journalism ethics assignment

• Ethics Handbook for Students

NYU Journalism Handbook for Students: Ethics, Law and Good Practice

The handbook was written by Prof. Adam Penenberg, and is available in two versions:

Read the Handbook Online

Download PDF

Ethics Pledge

Ethics Pledge PDF

As a New York University journalism student, you are part of a community of scholars at a university recognized for its research. A scholar’s mission is to push forward the boundaries of knowledge; a journalist’s mission is to serve the public by seeking out and reporting the facts as accurately as possible. Good journalists and scholars share a commitment to the same principle: integrity in their work.

By signing this ethics pledge, you agree to maintain the highest standards of honesty and foster ethical behavior at all times. Anyone who fails to uphold these ethical standards has committed a serious violation of this agreement. Penalties can range from an F on an assignment to a failing grade in a course to expulsion, depending on the nature of the breach and the outcome of any inquiries held in accordance with NYU’s policies and procedures.

Examples of such activities can include (but are not limited to):

Plagiarism: Attempting to pass off someone else’s words or ideas as your own without proper attribution or acknowledgment. In both journalism and academia, this is akin to theft. Examples: Copying in whole or in part a published article or another student’s paper, borrowing language or concepts, lifting quotes or failing to use quotation marks where appropriate. This includes the unauthorized use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT without the express permission of your instructor. See “Guidance on the Ethical Uses of Generative AI Tools in Journalism”.

Fabrication: Making up information, faking anecdotes or sources, falsifying quotes, creating fictitious sources, citing non-existent articles, or fudging data.

Multiple submission: Recycling assignments from one class for use in another, or submitting assignments to one class that were derived from research in another without prior approval from all professors involved.

Cheating: Using or attempting to use unauthorized assistance, material, or study aids in examinations or other academic exercises. Examples: Using study resources not expressly approved by the instructor, working with another student or students on a take-home exam without prior approval, tampering with grades, purchasing a paper written by someone else or paying someone to write an assignment for you.

In addition, if asked you will submit notes and source lists to your professor without delay.

—– Guidance on the Ethical Uses of Generative AI Tools in Journalism Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University

The rise of advanced generative AI models, such as ChatGPT, DALL·E and similar technologies, presents a paradigm shift in how we gather, analyze and disseminate information. While these tools hold immense potential, they also present ethical challenges that can harm the integrity of journalistic work. In recognition of these challenges, the faculty of the Journalism Institute at New York University have created this addendum to the Institute’s Ethics Pledge.

1. Transparency and Attribution

a. When using generative AI to produce or augment content, journalists must disclose its use to their audience. This transparency is crucial for maintaining trust in journalism.

b. Generative tools should never be used to invent quotations or fabricate statements.

c. All generated content should be clearly labeled as “Generated by [AI model name]” or similar, to ensure readers understand the source.

2. Verification and Fact-Checking

a. AI models can not be considered credible sources. Students must remain skeptical of information provided by AI and should always fact-check against bonafide credible sources before publishing.

b. Generative AI can provide a starting point or supplement to a story but should not be the ultimate source of information, especially on contentious issues.

3. Avoiding Deepfakes and Misrepresentation

a. Use of generative models like DALL·E to create images or multimedia content must be done responsibly. It’s unethical to use these tools to produce misleading or false representations.

b. Deepfakes or AI-generated visuals that could mislead or confuse the audience must be clearly labeled.

4. Editorial Independence

a. Journalists must maintain editorial control and independence. While AI can, in certain circumstances, suggest content or ideas, final decisions must be made by human judgment.

b. Journalists should be aware of and remain critical of any potential biases in AI-generated content.

5. Respect for Human Dignity

a. AI tools should not be used in ways that could demean, stereotype, or harm individuals or communities.

b. Care should be taken to avoid amplifying biases present in AI tools, and they should not be used to perpetuate stereotypes or misinformation.

6. Experimentation and Feedback

a. The Institute encourages experimental uses of AI in journalism, however, we all must balance innovation with responsibility.

b. Feedback loops should be established to report and rectify any issues or ethical concerns related to the use of AI.

In embracing the future of journalism, it’s essential to uphold the core values that have always defined this profession: truth, accuracy, fairness, and responsibility. This addendum to the ethics pledge aims to integrate the transformative capabilities of generative AI tools while ensuring that these principles remain at the heart of our journalistic endeavors.

NOTE: Graduate and undergraduate pledges should be returned to the designated boxes in the 6th floor reception area. The final grade for a student registered in a journalism course will not be submitted to the Registrar unless a signed pledge is on file in the Institute.

• Career Resources
• Equipment Resources & Information
• Guidelines & Policies at 20 Cooper Square
• Resources for International Students
• Faculty Resources

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Journalism Ethics in the Digital Age: A Model/Open Source Syllabus

Semester-long course that offers aspiring journalists a strong foundation in ethical decision-making, with a focus on the challenges created by digital technology, social media and evolving newsgathering practices.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by The Journalist's Resource, The Journalist's Resource February 3, 2016

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/journalism-ethics-digital-age-syllabus/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Note: This sample syllabus was designed to be drawn upon and used freely by all educators, students and classrooms. Please reuse or adapt this resource in whatever way would best serve your work; it is a public domain, Creative Commons document.

The American news media has seldom been held in lower esteem by the public. This partly comes from a sense that professional standards have dropped. The digital age, where publishing and broadcasting information have proliferated far beyond daily newspapers and radio and television stations, only complicates these dynamics of mistrust. Corrupted information and half-truths seem to be everywhere, many citizens sense, and news media outlets — like almost all large institutions in today’s society — face increasing skepticism.

A crucial question, then, looms for those studying journalism and training to become reporters and editors: What distinguishes the professional journalist’s approach to information amid vast other digital streams of videos, photos, data and text? In large part, the answer must be the highest of ethical standards and a commitment to the uncorrupted pursuit of truth based on verifiable facts and knowledge.

We stand at a moment when the journalistic ethical codes that American society has known for decades are now under tremendous pressure, as the underlying business model continues to erode, news and information are increasingly consumed in personalized ways on commercial platforms, and every journalistic story must compete for attention amid an overwhelming sea of what is generically being called “content.” Meanwhile, the number of U.S. editorial workers has been nearly cut in half over the past few decades; there are now about four public relations persons for every journalist. Preserving an ethical core, and seeking to improve upon the checkered past of reporting, is no sure or easy thing for a profession that has never required a license to practice.

