Journal of Media Ethics
Exploring Questions of Media Morality
ISSN: 2373-6992 (Print) 2373-700X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmme21
The Moral Meaning of Recent Revisions to the SPJ
Code of Ethics
Karen L. Slattery
To cite this article: Karen L. Slattery (2016) The Moral Meaning of Recent Revisions to the SPJ
Code of Ethics, Journal of Media Ethics, 31:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2015.1116393
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2015.1116393
Published online: 29 Feb 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmme21
Download by: [University of Alabama]
Date: 04 March 2016, At: 20:15
Journal of Media Ethics, 31: 2–17, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 2373-6992 print / 2373-700X online
DOI: 10.1080/23736992.2015.1116393
The Moral Meaning of Recent Revisions to the SPJ
Code of Ethics
Karen L. Slattery
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
Department of Journalism and Media Studies
Marquette University
The field of journalism has experienced recent upheavals caused in part by shifts in technology,
economic challenges, and questions about the concept of truth telling. This study compares the new
version of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics with its 1996 version in an effort to
determine how journalists who embrace the ethos of a profession have responded to these challenges,
as reflected in the standards and practices outlined in their code. A framework for systematically
reading codes is offered. The changes are examined in light of relevant moral theories.
Journalists have faced significant challenges to the stability of their field in recent years.
Technological advances have decentralized news production; anyone with a computer and
willingness to communicate news can lay claim to the title journalist. New technologies have
fueled change in the field’s economic landscape. Advertising has migrated to the web, so news
organizations depending on it as an economic base have had to look elsewhere for support, or
have folded. Finally, scholars have pointed out the “epistemological difficulty” in defining the
concept of truth, an idea of central importance to the field (Singer, 2007, p. 83) and have noted a
growing interest in a norm of transparency, as both a truth-telling strategy and a means of
increasing the legitimacy of those who claim to practice journalism (McBride & Rosenstiel,
2014; Allen, 2008; Karlsson, 2010; Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007). This study addresses the
question: Are these changes to the field reflected in the way the profession thinks about the
character and responsibilities of the professional journalist? A profession’s code of ethics offers
insight into how the professionals in a field stake a claim to their social role; the code reflects the
standards and practices embraced by those who view themselves as morally responsible practitioners (Lebacqz, 1985).
Multiple codes exist in the field. This study focuses on the code of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ), described as a “gold standard for journalism ethics” (Smith, 2013, p. 11). The
organization revised its code in 2014, replacing the 1996 version. Threats to the field’s stability
have picked up momentum since the mid-1990s (Gomery, 1996), so it makes sense to contrast
the newly revised code with its previous version to get an idea of the professional direction in
Manuscript submitted March 2, 2015; revision accepted November 1, 2015.
Correspondence should be sent to Karen L. Slattery, Associate Professor, Department of Journalism and Media
Studies, J. Wm. & Mary Diederich College of Communication, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53186-1881, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
2
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
3
which the field is moving. Examining the SPJ code is useful for several reasons. The organization is one of the field’s oldest professional associations, founded in 1914 as Sigma Delta Chi. It
has played a major role in defining standards and practices of professional journalists in the
United States (Strupp, 2014) and has assumed global recognition during the last century
(Christians, 1985–86). The society continues to shape attitudes about what counts as high
quality journalism internationally (Smith, 2013). Finally, while scholars and practitioners still
debate whether the field should be considered a profession (Meyers, Wyatt, Borden, &
Wasserman, 2012; Davis, 2010), the association has influenced how responsible journalists
view themselves as professionals and how they talk about their contributions to the larger
community. In that way, SPJ has influenced what counts as legitimate cultural and narrative
knowledge and how it is viewed socially.
Scholars have studied journalistic codes of ethics from a variety of perspectives. Rogers
(2007) and Cronin and McPherson (1995) explored the history and development of journalism
codes. Skaggs (1985–86) compared concepts found in 20th century codes with press obligations
articulated by the editor of an American newspaper published in the late 1700s. Others have
explored issues related to principles embedded in codes, including truth telling (Christensen,
2013), avoiding conflicts of interest (Wilkins & Brennen, 2004), and minimizing harm (Keith,
Schwalbe, & Silcock, 2006), and the values that underpin the principles (Roberts, 2012). Codes
of national and international organizations have been compared and a call for a global journalism
code of ethics issued (Roberts; Himelboim & Limor, 2011; Latila, 1995; Ward, 2005). The
impact of codes has been examined (Boeyink, 1994; Pritchard & Peroni Morgan, 1989) and
problems of accountability debated (Bukro, 1985–86; Christians, 1985–86). Critiques of journalistic codes of ethics exist (Ward, 2013), including Padgett’s (1985–86) argument for codes to
address problems related to privacy and grief and Marion and Izard’s (1986) advocacy for
beneficence provisions. Wilkins and Brennen (2004) concluded that historical and cultural
pressures play a role in the evolution of codes. Building on their work, this study seeks to
answer the question: How has the SPJ responded to the challenges to the journalist’s work
environment, including new technologies, economic changes and questions related to the
concept of truth telling, as reflected in its code of ethics?
The goal of this study is twofold. First, codes can be conceptually messy, so a strategy is
necessary to disentangle the ideas embedded within. This study offers a framework for systematically reading the codes so that meaningful cross-comparisons can be made. Second, it
analyzes the codes against a backdrop of moral theory to further an understanding of the
changes from a moral standpoint. While scholars have linked codes to one or the other of
several theoretical camps, for example, deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based (Bivins, 2014;
Slattery, 2014; Starr, 1983), “moral pluralism” offers a more satisfactory means of explaining
code content since each perspective offers its own insights. Both deontological and virtue-based
theories are helpful because the SPJ code reflects the journalist’s professional duties as well as
the virtues believed to be central to the ideal journalist’s character. According to Lebacqz (1985),
the language of character used in codes supplements the language of duty and vice versa; using
multiple moral perspectives enables us to distinguish between moral principles and moral
virtues, a distinction necessary for grasping a code’s complexity. According to sociologists, a
code of ethics is one of the dimensions marking an occupation as a profession. Others include
work that is considered a public service, an associated theoretical body of knowledge, autonomy,
educational and recruitment programs, licensure and a code of ethics (Dige, 2009; Meyers et al.,
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
4
SLATTERY
2012). Barker (1992), on the other hand, viewed professions from an historical rather than
sociological perspective, arguing they emerge from an implied understanding of the covenant
between practitioners and society; society affords privileges to professionals in exchange for the
commitment to serve the public good. A profession, in turn, affords a role identity for practitioners (Hardimon, 1994). Moral agents, that is, persons “fit for moral praise or blame” (Kelly,
1982, p. 307), who assume a role identity see themselves as persons for whom the profession’s
norms apply and accept the responsibilities, rights, and ideals that the role implies (Hardimon).
