|
by
Laurie A. Zenner, attorney, Hannah & Zenner
Newsworthy 1995
The
debate over whether journalists should adopt a profession-wide code
of ethics is at least as old as the First Amendment. The arguments
in favor of a code include the noble view that journalists have
a duty to act responsibly and morally. Other arguments take the
more pragmatic view - that a code would enhance public opinion of
journalists and their work. Underlying both arguments is the misguided
notion that journalists must have a code of ethics to be considered
professionals, not trades people.
Why
journalists think that their reputations would be improved by being
in the same category as lawyers and accountants I'm not quite sure,
but there are several reasons not to buy into these arguments. First,
many codes are written in such vague terms - they must be vague
in order to encompass the wide range of possibilities - that they
say very little. The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional
Journalists, for example, includes a provision that the news media
"must guard against invading a person's right to privacy."
That admonition offers little guidance to working journalists.
Second,
most journalistic codes of ethics do not contain enforcement provisions.
SPJ deleted its clause requiring journalists to "actively censure"
code violators in 1987. While the absence of an enforcement provision
makes the code more acceptable under Constitutional theory, it destroys
most of the codes' public relations benefits.
Another
argument against a code of ethics is that it can be used against
journalists in legal actions, particularly defamation actions. Plaintiffs'
lawyers routinely seek copies of a newsroom's code of ethics to
use as a standard for judging journalists instead of much the more
lenient legal standards. The adoption of a standard code of ethics
for all media would certainly make this problem worse, but that
is not the main reason why a code of ethics is inadvisable.
The
real reason is that those other professions can take steps to enforce
their codes of ethics without running afoul of a Constitutional
amendment. While the First Amendment forbids only government interference
with free speech, the theory underlying the First Amendment is that
society is better off when speech is unrestrained. A code of ethics,
no matter how morally or politically correct, by its very nature
confounds that theory. After 200 years of fighting to preserve the
First Amendment's protection, journalists in favor of a uniform
code would impose their own form of censorship not only on themselves
but also on their colleagues.
In
addition, a professional code of ethics for all journalists would
result in an invidious distinction between "professional"
journalists and those who do not abide by the code. This distinction
would stratify types of speech. Journalists who abide by the code
would be seen as having the moral high ground, which could lead
to lesser protection, in practice, for more unrestrained speakers.
Obviously,
journalists should discuss ethics among themselves and with non-journalists
and newsrooms should set ethical standards for journalists working
there, since the actions of the individual journalist affect the
reputation of the organization. To go further, however, would impose
undue constraints on the profession and on free speech.
|