This syllabus presents ideas, materials, case studies and readings that speak to this moment of change.

Course objectives

• Learn the core ethical principles that have defined the very best journalism.
• Know the chief ethical challenges and salient failures journalism has seen in the past.
• Develop a sharp awareness of how digital technology and increased two-way engagement with audiences are changing the nature of journalistic ethical decision-making and challenging it in new ways.
• Create a language for ethical reasoning and the capacity to apply important principles to concrete reporting situations of all kinds, both old and new.
• Learn the newsgathering rights afforded to journalists as well as the laws that both protect and constrain journalistic practice.

Course design

This course will acquaint students with important ethical principles and professional norms that they can employ in the practice of reporting. Students will develop their knowledge of theories and frameworks, gain knowledge of important journalistic failures and mistakes, as well as emerging areas of professional challenge, and learn how to apply this knowledge during reporting, publication and audience engagement processes. The course is designed to build toward a final project in which students demonstrate a thorough grasp of ethics issues in journalism.

Course materials

Suggested class materials include general texts that supply a theoretical framework, book chapters, and print or online readings that apply to class topics, and films. Instructors can guide students to relevant articles or ask students to do their own research. Readings can be selected from those suggested based on the emphasis of the course designed. Separately, several books are proposed for the instructor’s use and selected chapters may lend themselves to student use as well.

Suggested chapters from many of the following books are listed with the relevant class.

• Kelly McBride, Tom Rosenstiel, The New Ethics of Journalism , 2014.
• Gene Foreman,  The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Digital Age, Second Edition, 2015.
• Thomas E. Patterson, Informing the News: The Need for Knowledge-based Journalism , 2013.
• Sue Ellen Christian, Overcoming Bias: A Journalist’s Guide to Culture and Context , 2011.
• Alex S. Jones, Losing the News: The Future of the News That Feeds Democracy, 2009.
• Patrick Lee Plaisance, Media Ethics: Key Principles for Responsible Practice , 2009.
• Dale Jacquette, Journalistic Ethics: Moral Responsibility in the Media , 2007.
• David Craig, The Ethics of the Story: Using Narrative Techniques Responsibly in Journalism , 2006.
• Seth Mnookin, Hard News: The Scandals at The New York Times and their Meaning for American Media , 2004.
• Janet Malcolm, The Journalist and the Murderer , 1990.

Online resources

• Society of Professional Journalists & SPJ Ethics Committee
• Digital Media Law Project Legal Guide, Harvard University
• The Poynter Institute
• Columbia Journalism Review
• Build Your Own Ethics Code , ONA Ethics
• Codes of Ethics Database , Accountable Journalism
• Digital Journalist’s Legal Guide , Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
• Nieman Reports , Harvard University
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics , Santa Clara University
• Center for Journalism Ethics , University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Ethical Journalism Network (EJN)
• Knight Case Studies Initiative , Columbia University
• Ethics Cases Online , Indiana University School of Journalism
• NPR Ombudsman & New York Times Public Editor
• “Spotlight,” 2015 (Open Road Films)
• “Citizenfour,” 2014 (Praxis Films et al.)
• “Kill the Messenger,” 2014 (Bluegrass Films et al.)
• “Frost/Nixon,” 2008 (Universal Pictures et al.)
• “Page One,” 2011 (Participant Media et al.)
• “Good Night and Good Luck,” 2005 (Warner Bros. et al)
• “Shattered Glass,” 2003 (Lions Gate et al.)
• “Broadcast News,” 1987 (Amercent Films et al.)
• “The Killing Fields,” 1984 (Goldcrest Films et al)
• “Absence of Malice,” 1981 (Columbia Pictures)
• “All the President’s Men,” 1976 (Warner Bros. et al)
• “Ace in the Hole,” 1951 (Paramount Pictures et al.)

Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Week 13

Week 1: The ethics of truth

Previous week | Next week | Back to top

The search for truth and ethics are inextricably bound up in journalism; indeed, the fair, unbiased, uncorrupted and dogged pursuit of accurate information is the essence of ethical reporting. All professional journalism, whether analog or digital, has at its core an aspiration toward accuracy, precision in communication and fairness. This week takes a big-picture look at the pursuit of truth and facts, and reviews some cases where journalists came up short and the consequences in terms of doing a disservice to the public.

Class 1: Fidelity to truth and the public

• Roy Peter Clark, “Kicking the Stone: The Search for Reliable Evidence in Journalism,” Chapter 2, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Dale Jacquette, “Truth Telling in the Public Interest,” Chapter 1, Journalistic Ethics .
• Thomas E. Patterson, “The Information Problem,” Chapter 1, Informing the News .
• Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.
• NPR Ethics Handbook .

Class 2: Truth, falsehood and consequences

• Robert Mackey, “U.S. Media Mocked Abroad for Reporting False Name of California Shooting Suspect,” New York Times , Dec. 2015.
• Jordan Burchette, “Fox News Apologies for Misreported Baltimore Police Shooting: ‘We Screwed Up,’” The Wrap, May 2015.
• Brian Montopoli, “Distorted Story Spawns Distorted Theories,” Columbia Journalism Review , May 2005.
• “Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research findings from Social Science,” Journalist’s Resource, 2012.
• Brendan Nyhan, “Why the ‘Death Panel’ Myth Wouldn’t Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Re­form Debate,” The Forum , 2010.

  Assignment

Students should familiarize themselves with the recent troubling ethical case of journalists entering an apartment – with the apparent help of a willing landlord – still under investigation in its connection to the 2015 San Bernadino, Calif., mass shooting. (See “Landlord Lets Reporters into San Bernadino Suspects’ Home,” New York Times , Dec. 2015.) Write a blog post of 750 words discussing how this case puts the pursuit of truth and professional ethics directly in tension, and make a case for how journalists should conduct themselves in such a situation.

Week 2: The language and structure of ethical reasoning

This week asks students to step back and to look at the wider world of ethical reasoning and its basis in philosophy, giving students a sophisticated language with which to approach problems in practice. From utilitarianism and a rights-based approach to the common good and virtue approaches, ethics is a field that has some well-established frameworks for application, interpretation and choices of action.