Codes play an important role in maintaining a profession’s boundaries. Lathan (2005) called a
code a public document that serves as an invitation to accountability of “publicly accepted and
approved principles” (p. 47). Despite their strengths and weaknesses (Dige, 2009; Kitchener,
1984; Bersoff & Koeppl, 1993; Brinkmann & Ims, 2003; Starr, 1983; Jamal & Bowie, 1995;
Frankel, 1989; MacDonald Glenn, 2005; L’Etang, 1992), professional codes are central to the
development of a role identity. Professions evolve over time; the process of creating and
sustaining a profession requires that members of an occupation are able to convince the broader
society that they are better able to address problems than are nonmembers of the group
(Lebacqz, 1985). For example, acknowledging that a profession must negotiate jurisdiction
with the larger society “over an area of expertise labor,” Allen (2008) observed that journalists
have begun to look toward the concept of transparency as “a way to increase [the field’s] power
and standing” (p. 325), a function that objectivity served in the last century.
Rooted in a profession’s norms and mirroring a range of moral principles and virtues, codes
evolve slowly. Given that journalists continue to face challenges to ways they conceptualize and
perform their work as a result of advances in technology, changes to the economic landscape,
and questions about the concepts of truth telling and objectivity (Muñoz-Torres, 2012), it is
appropriate to examine how professionals have responded to these upheavals, and how their
responses are reflected in their code of conduct.
ELEMENTS OF A CODE
Practitioners, rather than trained ethicists, often write codes of ethics, so deconstructing them
from a moral perspective can be tricky. Black and Barney (1985–86) observed that codes address
general moral precepts as well as more specific practices, and the two should not be confused.
Lebacqz (1985) argued that codes address moral actions and character, and Elliott-Boyle (1985–
86), looking specifically at journalistic codes, observed that they reflect both minimal acceptable
standards and the perceived ideal of a journalist. Because codes are multidimensional (Edgar &
Pattison, 2011; Schwartz, 2005; Lebacqz, 1985; Bayles, 1981), analyzing the SPJ code in terms
of its features fosters a better understanding of the recent changes made to the code.
The first dimension is an articulation of the field’s mission or primary purpose. The mission,
found in the preamble, reflects the heart of the covenant between society and members of a
particular field and, according to Lebacqz (1985), offers the “first clue to role expectations and
obligations” (p. 47). The second dimension is the set of principles reflected in the text. The “dos
and don’ts” provisions cited in the code beg to be read against a theoretical backdrop that
focuses on moral duties because specific provisions often reflect broader moral obligations. Of
interest here is work by Ross (1930), an intuitionist, who argued that humans have prima facie
duties that, at times, may come into conflict. Where they conflict, “one may need to violate one
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
5
duty in order to fulfill another which, in the circumstances, is the weightier of the two”
(Robinson, 2010). According to Ross, the “incumbent” duty is discerned by the moral agent
after forming a “considered opinion” on the facts of a situation (p. 18). These duties include, but
are not limited to, fidelity (e.g., truth telling, loyalty and promise keeping), beneficence, justice,
nonmaleficence, reparation, self-improvement, and gratitude. All are grounded in relations,
according to Ross. Some of those he cited, including relations between members of families,
friends and countrymen, depend on social roles, and each “is the foundation of a prima facie
duty” (p. 19). Lebacqz (1985) and others have pointed out that professions have worked out the
ways in which general prima facie duties are reflected in specific professional roles, that is,
which obligations are role-activated (Bayles, 1981). For example, a journalist’s responsibility to
keep the name of a source confidential, if a promise has been made, mirrors the broader
obligation of fidelity. Moral dilemmas arise when two or more of the role-activated obligations
conflict or when a role-activated obligation conflicts with one or more of the general prima facie,
duties we all have as humans. The task of the moral agent is to balance conflicting principles and
determine which takes precedence in a given situation (Ross, 1930).
While some provisions directly reflect the prima facie duties, others can be considered
subprinciples or rules. Drawing on Bayles’s (1981) work, this study defines a subprinciple as
a provision that further articulates what counts as acceptable or unacceptable professional
behavior as it relates to a particular principle. For instance, the code cautions journalists against
distorting facts. That subprinciple helps journalists reach the broader goal of truth telling, which,
in turn, reflects the prima facie obligation of fidelity (Kitchener, 1984). Moral principles rest on
moral values, a factor in moral deliberation. Guided by the earlier work of Kluckhohn (1951)
and Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1999) defined values as “conceptions of the desirable that guide
the way social actors . . . select actions, evaluate people and events, and explain their actions and
evaluations” (pp. 24–25). Values are qualities believed worthwhile in themselves (Schwartz,
2005). Rokeach (1973) distinguished between terminal values, that is, the values people pursue
over time (e.g., democracy), and instrumental values, that is, those that help people achieve their
long-term goals (e.g., a free press). Because values influence attitudes and behaviors (Rohan,
2000; Schwartz, 1994; Rokeach, 1973; Kluckhohn, 1951), it follows that practitioners would
embrace the values that drive the principles or duties articulated in a code.
