask yourself one question and be brutally honest. Would you resign before compromising your journalist ethics?

If you answer yes…you don’t need a seal
If you answer no…there isn’t a seal in the world that will make you ethical.

Make a promise to yourself…and then work by example.