Class 1: Philosophy and ethical thinking

• “A Framework for Thinking Ethically” and “Ethical Decision Making,” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University.
• “Ethics in a Nutshell,” Center for Journalism Ethics, University of Wisconsin.
• Dale Jacquette, “Moral Ideals and Workaday Journalistic Realities,” Chapter 3, Journalistic Ethics .
• Carlin Romano, “We Need ‘Philosophy of Journalism,’” Chronicle of Higher Education , 2009.
• Laura Nash, “Ethics without the Sermon,” Harvard Business Review , 1981.

Class 2: Digital ethics

• Stephen J.A. Ward, “Digital Media Ethics,” Center for Journalism Ethics, University of Wisconsin.
• Clay Shirky, “Truth without Scarcity, Ethics without Force,” Chapter 1, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Tom Huang, “Storytelling in the Digital Age,” Chapter 3, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Patrick Plaisance, “Digital Journalism Ethics: Mind the Gap” (video), Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Break the class into teams and ask them to review some of the ethics codes from various media organizations and groups. (Choose from a list of many different codes provided by the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Journalism Ethics.) What are chief points of similarity and contrast, both substantively and in terms of emphasis? Teams should present their findings and provide an argument for the key points of any ethical code in journalism.

Week 3: Canonical ethics cases in journalism

This week familiarizes students with some of the most high-profile scandals and controversial stories involving unethical or questionable journalistic practice, including the cases of Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Dan Rather and Mike Daisey.

Class 1: Cases of misconduct

• Sheila Cornel, Steve Coll, Derek Kravitz, “Rolling Stone and UVA: The Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Report,” April 2015.
• Janet Cooke, “Jimmy’s World” (fabrication, retracted), Washington Post , 1980; Richard Prince, “Janet Cooke’s Hoax Still Resonates After 30 Years,” The Root, Oct. 2010.
• Hanna Rosin, “Hello, My Name is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry,” The New Republic , Nov. 2014.
• Ken Auletta, “Sign-Off: The Long and Complicated Career of Dan Rather,” The New Yorker, March 2005.
• Dan Tracy, et al, “Sentinel Finishes Report about Oxycontin Article,” Orlando Sentinel , Feb. 2004.
• Dan Barry, et al, “Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception,” New York Times , May 2003.

Class 2: Newer cases, new issues

Readings/audio

• “Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory” (audio episode, retracted), This American Life, Jan. 2012; “Retraction” (audio episode), This American Life, Mar. 2012.
• Charles Seife, “Jonah Lehrer’s Journalistic Misdeeds at Wired.com,” Slate, Aug. 2012.
• David Uberti, “Journalism Has a Plagiarism Problem, But It’s Not the One You’d Expect,” Columbia Journalism Review , Nov. 2014.

Using the free software application TimelineJS , teams of students should construct a chronological sequence of instances of ethical lapses in American journalism over the past decade. While high-profile cases might be surfaced, students should also look for less-publicized cases at smaller news outlets; they should also look to create a theme around an issue such as fabrication, plagiarism, faulty sourcing, etc.

Week 4: Seeking truth

This week looks at the need for the journalist to report the truth as fully as possible; to be fair to subjects; and to both hold power accountable and to give voice to those without power. Issues such as the overreliance on single, partisan sources, as well as the distorting lens of racial bias, are introduced.

Class 1: The challenges of truth

Readings/viewings

• Alex S. Jones, “The Iron Core,” “Objectivity’s Last Stand” and “Media Ethics: The Painful Balance,” Chapters 1,4-5, Losing the News .
• “Accuracy,” NPR Ethics Handbook.
• Dale Jacquette, “Objectivity, Perspective and Bias,” Chapter 8, Journalistic Ethics .
• Steve Katz, “Getting the Facts Straight” (video), Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
• “Reporting an Explosive Truth: The Boston Globe and Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Class 2: Spin, sources and bias

• Thomas E. Patterson, “The Source Problem,” Chapter 2, Informing the News.
• Margaret Sullivan, “The Disconnect on Anonymous Sources,” New York Times , Oct. 2013.
• Franklin Foer, “The Source of the Trouble,” New York Magazine , May 2005.
• “Racial bias and news media reporting: New research trends,” Journalist’s Resource, 2015.
• Eric Deggans, “Why ethics and diversity matter: The case of Trayvon Martin coverage,” Poynter, Oct. 2012.
• Tony Biascotti, “San Francisco Chronicle suspends reporter for press release copy-and-paste,” Columbia Journalism Review , Oct. 2015.
• David Barstow, Robin Stein, “Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News,” New York Times , March 2005.

Students should choose a news story that they believe does not reflect the whole truth. Write a blog post dissecting the structure of the reporting, the sources and data cited (or not cited), and exploring the ways in which the story might be improved. Alternatively, students might be assigned to the same story and could exchange comments beneath one another’s blog posts as part of an online dialogue about the story in question.

Week 5: Being transparent

This week takes a closer look at how journalists must “show their work” in a digital age and demonstrate intellectual honesty to the public. Above all, any conflicts of interest, and the appearance of conflicts of interest, must be avoided.

Class 1: Being clear about methods

• “Part Two: Transparency,” pp. 89-165, Chapters 6-10, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Charles Ornstein and Annie Waldman, “How We Analyzed Privacy Violation Data,” ProPublica, Dec. 2015.
• Christian Miller, “How We Reported ‘An Unbelievable Story of Rape,’” ProPublica, Dec. 2015.

Class 2: Intellectual honesty

• Margaret Sullivan, “Perfectly Reasonable Question: Quoting a Person or a Prepared Statement?” ; “Conflict of Interest in T Magazine’s Tech Article,” New York Times , Aug./Oct. 2015.
• Ira Basen, “Why Transparency Is Not Enough: The Case of Mr. Mike,” Center for Journalism Ethics, University of Wisconsin, June 2011.
• “Potential Conflicts of Interest,” NYU Journalism Handbook for Students.
• “Conflicted: The New York Times and the Bias Question,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.
• Michael Hiltzik, “Are Silicon Valley Tech Bloggers Truly Objective?” Los Angeles Times , Feb. 2012.
• Jemima Kiss, “Does the AOL ‘Crunchgate’ Spat Mark the End for Techcrunch?” The Guardian , Sept. 2011.

Students should analyze a media organization and the company that owns it. They should focus on whether there is a stated ethics and conflict of interest policy on the website, and do further research on the background of executives, managers and principals, and perform public records searches, to the extent possible. For publicly traded companies, review the Journalist’s Resource tip sheet on reading financial statements. Students might also pull the 990 IRS disclosure forms of several non-profit journalism outlets (databases can be found in several places listed here at Journalist’s Resource .) They should analyze those disclosure forms and compare them with funding disclosures listed at the news outlets’ websites. In particular, students should look at Section VII, where board members, directors and trustees are listed, and do research to figure out the affiliations of persons listed. Write a blog post about the quality of disclosure and the ways any conflicts of interest may be problematic as it relates to reporting on certain issues.