Values, or “goods,” are also related to the concept of virtue. A virtue is a tendency, inclination or
disposition toward the good, reflected by the value underpinning a behavior (Méle, 2005). The
concept of moral character is at the heart of Aristotelian virtue ethics; a virtuous person strives for
human flourishing, both as an individual and in community with others, as an end, or telos, in itself
(MacIntyre, 1984). An occupation is morally justified, according to Borden (2007), when its own
goal dovetails with the broader end of human flourishing. Lebacqz (1985) observed that codes
contain the language of moral character in addition to the language of moral duties. Virtues are
acquired through habit, drawing on guidance and examples. Oakley and Cocking (2001) pointed
out that moral agents embody “regulative ideals”—internalized images of one’s understandings of
standards of excellence and correctness—to guide their behaviors, and offered friendship or
excellence in a musical genre as examples. These understandings “operate as guiding background
conditions on our motivations” (p. 26) even if we are unconscious of them when acting. To have a
virtuous disposition is to have a normative idea of a particular practice and the reasons and
behaviors leading to that ideal. Lebacqz (1985) suggested two types of virtues we can expect to
see reflected in codes of ethics. The first set is role generated. Role-generated virtues reflect
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
6
SLATTERY
expectations of an ideal practitioner from the standpoint of those who have assumed the role, i.e.,
the insiders’ perspective. She also observed that professions themselves share common themes,
thus pointing to the idea of virtues that relate to professionals as professionals. The hallmark of a
professional is integrity (Lebacqz), a multifaceted virtue (McFall, 1987). Someone with integrity
has a clear sense of values and principles and consistently applies them (Edgar & Pattison, 2011).
The actions and beliefs of that person’s whole life cohere (Lebacqz) and s/he willingly accepts the
consequences of an act (McFall, 1987).
Also central to the notion of professionalism is trustworthiness. The professional “who is
honest, fair, helpful, and not hurtful can be trusted—trusted to work for the good of the client,
not for her own good” (Lebacqz, 1985, p. 88). Lebacqz further argued that codes alert the public
to “an assurance of trustworthiness” and the professional to the importance of professionalism
(p. 88). Work by Schwartz (2005) offers further insight into the kinds of virtues that might be
associated with professionals as professionals. Drawing on global ethics codes, codes of international corporations, and scholarship related to business ethics, Schwartz (2005) concluded that
core values include: integrity, respect, responsibility (including accountability and transparency),
fairness, caring and citizenship. While he did not distinguish between values and virtues, the
acceptance of these values by practitioners would likely predispose them to act in ways
considered virtuous and professional.
Taken together, a code’s stated mission, the specific moral principles and sub-principles
believed necessary to meet that goal, and code content related to the character of journalists,
both as journalists and as professionals, offer insight into the profession’s view of what it means
to assume the social role. The role has moral weight; it is continually negotiated with the larger
culture and rests on a code of ethics. The journalist’s moral choices help shape the information
that is finally delivered to the public. Citizens will, in turn, use that news to inform their own
decisions, including those related to self-governing. Presumably, this process serves the broader
telos of human flourishing.
READING CODES OF ETHICS
With this framework in mind, this study draws on the method of textual analysis to examine the
SPJ code for changes that reflect responses to pressures the field faces. The code has a long
history. The society borrowed its code in 1926 from the American Society of Newspaper Editors
(ASNE), which had adopted its Canons of Journalism, the first nationwide code of ethics of
newspaper journalists, in 1922 (Case, 1994; Editor & Publisher, 1993). SPJ revised its code in
1973, 1984, 1987, 1996 (SPJ, 1996) and, most recently, in 2014. The two most recent versions
of the code were examined for latent themes and patterns during a series of readings (Hall,
1975). The codes were read and reread using a constant comparative method. An analysis of the
code’s language using a deontological lens served to bring the duties of the responsible journalist
into view, while the lens of virtue foregrounded the moral qualities of a journalist of good
character. In addition, the textual analysis also explored the shape of the code, a shape that may
be either vertical or horizontal (Gaumnitz & Lere, 2004). The shape is revealed through an
identification of themes and related details, usually in the form of statements; a vertical code is
narrowly focused in that it contains fewer themes that are developed in more detail, while a
horizontal code contains more themes that may not be as well developed. This analysis focused
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
7
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
on themes in each version of the SPJ code as they reflected Ross’s (1930) prima facie duties and
the subprinciples in the code related to each. The analysis helps determine whether the versions
of the codes emphasize all of the prima facie duties outlined by Ross or only a few. A
comparison of the shapes of codes reveals how the obligations have been developed, and
where the codes may be further enhanced.
In summary, a textual analysis furthers an understanding of the contours of the field of
journalism as reflected in the code of ethics of a major professional organization at particular
moments in time. The comparison of two versions of the code, one in place before the most
recent challenges to the field emerged and the other created as they became apparent, sheds light
on whether the ideal character and responsibilities of the journalist as articulated by the
profession vis-a-vis its code, are changing.
THE PROFESSION’S MISSION
The analysis revealed that the mission of the Society of Professional Journalists, as reflected in
its code of ethics, has begun to shift in two ways. First, the society introduced the concept of
“ethical journalism” into the preamble of the newest version of the code. The second sentence of
the earlier preamble stated that a “journalist” has a duty to further public enlightenment (SPJ,
1996). In the most recent version, the society substituted the phrase “ethical journalism” for the
word “journalist” (see Figure 1).
Likewise, the phrase “ethical journalism” has replaced the word “journalists” in the
introductory statements for each of the four major sections of the revised code. For
instance, the introduction to the 1996 section of the code titled “Minimize Harm” stated,
“Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings worthy of
respect,” while the newer version says that “ethical journalism” treats its sources and the
larger society with respect. The society introduced the wording to emphasize the act of
FIGURE 1 The profession’s mission.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
8
SLATTERY
journalism rather than journalists as actors, according to the SPJ Ethics Chair Kevin Smith,
giving “nod to the idea that journalism as an endeavor transcends that of the professional
workers and encompasses many people and many forms” (Smith and the SPJ Ethics
Committee, 2014, p. 18). In making the shift from actor to act, the profession acknowledged that technology has created a nontraditional space for those who wish to communicate news. Replacing the term “journalist” with the phrase “ethical journalism” makes
sense in light of technological and economic changes in the field, and scholars have also
advocated for this line of reasoning (Myers et al., 2012; Black, 2010). Clearly, the inclusion
of the phrase in the preamble is helpful, since it furthers a formal description of good
journalism. However, the concept was not an addition to the second statement in the
preamble or the introductions to each of the code’s sections but, rather, a substitution for
another idea. Replacing the term “journalist” with the phrase “ethical journalism” deflects
attention away from the journalist as a moral agent. In doing so, the idea of character
begins to recede into the background; the switch is problematic, given the historical
importance professions have placed on the idea of virtuous character and its role in
moral and professional life.