Week 6: Engaging community; minimizing harm and respecting privacy

This week’s class focuses on the journalist’s relationship with an increasingly wired public. It explores the dual imperatives to facilitate the capacity of the community to communicate and engage on issues, and to minimize the harm to community members when journalism must tell tough and revealing stories in an online environment. Readings also touch on communicating controversial or sensitive issues.

Class 1: Engagement and discretion

• “Part Three: Community,” pp. 165-216, Chapters 11-14, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Joseph Lichterman, “How Renée Kaplan, the FT’s first head of audience engagement, approaches her new role,” Nieman Journalism Lab, June 2015.
• “Crowdsourcing at the Fort Myers, FL, News-Press Part B: ‘Help Us Investigate,’” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.
• Anne Johnson, “Policing The Trolls: The Ins and Outs of Comment Moderation,” org, Sept. 2015.
• Molly De Aguiar, “Building News with Not Just For the Community,” Nieman Journalism Lab, Dec. 2015.
• Helen Lewis, “How Newsrooms Handle Graphic Images of Violence,” Nieman Reports, Jan. 2016.
• Edward Schumacher-Matos, “Changing Field: A New Guideline On What To Call That Washington Football Team,” org, Oct. 2014.
• “Digital Deadline: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kirkwood Shooting,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Class 2: Privacy and confidential sources

• Dale Jacquette, “Protection of Confidential Sources” and “Journalistic Respect for Privacy,” Chapters 6-7, Journalistic Ethics .
• “Protecting Sources and Source Material,” Digital Media Law Project, Harvard University.
• Al Tompkins, “Where The Journal News went wrong in publishing names, addresses of gun owners,” Poynter Institute, Jan. 2013.
• Nicholas Kristof, “Is It Ever O.K. to Name Rape Victims?” New York Times , Feb. 2010.
• Rui Kaneya, “Reporter faces jail time for scoop in gruesome murder case,” Columbia Journalism Review , Aug. 2014.
• “Privacy and the Public Interest: Frederick, MD, News-Post and the Bruce Ivins Story,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Review the Dallas Morning News series “Yolanda’s Crossing” and review the related presentation by Tom Huang for the Poynter Institute, “Credibility and Journalism in the Digital Age.” Write a blog post of 750-1,000 words addressing a few key questions: Why should this story be told? What are some challenges to journalistic independence in reporting a project like this? Who could be harmed by the reporting?

Week 7: Coverage perils: Sensationalism and speed

This week will take up some concrete cases that highlight two perils inherent in the nature of the news business: The twin desires to grab attention and to be first with the story. We will look at issues of proportionality and discretion, and focus on the careful balance between informing the public and sensationalizing an issue for the purposes of web traffic, ratings or other motives. The dynamics of breaking news, especially when fueled by social media, will be explored.

Class 1: Proportionality and judgment in coverage

• “Cover Worthy” and “Horror on Record,” Case studies from the Newseum, Aug. 2015.
• Mark Follman, “How the Media Inspires Mass Shooters,” Mother Jones , Oct. 2015.
• “Preventing Suicide: A Resource for Media Professionals,” World Health Organization, 2008.

Class 2: Live coverage and potential for error

• Edward Schumacher-Matos, “Getting It Right: Sandy Hook And The Giffords Legacy At NPR,” org, Jan. 2013.
• Brian Stetler, “News Media and Social Media Become Part of a Real-Time Manhunt Drama,” New York Times , April 2013.
• Jack Shafer, “In Defense of Journalistic Error,” Reuters, April 2013.
• Bill Grueskin, “In Defense of Scoops,” Columbia Journalism Review , April 2013.

Students should use news archives and social media archive tools to review breaking news coverage around national or international events such as the Boston Marathon Bombing or the San Bernadino, Calif., mass shooting. Write a blog post of 750-1,000 words with observations about how storylines develop, errors are made and news outlets iterate and evolve in their coverage. To limit the scope of analysis, students might choose to focus on just one or two sources.

Week 8: Knowing the legal boundaries

This week will focus on core American case law relating to the press and new laws and norms relating to the use of digital technology to record, document and tell news stories. The focus of inquiry will range from landmark legal cases to new norms relating to the digital world.

Class 1: The core of the law

• Majority and dissenting opinions in landmark First Amendment Supreme Court cases: Near v. Minnesota (1931) ; Times v. Sullivan (1964) ; Branzburg v. Hayes (1971) ; New York Times v. United States (1971).
• Marc Gunther, “The Lion’s Share,” American Journalism Review , March 1997.
• “Publishing Information that Harms Another’s Reputation,” Digital Media Law Project, Harvard University.
• Jonathan Peters, “A pair of lawsuits highlight libel law’s complexity,” Columbia Journalism Review , May 2015.
• The First Amendment Handbook , Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Class 2: Digital and online issues

• “Live-blogging and Tweeting from Court” ; “Publishing Information that Harms Another’s Reputation” ; “Practical Tips for Handling Requests to Correct or Remove Material,” Digital Media Law Project, Harvard University.
• Laruen Kirchner, “Bloggers versus the courts: An online writing defamation roundup,” Columbia Journalism Review , Jan. 2014.
• Jonathan Peters, “Can I Use That? A Legal Primer for Journalists,” Columbia Journalism Review , Oct. 2015.

Students should review the “Legal Threat” Database at Harvard’s Digital Media Law Project. Choose a case or set of cases that highlight certain live legal issues that journalists may confront. Write a blog post of 750-1,000 words on the implications for journalists and what they should know about the law in this area.

Week 9: Newsgathering and the rights (and responsibilities) of journalists

What does “on background” really mean? Should you friend someone on Facebook in order to get information about them as a source? Should you fly a drone over his or her home? This week will drill down on such questions, and on specific “field” practices and tools relating to news gathering. The class will explore ethical dilemmas relating to how information can be obtained, verified and published with discretion and professionalism.