A second noteworthy change to the profession’s mission involves the term truth. While
appearing elsewhere in the revised code, the term was removed from the current version of
the preamble. The earlier preamble contained a provision that directly linked the idea of
searching for truth to the notion of furthering public enlightenment, a common good. The
society decoupled the goals of truth seeking and public enlightenment when it dropped the
“seeking truth” provision from the revised mission and stated, instead, that responsible journalism “ensure[s] the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough” (SPJ, 2014)
(see Figure 1). Perhaps the change was meant to address the postmodernist thinking that the term
truth is meaningless (see Singer, 2007), but the verbal sidestep ignores the fact that other theories
of truth exist, including correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories. The phrase “accurate, fair and thorough” continues to reflect the way journalists have traditionally talked about
the concept of truth (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007).
Worth noting, however, is that the code’s revision, in toto, suggests that these shifts are far
from complete. Much of the new version of the code still relies on the term “journalist” when
outlining moral obligations of practitioners, thus keeping the idea of the moral agency of the
professional journalist partially intact. The term “truth,” likewise, appears elsewhere in the
revised code, suggesting that the society has not abandoned traditional journalistic practices
related to the concept.
THE LANGUAGE OF DOING
The SPJ strategy for meeting its mission rests on four guiding principles, each with its own
section of the code (SPJ, 2014, 1996). Each of the first three sections reflects a broader prima
facie duty as articulated by Ross (1930). For example, the section titled “Seek Truth and Report
It” lists principles that reflect the duty of fidelity. The section titled “Act Independently” contains
provisions that ensure journalist’s first loyalty is to the public, also a reflection of the duty of
fidelity. Another section, labeled “Minimize Harm,” contains provisions designed to cause the
least harm possible while still informing the public, and clearly mirrors the duty of
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
9
nonmaleficence. A final section, labeled “Be Accountable and Transparent,” as will be
explained, lists the obligations of the journalist as professional.
A comparison of duties across codes indicates that the overall shape of the code has not
changed since 1996. It remains vertical rather than horizontal, with a major emphasis on two
prima facie duties: fidelity and nonmaleficence. Some of the prima facie duties, for example,
those related to gratitude and self-improvement, are not reflected in the code. Other prima facie
duties articulated by Ross (1930) are reflected in the code, but the society frames them in
relationship to fidelity and nonmaleficence. For example, the society situated a provision that
reflects the duty of justice in relation to the duty of truth telling when it placed the statement
“give voice to the voiceless” in the code section entitled “Seek Truth and Report It.” The
admonition to think about “the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face
legal charges,” although a justice issue, appears in the section titled “Avoid Harm.” The analysis
indicates that the conceptual categories outlined in the code are not mutually exclusive.
The section of the code labeled “Seek Truth and Report It” contains 18 provisions, more than
twice the number in each of the others. The provisions reflect the Enlightenment view that truth
can be discovered, as evidenced by statements that continue to call for journalists to be
responsible “for the accuracy of their work,” or to “verify information” and to “never deliberately distort facts or context” (SPJ, 2014). These subprinciples serve as strategies for achieving
the principle of truth telling, which, in turn, reflects the duty of fidelity. Similar language appears
in both versions of the code and suggests that the society has not significantly changed its
thinking about the matter of seeking the truth. It is also worth noting that the term “objectivity”
did not appear in either version of the code.
The earlier code indicated that the professional journalist valued justice and democracy (SPJ,
1996); the newest version furthers the importance of these terminal values in a newly added
provision that states that journalists should “recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs
over public affairs and government.” This sentiment, articulated in the Hutchins Commission
Report (1947), was generally reflected in provisions in the earlier code, as in the statement, for
example, that journalists should hold “those with power accountable” (SPJ, 1996). However, the
phrase “watchdogs over public affairs and government” was not present in the 1996 code. By
explicitly advocating the watchdog role of journalism, the society has reinforced the journalist’s
commitment to an instrumental value that serves the terminal values of justice and democracy.
Recent changes also suggest that the field is responding to suggestions that additional
transparency as a truth-telling strategy is needed. Transparency is a concept related to openness
and one that communication scholars are still in the process of explicating (Hellmueller, Vos, &
Poepsel, 2013; Karlsson, 2010; Allen, 2008; Singer, 2007; Plaisance, 2007; Hayes, Singer, &
Ceppos, 2007). It plays a role in limiting deception and misinformation, practices that fly in the
face of truth telling (Plaisance). The language of the 1996 code reflected the concept of
transparency, for example, when asking that journalists “label” and “identify” and information,
terms that lead to more complete storytelling and an increase in the public’s ability to understand
stories. While the earlier version of the code said journalists should identify sources “whenever
feasible,” the newer version strengthens the directive by stating that they should “clearly”
identify sources. The new version adds that the public should have information needed to
judge a source’s “motivations” (SPJ, 2014). The provision was strengthened after news media
failed to disclose ties between journalists, story sources and outside organizations, failures that
may be viewed as conflicts of interest (Strupp, 2014) and, thus, potentially misleading.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
10
SLATTERY
The society combined some code provisions to read more succinctly and added two more
provisions to the “Seek Truth and Report It” section. The code now states that “neither speed nor
format excuses inaccuracy” and that the journalist should “gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.” Likewise, the code no longer lists specific media, for
example, photos, video, and audio, when admonishing against misrepresenting information in
headlines, sound bites and quotations. Rather, it says that journalists should provide context and
should “not misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story”
(SPJ, 2014). The organization debated the inclusion of specific media but decided against it
because the “tenets are applicable to all forms of journalism, and the people who work within
them, professional or otherwise” (Smith and the SPJ Ethics Committee, 2014, p. 18). The
comment suggests that shifts in technology have helped shape the most recent version of the
code. In summary, while some scholars and practitioners (PenzeyMoog, 2012) have raised
questions about the nature of truth that can be told, the newest version of the code suggests
that the society remains committed to the view that truth can be discovered and verified. The
changes to the code reflect a clarification of strategies related to that process.
Likewise, the society further articulated strategies related to the problem of promise keeping,
another form of fidelity reflected in this section of the code. The new code tells journalists to be
“cautious when making promises” and, as stated in the earlier version, to keep those they make
(SPJ, 2014, 1996). The revised provision adds that journalists should “reserve anonymity for
sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and may have information that cannot
be obtained elsewhere” (SPJ, 2014), thus factoring into the decision-making process a consideration of the possible harm to sources should promise keeping fail. This caution adds moral
depth to the provision.
Changes to the section of the code, labeled “Act Independently,” further amplifies the
importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, a duty of fidelity, and is viewed by journalists as
closely related to the problem of truth telling. The journalist’s first loyalty is to the public’s
interest, and putting other interests ahead of the public interest, can influence how stories are
told. In addition to advising journalists to steer clear “of conflicts of interest, real or perceived,”
the new code tells them to “disclose unavoidable conflicts” (SPJ, 2014). The 2014 version
upholds the view that conflicts of interest “may compromise integrity or damage credibility”
(Smith and SPJ Ethics Committee, 2014, p. 18). Further, while the earlier code recognized that
external forces can exert pressure on journalists to shape coverage, the new code adds that
journalists should resist internal pressures, which come from “corporation boards and executives
trying to exert pressure from the highest levels” (Smith and the SPJ Ethics Committee, 2014, p.
18). Boards of directors who oversee non-profit news organizations that have begun to appear in
the recent decade serves as another example. Thus, the code now recognizes that internal and
external forces can distort news. Another noteworthy change to this section reflects a further
response by the SPJ to the economic shifts that have shaken the field. The 1996 code told
journalists to “shun secondary employment.” Not surprisingly, that phrase was dropped from the
newest version; finding full-time employment in traditional news organizations has become
increasingly difficult.
The society made other changes in the spirit of journalistic independence. The 1996 code
cautioned against bidding for news, a provision strengthened in the new version, which
directly states that a journalist should “not pay for access to news” (SPJ, 1996). The revised
code also calls on journalists to “prominently label sponsored content and to identify content
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
11
provided by outside sources, whether paid or not” (SPJ, 2014). Taken together, these
revisions suggest that the society has responded to economic changes in the field, specifically
the loss of employment opportunities and corporate ownership of news organization, and
recognizes that transparency offers a strong antidote to the problems created by the perceptions of conflicts of interest.
The society also made changes to the section of the code labeled “Minimize Harm.” The
organization added a provision addressing the impact of advances in technology; journalists are
now told to consider the breadth of the publication’s reach, its life span and its permanence when
publishing information. To mitigate harm, a reflection of the broader duty of nonmaleficence,
journalists are encouraged to update stories and provide additional information as appropriate.
They are also urged to think about the ethical implications of publishing information even if the
publication is legal, thus minimizing the harm that may result. The move “attempts to separate the
legal vs. ethical arguments that arise often in ethical debates” (Smith and the SPJ Ethics Committee,
2014, p. 18). The society also strengthened provisions in this section that address the journalist’s
sensitivity to story sources and subjects. The organization substituted the term “heightened” for
“special” in the provision that calls for care “when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes and
sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent.” The phrase “unable to give
consent” is directed at those who are disabled, including those “with dementia or mental impairment” (F. Brown, personal communication, October 30, 2014). In the same provision, journalists are
also urged to “consider cultural differences in approach and treatment” (SPJ, 2014). Mentioned
elsewhere in the code, it was added here “to reinforce the idea . . . that journalists should remember
that they will often be dealing with people who have different values” (F. Brown, personal
communication, October 30, 2014). The society dropped wording specifically related to dealing
with people affected by grief and tragedy. Presumably, these victims are covered by the provision
encouraging journalists to “balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or
discomfort” (SPJ, 2014). The language referencing balance reflects Ross’s (1930) observation that
the moral agent must balance conflicting obligations in making moral decisions.
The final section of the code addresses the obligations of the journalist qua professional. The
society added the phrase “and transparent” to the title of the section of the code so it now reads,
“Be Accountable and Transparent.” According to Smith and the SPJ Ethics Committee, (2014),
the code “acknowledges the importance of corrections and engaging the public in discourse over
journalism issues, and it tells journalists they should uphold the highest ethical standards in all
engagements with the public” (p. 18). Smith’s comments reflect Allen’s (2008) observation that,
in addition to aiding in the discovery of social truth, transparency serves “as a way to gain access
to the truth about the manufacturing of news” (p. 324). Openness about the process of news
production is linked to credibility (Allen, 2008; Hayes et al., 2007; Plaisance, 2007). Further, the
society has expanded responsibilities related to accountability, a concept that first appeared in
the 1996 version of the code (Geimann, 1996). The revised code states responsible journalists
must explain “their decisions to the public,” including their ethical choices. Journalists are also
encouraged to provide quick responses to “questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”
Beyond making clarifications and corrections, they are now encouraged to explain them “carefully and clearly” as well (SPJ, 2014). In summary, the changes to this section of the code
indicate that the society has further developed its stand on what it means to be professional.
Despite the inability to regulate who practices journalism through licensing, the society has
taken additional care to distinguish who counts as a professional journalist.
12
SLATTERY
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
THE LANGUAGE OF BEING
Looking through an Aristotelian lens of virtue, the character of an ideal journalist comes into
sharper relief. Like its predecessor, the revised code suggests that the virtuous journalist acts
honestly, courageously, with care, compassion, diligence, thoroughness, fairness and loyalty to
the public interest. The code asks journalists, as professionals, to further embrace this transparency; as noted, the organization added the term “transparent” to the title of the accountability
section of the code. The concept of transparency, encompassing both openness and accountability, is closely related to the concept of truth (Singer, 2007; Phillips, 2010). Truth-telling is a
moral duty (Plaisance, 2007) and truthfulness is a moral virtue (Klaidman & Beauchamp, 1987).