Class 1: Rights of reporters

• Dale Jacquette, “Journalistic Rights and Responsibilities,” Chapter 2, Journalistic Ethics .
• Jonathan Peters, “Can I Do That? A Legal Primer for Journalists,” Columbia Journalism Review , Oct. 2015.
• “Newsgathering and Privacy” ; “Recording Phone Calls, Conversations, Meetings and Hearings” ; “Recording Police Officers and Public Officials,” Digital Media Law Project, Harvard University.

Class 2: Responsibilities in newsgathering

• “Interviewing a Source: Rules of the Road; Talking with Officials and Experts,” Journalist’s Resource, Jan. 2013.
• Helen Lewis, “When Is It Ethical to Publish Stolen Data?” Nieman Reports, June 2015.
• “The Facebook Conundrum: The New Haven Independent and the Annie Le Murder,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.
• Kelly McBride, “BuzzFeed reporter’s use of tweets stirs controversy,” Poynter Institute, Nov. 2014.

Students should seek to understand the rules and regulations that govern press access and rights on their college campus. Review “Examining a journalist’s right of access to college and university campuses,” (Jonathan Peters, Columbia Journalism Review , Dec. 2015) for an introduction to the topic. Interview relevant stakeholders (public relations persons, town or city reporters, campus news reporters) and write a blog post on the “state of the free press” on campus.

Week 10: Journalists and social media

Previous week | Next week | Back to top This week will examine evolving norms and rules for how journalists should conduct themselves in “public” digital spaces and how best to engage communities and maintain credibility.

Class 1: Personal and professional behavior

• “Social Media,” NPR Ethics Handbook.
• “Social Media Guidelines for AP Reporters,” Associated Press.
• “What Audiences Think of Journalists’ Social Media Use,” Journalist’s Resource, 2015.
• Jackie Spinner, “On the ‘digital frontline,’ social media reporters and editors exposed to vicarious trauma,” Columbia Journalism Review , Dec. 2015.

Class 2: Verification and wider dynamics

Readings/video

• Mark Little, “What Social Verification Teaches about Trust” (video), Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.
• Josh Stearns, “How Verification Became a Community Service in Social Journalism,” Media Shift Idea Lab, Nov. 2015.
• “Social and news media, violent extremism, ISIS and online speech: Research review,” Journalist’s Resource, March 2015.

Students should review the American Press Institute’s collection of news articles on community engagement strategies. Write a blog post synthesizing best practices based on a group of related articles, and send out multiple tweets or social media posts based on the blog post. Classmates should respond to one another on social media platforms as part of the exercise.

Week 11: Native advertising, institutional firewalls and fluid norms

Previous week | Next week | Back to top This week’s materials and discussion will focus on how the evolving business model in journalism is challenging the profession’s ethical core in important ways, some of which are not always obvious.

Class 1: Church and state separation

• Ira Basen, “Breaking Down the Wall,” Center for Journalism Ethics, University of Wisconsin, Dec. 2012.
• Dean Starkman, “Bloomberg News and the problem of church-state separation,” Columbia Journalism Review , Nov. 2013.
• “A Matter of Opinion: The Oregonian Editorial Board and Sam Adams,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Class 2: Advertising, funders and influence

• Margaret Sullivan, “As Print Fades, Part 1: ‘Live Journalism’ at The Times” ; “As Print Fades, Part 3: Sponsorships and Start-ups,” New York Times , Aug./Sept. 2015.
• “Native advertising and sponsored content: Research on audience, ethics, effectiveness,” Journalist’s Resource, Aug. 2015.
• The Atlantic : “Advertising Guidelines.”
• Jared Keller, “The Atlantic, the Church of Scientology, and the Perils of Native Advertising,” Bloomberg Business, Jan. 2013.
• “Can Investigative Journalism Pay?: InvestigateWest and the Nonprofit Model,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Students should work in teams to devise a 3-4 page ideal ethics policy relating to advertising and funders, both as it relates to a given news institution, its structure and individual news teams and reporters. They should post these online and comment on strength and weakness of one another’s proposed policies.

Week 12: Perils of data and video

This week will focus on the two key areas of growth within media as news becomes digital-first – data graphics and video – and explores how these specific mediums can misinform if not deployed carefully and thoughtfully.

Class 1: Data perils

• Alberto Cairo, “Data Journalism Needs to Up Its Own Standards,” Nieman Journalism Lab, July 2014.
• “Data Journalism Ethics: Tricky Questions Buried in the Numbers,” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University.
• Margaret Sullivan, “Times Magazine Editor on ‘Creative Apocalypse’ Article,” New York Times , Sept. 2015.
• Seth C. Lewis, et al. “Big Data and Journalism: Epistemology, Expertise, Economics and Ethics,” Digital Journalism , 2015.

Class 2: Video norms and accuracy

• WGBH, “Frontline Journalistic Guidelines,”
• Liam Andrew, “Controlled chaos: As journalism and documentary film converge in digital, what lessons can they share?” Nieman Journalism Lab, Oct. 2014.
• “Best practices for documentary filmmakers and journalistic video work: Research on risks, resources,” Journalist’s Resource, April 2015.
• “Frontline’s “The Last Abortion Clinic”: What’s Fair in a Video World?” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.

Students should review the data journalism case detailed in “Times Was Right to Change Insensitive Graphic” (Margaret Sullivan, New York Times , Sept. 2015.) They should then locate other graphics published by news organizations that conceivably could offend or upset communities of various kinds. Write a blog post of 750-1,000 dissecting several questionable instances and propose solutions for each case that balance the pursuit of truth with data and a sense of discretion and fairness.

Week 13: Truth in an era of big leaks, globalization and polarization

This week takes a broad final look at the societal patterns and trends within journalism that will challenge journalistic norms and the profession’s ethical code in the coming decades.

Class 1: A post-Snowden media world

• Sean Wilentz, “Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?” The New Republic , Jan. 2014.
• “Covert Activity: the Washington Post, Edward Snowden and the National Security Agency,” Knight Case Studies Initiative, Columbia University.
• Jenna McLaughlin, “Laura Poitras Sues U.S. Government to Find Out Why She Was Repeatedly Stopped at the Border,” The Intercept, July 2015.
• Bill Buzenberg, “Anatomy of a Global Investigation: Collaborative, Data-driven, Without Borders,” Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, July 2015.

Class 2: Polarization and misinformation

• Steve Myers, “Fact-Checking 2.0,” Chapter 4, The New Ethics of Journalism .
• Thomas E. Patterson, “The Democracy Problem,” Chapter 6, Informing the News .
• “Research chat: U.T. Austin’s Talia Stroud on how to de-polarize news audiences,” Journalist’s Resource, Oct. 2014.
• “Media bias, partisanship and what it means for democracy: Research chat and reading list,” Journalist’s Resource, April 2014.

Final project due.

  A special thanks to John Wihbey, assistant professor at Northeastern University and a consultant to Journalist’s Resource, for help in preparing this syllabus.

About The Author

The Journalist's Resource

• UConn Library
• Journalism Ethics
• Getting Started

Journalism Ethics — Getting Started

• Magazine & Journal Research
• Newspaper Research
• Legal Research
• Journalism Ethics Books
• Other Online Resources

Researching Your Ethics Topic

A successful research strategy typically involves the following:

• Find articles in academic and professional journalism periodicals focused on the ethical issue: The Magazine & Journal Research tab above provides access to professional and academic journals in the field of journalism and mass communication and allows you to search the full text of titles like  Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Columbia Journalism Review, Newspaper Research Journal, American Journalism Review, Quill, and St. Louis Journalism Review.
• Locate newspaper articles which discuss(or are themselves examples of)  an ethical controversy in the media. Use Nexis Uni (full text of 100s of newspapers back to the 1980s) to find examples of journalism which violated an ethical principle (e.g. the stories were plagiarized, or unfairly targeted someone running for political office) or articles which examine an ethical principle of journalism.
• Explore any legal aspects of the ethical issue , as discussed in law journals or debated in court. Many issues of journalistic ethics have been examined in court cases - LexisNexis Legal can locate both cases and laws related to ethical issues; law journal articles are also helpful for explaining how law and courts have treated the issue over time.
• Locate material to support your argument in books on journalism ethics (see Journalism Ethics Books tab). The library has many books on journalism ethics which can provide helpful analysis, and case studies, of an issue.

Further tips:

What are the broader issues encompassing the ethical question? Privacy? Deception? Objectivity? The First Amendment? All of these concepts are treated at length in books and articles (many of the books set aside for this class are great for this); for the purposes of the assignment, is it possible to show that that the merits of your argument actually don’t conflict with the conventional wisdom on these topics?

Need more help? Feel free to contact me .

Subject Guide

Photo Caption for "A New Bull in the Ring / F. Graetz

• Next: Magazine & Journal Research >>
• Last Updated: Aug 29, 2024 11:41 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/journalismethics

SchoolJournalism.org

Journalism Ethics

Asne lessons created for use with the law and ethics training module.

Day 1 Journalism Ethics Lesson – Day One

Day 2 Journalism Ethics Lesson – Day Two

Day 3 Journalism Ethics Lesson – Day Three

Other ASNE Lessons

• Forming a Code of Ethics A great lesson for introducing journalism ethics to a new school publication team.
• Sticky Ethics Scenarios Journalists Face Two lesson plans exploring the ethics issues both students and news publications face. Many of the questions are delightfully gray.
• Journalism Ethics and Truth , provided by Columbia Links The lesson plan introduces journalism ethics by presenting students with common ethical guidelines that journalists use, and then asking them to apply these principles to hypothetical ethical dilemmas.
• Case Studies in Journalistic Ethics This lesson focuses on a journalist’s responsibility and ethical concerns in reporting on illegal immigration, but could be adapted to other sticky topics.
• Ethics and Hazelwood: What Student Journalists Should and Can Write By examining ethics codes of journalists, students will gain an appreciation for ethics in general. This lesson asks them to consider ethics within the Hazelwood/Tinker standards.
• Teaching Ethical Situations A lesson plan for discussing journalism ethics. It includes a set of overall goals for discussion and eight theoretical situations for students to ponder.
• Photo Editing and Photo Ethics Just because students CAN do something to a photo in Photoshop doesn’t mean it’s RIGHT to do it. Help students make ethical decisions about photos.

Ethics Codes

• Model Code of Ethics for High School Journalists
• Obituary Policy Ethical Considerations
• ASNE’s Statement of Principles
• National Press Photographers Association’s Code of Ethics
• Radio Television Digital News Association’s Code of Ethics and Coverage Guidelines
• Society of Professional Journalists’  Code of Ethics
• Journalist’s Creed, from the University of Missouri
• Ethics of Online Journalists, guidelines from the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
• Social Media and Ethics Guidelines, from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, Arizona State University

Ethical Journalism

A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Opinion Departments

By The New York Times

Introduction and Purposes

The Scope of These Guidelines

Other standards of behavior.

Our Duty to Our Readers

Pursuing the News

Personal Relations with Sources

Obeying the law in pursuit of the news, accepting hospitality from sources, dealing with the competition.

Protecting the Paper’s Neutrality

Providing Financial or Other Advice

Speaking engagements, competitions and contests, the use of borrowed equipment, collaboration and testimonials.

Participation in Public Life

Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues

Community service.

Advertisers, Marketing, Promotion

Obligations to The Times

Speaking for The Times

Books, Movies, Reprints and Copyright

Journalistic Work Outside The Times

Appearing on Broadcast Media

Sorting Out Family Ties

Disclosure of Possible Conflicts

Investments and Financial Ties

Affirming Good-Faith Compliance

Business-financial, technology and media news, transitional arrangements, annual filing by ranking editors.

Rules for Specialized Departments

Culture, Styles, Dining

Art, pictures, technology, automobiles.

Dealing with Outside Contributors

Sample letter declining a gift

Sample letter declining an unsolicited award, letter of understanding with the newspaper guild of new york, introduction and purposes top.

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news and opinion staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.

Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas. They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, family and companions can create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts.

In keeping with its solemn responsibilities under the First Amendment, The Times strives to maintain the highest standards of journalistic ethics. It is confident that its staff members share that goal. The Times also recognizes that staff members should be free to do creative, civic and personal work and to earn extra income in ways separate from their work at The Times. Before engaging in such outside activities, though, staff members should exercise mature professional judgment and consider the stake we all have in The Times’s irreplaceable good name.

These guidelines generally apply to all members of the news and opinion departments whose work directly affects the content of the paper, including those on leaves of absence.

They include reporters, editors, opinion writers, photographers, picture editors, art directors, artists, designers, graphics editors and researchers. This group of professional journalists is what this text means by “staff ” or “staff members.”