The prominent placement of transparency in the accountability section underscores its importance to the character of the professional journalist.
The virtue of civility appeared for the first time in the revised code, embedded in two
different places. In the section of the code titled “Seek Truth and Report It,” journalists are
urged to “support the open and civil exchange of views, no matter how repugnant.” Later in the
code, in the section titled “Be Accountable and Transparent,” journalists are told to “encourage a
civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content” (SPJ,
2014). The concept of civility as it relates to journalism has drawn attention from scholars in
recent years. For example, drawing on identity theory, Garcès-Conejos Blitvich (2009) pointed
out that some television news talk show hosts use impoliteness to help construct an identity that
connects them with viewers by suggesting they are trying to preserve shared values, and
distinguishes themselves from other journalists, often identified with the mainstream media.
Mutz (2007) argued that the conflict embedded in the discourse, together with television
production values, attracts attention. But, while viewers learn about issues, the strategy may
also, over time, harm the “notion of a ‘worthy’ opposition” (p. 633). The idea of civility, often
entangled with the concepts of manners and etiquette (Kingwell, 1993), began attracting the
interest of political theorists in the decades after John Rawls (1971) introduced his theory of
justice, arguing that society is made up of people with disparate beliefs, interests and values, and
the way they can live together cooperatively is by agreeing to abide by one set of laws created
by the citizenry.1 He also acknowledged that not everyone in a pluralistic society would agree
with all of the details. Rawls (1996) posited a duty of civility to explain how citizens would
negotiate their differences. The principle, grounded in respect for the other, assumed that
individuals are reasonable and rational. Farrelly (2006) has defined civility as a “willingness
to listen to others, a commitment to resolve our disagreements via deliberation and a democratic
process rather than through deception, manipulation or appeal to violence” (p. 517). While
continuing to work out questions related to civility as a virtue (e.g., Fritz, 2013; Fiala, 2013;
Farrelly, 2006; Calhoun, 2000; Meyer, 2000), some scholars regard the dialogic model of
communication as necessary for enabling society to evolve toward justice (Kingwell, 1993).
At the same time, it is worth noting that journalism is clearly a communicative act. SPJ’s
inclusion of civility in the most recent version of its code invites further conversation about how
journalists ought to participate in the ongoing process of conversations in and about public life,
conversations that are necessary if we are to live in a just pluralistic society.
In summary, the comparison of the codes did not reveal a significant shift in the virtuous
character expected of the ideal journalist as practitioner and professional. Most of the code’s
changes were to provisions related to obligations. Some offer additional ways to meet the
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
13
journalist’s duties related to fidelity and non-injury while others reflect responses to economic
and technological shifts in the environment. The codes are clearly grounded in morality, yet
some of the changes described here lend support to Wilkins and Brennen’s (2004) claim that
historical and cultural factors play a role in code evolution.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
DISCUSSION
The code’s recent evolution can be interpreted in two ways. On one hand, change continued
slowly. Some argued that, even after a year of debate, the changes did not go far enough to
address recent upheavals in the field (Buttry, 2014). Read another way, the revisions suggest that
professional journalists have recommitted to standards long governing their work in the broader
culture despite the pressures related to technological and economic changes and challenges
related to the concept of truth telling. As the analysis suggests, the society has chosen transparency is one avenue to respond to the recent challenges. Interestingly, transparency as a journalist’s strategy to discover, verify and understand the truth is beginning to appear in stories told in
new ways. The well-received public radio series titled “Serial” is one example of storytelling
that offers insight into the process a journalist used while reviewing evidence to determine if a
teenager was wrongly convicted of murder. New story-telling forms will likely emerge as the
concept becomes normative. Meanwhile, it is too early to tell if the embrace of transparency as a
truth-telling strategy or norm of the journalist-as-professional will result in additional value to
the field’s cultural capital.
As noted, the code remains more vertical than horizontal; the profession continues to
emphasize prima facie duties of fidelity and non-maleficence as principles that give the field
much of its moral definition. This finding is unsurprising since professions often emphasize
some prima facie duties over others. Yet, because the journalist’s code remains narrowly
focused, it offers little direction in matters related to duties of reparation, self-improvement,
beneficence or gratitude. However, even if the society had inserted additional guidelines or
virtues into the code, it would not have solved two significant problems that the revision created,
problems that chip away at the internal logic of the journalist’s code as a source of moral
guidance. First, in its revised preamble, the society severed the connection between pursuing
truth and furthering public enlightenment in service to democracy, thus reducing the clarity of
the telos worked out by the profession during the last century. As noted earlier, the profession’s
mission sets the stage for code provisions. The provisions, in turn, reflect the duties and virtues,
i.e., the moral character, of the professional. Lack of a statement directly connecting truth-telling
and public enlightenment opens the door to an important question about the virtues referenced in
the code. Why these virtues and not others? A similar question can be raised about the moral
duties cited. Why this particular list? For instance, should professional journalists worry about
serving as government watchdogs if they are not expected to serve the public’s effort to selfgovern? Without a direct link between the telos and the code provisions, the answers to the
questions become less clear.
A second problem arises from the inability to determine who counts as a journalist.
Typically, a profession maintains its authority through a licensing process and depends on
the government to enforce sanctions against inept or unauthorized practitioners. The First
Amendment denies that process to the press and, because new technology has made
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
14
SLATTERY
publishing easy, the definition of a journalist is difficult to articulate. The society has
responded to this conundrum by substituting the term “ethical journalism” for the term
“journalist” in several prominent places in the code. This substitution threatens to weaken
the code’s moral gravity. The code may state that ethical journalism is “accurate, fair and
thorough,” but that only describes an abstract ideal or a means of evaluating actual work. An
ideal cannot be held morally accountable because moral agency, that is, personhood, is
necessary for that. Moral agents are virtuous or they are not, and their behavior is morally
praiseworthy or morally blameworthy. The same cannot be said for a process. The recent
shift in the language, then, is a phenomenon to be closely watched; the code sets a moral
agenda for those who do the work. Continued de-emphasis of personhood may set the field
adrift from its moral foundation and threaten all of the good work of responsible journalists
in the cultural role they’ve carved out for themselves. The importance of their work toward
preserving access to information that helps keep the democracy in play cannot be overstated.