News clerks, administrative assistants, secretaries and other support staff are generally not bound by these strictures, with two important exceptions: First, no newsroom or opinion employee may exploit for personal gain any nonpublic information acquired at work, or use his or her association with The Times to gain favor or advantage. And second, no one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government; in particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other form of political partisanship while on the job.

Our contracts with freelance contributors require them to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent. In keeping with that, they must honor these guidelines in their Times assignments, as set forth in Section 14.

The Times believes beyond question that its staff shares the values these guidelines are intended to protect. In the past The Times has resolved differences of view over applying these values amiably through discussion, almost without exception. The paper has every reason to believe that pattern will continue. Nevertheless, The Times views any deliberate violation of these guidelines as a serious offense that may lead to disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal, subject to the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Our fundamental purpose is to protect the impartiality and neutrality of The Times and the integrity of its report. In many instances, merely applying that purpose with common sense will point to the ethical course. Sometimes the answer is self-evident. Simply asking oneself whether a course of action might damage the paper’s reputation is often enough to gauge whether the action is appropriate.

Every staff member is expected to read this document carefully and to think about how it might apply to his or her duties. A lack of familiarity with its provisions cannot excuse a violation; to the contrary, it makes the violation worse. The provisions presented here can offer only broad principles and some examples. Our world changes constantly, sometimes dramatically. No written document could anticipate every possibility. Thus we expect staff members to consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or opinion managing editor if they have any doubts about any particular situation or opportunity covered by this document. In most cases an exchange of emails should suffice.

Thus this handbook is not an exhaustive compilation of all situations that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. It does not exclude situations or issues giving rise to such conflicts simply because they are not explicitly covered within this document, nor does the document or any of its particular provisions create an implied or express contract of employment with any individual to whom the guidelines apply. The Times reserves the right to modify and expand the guidelines from time to time, as appropriate. (See the letter of understanding with the Newspaper Guild of New York, included in the appendix below.)

The authority to interpret and apply these guidelines is vested in department heads and ranking editors, most notably in the standards editor and, on the opinion side, the opinion editor and opinion managing editor. They may delegate that duty to their ranking assistants, but they remain responsible for decisions made in their name.

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

As employees of the Times Company, we observe our Values and Behaviors, which are the axiomatic standards of behavior governing our dealing with colleagues and going about our work. We also observe the company’s policies against harassment and on computers and electronic communications.

Our Duty to Our Readers TOP

The Times treats its readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors, large and small, as soon as we become aware of them.

We treat our readers no less fairly in private than in public. Anyone who deals with readers is expected to honor that principle, knowing that ultimately the readers are our employers. Civility applies whether an exchange takes place in person, by telephone, by letter or online. Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and emails that warrant reply.

The Times gathers information for the benefit of its readers. Staff members may not use their Times position to make inquiries for any other purpose. As noted above, they may not seek any advantage for themselves or others by acting on or disclosing information acquired in their work but not yet available to readers.

Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We will not tolerate such behavior.

Pursuing the News TOP

The Times treats news sources just as fairly and openly as it treats readers. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone’s personal life. Staff members may not threaten to damage uncooperative sources. They may not promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. They may not pay for interviews or unpublished documents.

Staff members should disclose their identity to people they cover (whether face to face or otherwise), though they need not always announce their status as journalists when seeking information normally available to the public. Staff members may not pose as police officers, lawyers, business people or anyone else when they are working as journalists. (As happens on rare occasions, when seeking to enter countries that bar journalists, correspondents may take cover from vagueness and identify themselves as traveling on business or as tourists.)

Theater, music and art critics and other writers who review goods or services offered to the public may conceal their Times connection but may not normally assert a false identity or affiliation. As an exception, restaurant critics may make reservations in false names to protect their identity. Restaurant critics and travel writers must conceal their Times affiliation to eliminate the possibility of special treatment.

Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely staff members must be aware that sources are eager to win our good will for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship. A City Hall reporter who enjoys a weekly round of golf with a City Council member, for example, risks creating an appearance of coziness, even if they sometimes discuss business on the course. So does a reporter who joins a regular card game or is a familiar face in a corporation’s box seats or who spends weekends in the company of people he or she covers. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly. The acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships to the standards editor or the opinion editor. In some cases, no further action may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk—to avoid the appearance of conflict.

Staff members must obey the law in the pursuit of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and email or voice mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In short, they may not commit illegal acts of any sort.

Staff members may not use the identification cards or special license plates issued by police or other official agencies except in doing their jobs. Staff members who have applied for or hold “NYP” or other special plates should disclose that fact to the standards editor or opinion editor or managing editor. Staff members whose duties do not require special plates must return them.

Staff members may not record conversations without the prior consent of all parties to the conversations. Even where the law allows recording with only one party aware of it, the practice is a deception. Masthead editors may make rare exceptions to this prohibition in places where recordings made secretly are legal.

The Times pays the expenses when its representatives entertain news sources (including government officials) or travel to cover them. In some business situations and in some cultures, it may be unavoidable to accept a meal or a drink paid for by a news source. For example, a Times reporter need not decline every invitation to interview an executive over lunch in the corporation’s private dining room, where it is all but impossible to pick up the check. Whenever practical, however, the reporter should suggest dining where The Times can pay. A simple buffet of muffins and coffee at a news conference, for example, is harmless, but a staff member should not attend a breakfast or lunch held periodically for the press by a “newsmaker” unless The Times pays for the staff member’s meals.

Staff members may not accept free or discounted transportation and lodging except where special circumstances give us little or no choice. Among them are certain military or scientific expeditions and other trips for which alternative arrangements would be impractical — for example, a flight aboard a corporate jet during which an executive is interviewed. Staff members should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor when special circumstances arise.

Staff members who review artistic performances or cover athletic or other events where admission is charged (for example, the New York Auto Show) may accept the press passes or tickets customarily made available. No other staff members, not even editors in the culture and sports departments, may accept free tickets. Even when paying the box office price, no staff member may use his or her Times position to request choice or hard-to-get seats unless the performance has a clear bearing on his or her job.

Staff members compete zealously but deal with competitors openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication, we attribute them.

Staff members may not join teams covering news events for other organizations, and they may not accept payment from competitors for news tips. They may not be listed on the masthead of any non-Times publication. (Exceptions can be made for publications that do not in any way compete with The Times, such as a church or synagogue newsletter, an alumni magazine or a club bulletin.)