Journalists have fought hard to ensure that the public’s business continues to remain public,
as they are directed by the code. They have also acquired privileges like shield laws, libel
protections and cameras in the courtroom, and all are used in service to public enlightenment
and the democratic process (Black, 2010). Lawmakers and judges have negotiated these
policies over time with people who were expected to act in the public’s interest in ways set
out by the SPJ and other professional codes. One wonders how such policies and protections
will be negotiated in the future should we slip away from the concept of responsible
journalist as moral agent and focus, instead, on an abstract ideal of ethical journalism.
The claim that anyone counts as a journalist is fair, given free press guarantees. But, the
professional code allows us to distinguish between a journalist and an ethical journalist. That is
no minor distinction. It is a major claim, and one that enables and empowers those who work in
the field, toiling to keep the government accountable and the citizenry informed, despite
technological, economic and/or conceptual threats to their effort. Perhaps it is not necessary to
worry about who is a journalist, but, rather, to stake a claim to who counts as a responsible or
professional journalist (Whitehouse, 2011). The Society of Professional Journalist’s code of
ethics, whatever its shortcomings, has helped define that entity.
NOTES
1.
For more complete discussions of the role of civility in the development of human society and ways
philosophers have conceived of the idea, see Becker (1988), Clayton and Edgar (2012), Davetian
(2009), and Hall and Trentmann (2005).
REFERENCES
Allen, D. S. (2008). The trouble with transparency: The challenge of doing journalism ethics in a surveillance society.
Journalism Studies, 9(3), 323–340.
Barker, S. (1992). What is a profession? Professional Ethics, 1(1–2), 73–99.
Bayles, M. D. (1981). Professional ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Becker, M. B. (1988). Civility and society in Western Europe, 1300–1600. Bloomington,IN: Indiana University Press.
Bersoff, D., & Koeppl, P. (1993). The relation between ethical codes and moral principles. Ethics & Behavior, 3(3–4),
345–357.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
15
Bivins, T. H. (2014). The language of virtue: What can we learn from early journalism codes of ethics? In W. N. Wyatt
(Ed.), The ethics of journalism: Individual, institutional and cultural influences (pp. 165–184). London, England:
Tauris & Co. and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Black, J. (2010). Who is a journalist? In C. Meyers (Ed.), Journalism ethics: A philosophical approach (pp. 103–116).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Black, J., & Barney, R. D. (1985–86). The case against mass media codes of ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1(1), 27–36.
Boeyink, D. E. (1994). How effective are codes of ethics? A look at three news rooms. Journalism Quarterly, 71(4), 893–904.
Borden, S. L. (2007). Journalism as practice: MacIntyre, virtue ethics and the press. Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Brinkman, J., & Ims, K. (2003). Good intentions aside: Drafting a functionalist look at codes of ethics. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 12(3), 265–274.
Bukro, C. (1985–86). The SPJ code’s double-edged sword: Accountability, credibility. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1
(1), 10–13.
Buttry, S. (2014, July/August). A good attempt, but code still needs work. Quill, 102(4), 14–17.
Calhoun, C. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29(3), 251–275.
Case, T. (1994). The SPJ ethics code. Editor & Publisher, 127(44), 12.
Christians, C. (1985–86). Enforcing media codes. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,1(1), 4–21.
Christensen, S. E. (2013). Cognitive biases and errors as cause – and journalistic best practices as effect. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 28, 160–174.
Clayton, C. W., & Edgar, R. (Eds.). (2012). Civility and democracy in America: A reasonable understanding. Pullman,
WA: Washington State University Press.
Commission on Freedom of the Press. (1947). A free and responsible press: A general report of mass communications,
newspapers, radio, motion pictures,magazines, and press books. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cronin, M. M., & McPherson, J. B. (1995). Pronouncements and denunciations: An analysis of state press association
ethics in codes from the 1920s. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 890–901.
Davetian, B. (2009). Civility: A cultural history. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Davis, M. (2010). Why journalism is a profession. In C. Meyers (Ed.), Journalism ethics: A philosophical approach (pp.
91–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dige, M. (2009). Occupational therapy, professional development and ethics. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 16, 88–98.
Edgar, A., & Pattison, S. (2011). Integrity and the moral complexity of professional practice. Nursing Philosophy, 12, 94–106.
Editor & Publisher (1993, October 16). Adopt the ASNE Code. 126(42), 6, 40.
Elliott-Boyle, D. (1985–86). A conceptual analysis of ethics codes. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1(1), 22–26.
Farrelly, C. (2006). Civic liberalism and the “dialogical model” of judicial review. Law and Philosophy, 25(5), 489–531.
Fiala, A. (2013). The fragility of civility: Virtue, civil society, and the tragic break- downs of civility. Dialogue and
Universalism, 3, 109–122.
Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2–3), 109–115.
Fritz, J. M. H. (2013). Professional civility: Communicative virtue at work. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Garcès-Conejos
Blitvich, P. (2009). Impoliteness and identify in the American news media: The “culture wars.” Journal of Politeness
Research, 5, 273–303.
Gaumnitz, B. R., & Lere, J. C. (2004). A classification scheme for codes of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,
49, 329–335.
Geimann, S. (1996). Journalism ethics on front burner for coming year. Quill, 84(9), 9–13.
Gomery, D. (1996). What’s at the end of the infobahn? American Journalism Review, 18(4), 42.
Hall, S. (1975). Introduction. In A. C. H. Smith, E. Immirzi, & T. Blackwell (Eds.), Paper voices: The popular press and
social change, 1935–1965 (pp. 11–24). Totowa, NJ: Rowavi and Littlefield.
Hall, J. A., & Trentmann, F. (2005). Civil society: A reader in history, theory and global politics. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hardimon, M. (1994). Role obligations. Journal of Philosophy, 91(7), 330–363.
Hayes, A. S., Singer, J. B., & Ceppos, J. (2007). Shifting roles, enduring values: The credible journalist in the digital age.
Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 262–279.
Hellmueller, L., Vos, T. P., & Poepsel, M. A. (2013). Shifting journalistic capital? Transparency and objectivity in the
twenty-first century. Journalism Studies,14(3), 287–304.
Himelboim, I., & Limor, Y. (2011). Media institutions, news organizations and the journalistic social role worldwide: A
cross national and cross-organizational study of codes of ethics. Mass Communication and Society,14(1), 71–92.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
16
SLATTERY
Jamal, K., & Bowie, N. (1995). Theoretical considerations for a meaningful code of professional ethics. Journal of
Business Ethics, 14(9), 703.
Karlsson, M. (2010). Rituals of transparency. Journalism Studies, 11(4), 535–545.
Keith, S., Schwalbe, C., & Silcock, B. (2006). Images in ethics codes in an era of violence and tragedy. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 21(4), 245–264.
Kelly, M. J. (1982). St. Thomas and the moral agent. Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 46(2), 307–312.
Kingwell, M. (1993). Interpretation, dialogue and the just citizen. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 19(2), 115–144.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in
counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(43), 43–55.
Klaidman, S., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1987). The virtuous journalist, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value – orientations in the theory of action. In T. Parsons & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward
a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kovach, R., & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should
expect. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
L’Etang, J. (1992). A Kantian approach to codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 737–744.
Lathan, S. R. (2005). The (low) life of ethics codes. American Journal of Bioethics, 5(5), 33–41.
Laitila, T. (1995). Journalists codes of ethics in Europe. European Journal of Communication, 10, 527–544.
Lebacqz, K. (1985). Professional ethics: Power and paradox. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
MacDonald Glenn, L. (2005). Lessons from other codes: Is it the journey or the destination? American Journal of
Bioethics, 5(5), 59–60.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Marion, G., & Izard, R. (1986). The journalist in life-saving situations: Detached observer or good Samaritan? Journal of
Mass Media Ethics, 1(2), 61–67.
McBride, K., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The new ethics of journalism. London, England: Sage.
McFall, L. (1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98, 5–20.
Méle, D. (2005). Ethical education in accounting: Integrating rules, values and virtues. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 97–109.
Meyer, M. (2000). Liberal civility and the civility of etiquette: Public ideals and personal lives. Social Theory and
Practice, 26(1), 69–84.
Meyers, C., Wyatt, W., Borden, S., & Wasserman, E. (2012). Professionalism, not professionals. Journal of Mass Media
Ethics, 27, 189–205.
Muñoz-Torres, J. R. (2012). Truth and objectivity in journalism: Anatomy of an endless misunderstanding. Journalism
Studies, 13(4), 566–582.
Mutz, D. (2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American
Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635.
Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). Virtue ethics and professional roles. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Padgett, G. (1985–86). Codes should address exploitation of grief by photographers. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1(1), 50–56.
PenzyMoog, C. (2012, November 26). The pitfalls of objectivity. In The UWM post. Milwaukee, WI: University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Phillips, A. (2010). Transparency and the new ethics of journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 373–382.
Plaisance, P. (2007). Transparency: An assessment of the Kantian roots of a key element in media ethics practice. Journal
of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2–3), 187–207.
Pritchard, D., & Peroni Morgan, M. (1989). Impact of ethics codes on judgments byjournalists: A natural experiment.
Journalism Quarterly, 66(4), 934–941.
Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Roberts, C. (2012). Identifying and defining values in media codes of ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 27(2), 115–129.
Robinson, M. (2010). Are some prima facie duties more binding than others? Utilitas: A Journal of Utilitarian Studies,
22(1), 26–32.
Rogers, R. (2007). Journalism is a loose-jointed thing: A content analysis of Editor & Publisher’s discussion of
journalistic conduct prior to the canons of journalism, 1901–1922. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(1), 66–82.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rohan, M. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255.
Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford, England: The Clarendon Press.
Downloaded by [University of Alabama] at 20:15 04 March 2016
MORAL MEANING OF SPJ CODE OF ETHICS REVISIONS
17
Schwartz, M. S. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 48(1), 23–47.
Schwartz, M. S. (2005). Universal moral values for corporate codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 27–44.
Singer, J. B. (2007). Contested autonomy: Professional and popular claims on journalistic norms. Journalism Studies, 8
(1), 79–95.
Skaggs, A. C. (1985–86). Today’s codes mirror credo of Benjamin Harris. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 1(1), 37–42.
Slattery, K. L. (2014). Ethics and journalistic standards: An examination of the relationship between journalism codes of
ethics and deontological moral theory. In W. N. Wyatt (Ed.), The ethics of journalism: Individual, institutional and
cultural influences (pp. 147–164), London, England: I. B. Tauris & Co. and Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism.
Smith, K. (2013). To each his own ethics code? Quill, 101(6), 11–12.
Smith, K., & The SPJ Ethics Committee. (2014). What’s up, and what has changed? Quill, 102(4), 17–18.
Society of Professional Journalists. (2014). Code of ethics. Retrieved from www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Society of Professional Journalists. (1996). Code of ethics. Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/pdf/ethicscode.pdf
Starr, W. C. (1983). Codes of ethics – Towards a rule-utilitarian justification. Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 99–106.
Strupp, J. (2014). 60 minutes, Gingrich conflicts helped spark major journalism group’s ethics code overhaul: George
Will’s lack of disclosure cited as ‘noted example’ of recent transparency failure. MediaMatters. Retrieved fromhtto://
mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/60minutes- gingrich-conflicts-helped-spark-majo/200696
Ward, S. (2013). Going radical. Media, 15(4), 21–22.
Ward, S. (2005). Philosophical foundations for global journalism ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 20(1), 3–21.
Whitehouse, G. (2011). Ethics defines the professional. Gateway Journalism Review, 41(321), 14–15.
Wilkins, L., & Brennen, B. (2004). Conflicted interests, contested terrain: Journalism ethics codes then and now.
Journalism Studies, 5(2), 297–309.