Protecting the Paper’s Neutrality TOP

Staff members may not accept gifts, tickets, discounts, reimbursements or other inducements from any individuals or organizations covered by The Times or likely to be covered by The Times. (Exceptions may be made for trinkets of nominal value, say, $25 or less, such as a mug or a cap with a company logo.) Gifts should be returned with a polite explanation. A sample letter for use in such situations appears below. See the appendix.

Staff members may not accept employment or compensation of any sort from individuals or organizations who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise.

Staff members may not accept anything that could be construed as a payment for favorable coverage or as an inducement to alter or forgo unfavorable coverage. They may share in reprint fees that other journalistic media pay The Times, according to the terms of our contract with the Newspaper Guild. They may also share in fees paid by non-journalistic parties for permission to reprint Times material in advertisements or promotions, though their share of those fees may not exceed $200 an article.

Staff members may accept any gifts or discounts available to the general public. Normally they are also free to take advantage of conventional corporate discounts that the Times Company has offered to share with all employees (for example, corporate car rental rates). And staff members may accept free admission at museums or other benefits extended to all Times employees by virtue of the Times Company Foundation’s support of various cultural institutions.

Staff members must be mindful, however, that large discounts — even those negotiated by the Times Company — may create the appearance of partiality, especially by those who have a hand in the coverage of the company or industry offering the discount. If General Motors, for instance, offers substantial trade discounts to all Times Company employees, the Detroit correspondent should not accept without discussing the possible appearance of favoritism with the responsible editors. If any such discounts do raise doubts, staff members should bring them to the attention of their department heads and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting.

Unless the special terms are offered by The New York Times Company or a Times subsidiary or affiliate, staff members may not buy stock in initial public offerings through “friends and family shares” where any plausible possibility exists of a real or apparent conflict of interest. Staff members may not accept allocations from brokerage firms.

It is an inherent conflict for a Times staff member to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid. Staff members may not advise individuals or organizations how to deal successfully with the news media (though they may of course explain the paper’s normal workings and steer outsiders to the appropriate Times person). They may not, for example, advise candidates for public office, write or edit annual reports or contribute to the programs of sports teams. They should not take part in public relations workshops that charge admission or imply privileged access to Times people, or participate in surveys asking their opinion of an organization’s press relations or public image. They are free, however, to offer reasonable help to institutions such as their child’s school, a small museum, a community charity or their house of worship. (See the section on Community Service for a fuller discussion of permissible participation.)

Staff members may not serve as ghost writers or co-authors for individuals who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. They may not undertake such assignments for organizations that espouse a cause.

Staff members may not engage in financial counseling (except in the articles they write). They may not manage money for others, proffer investment advice, or operate or help operate an investment company of any sort, with or without pay. They may not do anything that would require registration as an investment adviser. They may, however, help family members with ordinary financial planning and serve as executors or administrators of estates of relatives and friends and as court-appointed conservators and guardians.

The Times freely acknowledges that outside appearances can enhance the reputation of its bylines and serve the paper’s interests. Nevertheless, no staff member may appear before an outside group if the appearance could reasonably create an actual or apparent conflict of interest or undermine public trust in the paper’s impartiality. No staff member who takes part in a broadcast, webcast, public forum or panel discussion may write or edit news articles about that event.

Staff members should be especially sensitive to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close relationship to the sponsoring group. Before accepting such an invitation, a staff member must consult with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Generally, a reporter recently returned from the Middle East might comfortably address a suburban synagogue or mosque but should not appear before a group that lobbies for Israel or the Arab states. A reporter who writes about the environment could appropriately speak to a garden club but not to conservation groups known for their efforts to influence public policy.

Staff members may not accept invitations to speak before a single company (for example, the Citigroup executive retreat) or an industry assembly (for example, organized baseball’s winter meeting) unless The Times decides the appearance is useful and will not damage the newspaper’s reputation for impartiality. In that case, The Times will pay expenses; no speaker’s fee should be accepted. Staff members invited to make such appearances should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members should not accept invitations to speak where their function is to attract customers to an event primarily intended as profit-making.

Staff members may accept speaking fees, honorariums, expense reimbursement and free transportation only from educational or other nonprofit groups for which lobbying and political activity are not a major focus. If a speaking fee exceeds $5,000, the staff member must consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting.

Staff members who accept fees, honorariums or expenses for speaking engagements must file with the associate managing editor for news administration or the opinion editor or managing editor by January 31 of each year an accounting of the previous year’s appearances. If their fees total less than $5,000, no annual accounting is required. Fees earned under Times auspices for promotional or other approved purposes need not be included.

Staff members who write books and want to promote them must give their supervisor a schedule of proposed appearances. They may accept routine expenses and fees in promotional appearances, but they must make every effort to ensure that their appearances conform to the spirit of these guidelines and do not interfere with their responsibilities to the paper. If they have doubts about an appearance, they must consult their supervisor and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Speeches and other outside endeavors by staff members, or unpaid, should not imply that they carry the endorsement of The Times (unless they do). To the contrary, the staff member should gracefully remind the audience that the views expressed are his or her own. Outside commitments should not interfere with the speaker’s responsibilities at The Times. Thus no staff member should agree to an extensive speaking schedule without approval from a supervisor.

Staff members may not enter competitions sponsored by individuals or groups who have a direct interest in the tenor of Times coverage. They may not act as judges for these competitions or accept their awards. Common examples are contests sponsored by commercial, political or professional associations to judge coverage of their affairs. The standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor may make exceptions for competitions underwritten by corporate sponsors if broad in scope and independently judged, such as the University of Missouri awards for consumer journalism, long sponsored by J.C. Penney.

Staff members may compete in competitions sponsored by groups whose members are all journalists or whose members demonstrably have no direct interest in the tenor of coverage of the field being judged. Times staff members may act as judges for such competitions and accept their awards. For example, a staff member may enter a university-sponsored competition for coverage of economic or foreign affairs but not accept an advocacy group’s prize for outstanding environmental coverage.

This prohibition on taking part in sponsored competitions applies to film festivals or awards in which critics are asked to vote and to such competitions as the Tony Awards, the Heisman Trophy, most valuable player and rookie of the year honors and admission to sports halls of fame. Cooperation of this sort puts the paper’s independence into question.

A current list of some competitions that The Times has approved is posted on the Newsroom home page under Policies. Staff members who would like to enter others should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. A critical factor in approving a competition, whatever its sponsorship, is a record of arm’s-length decisions, including a willingness to honor critical reporting.

Staff members who win unsought awards from groups that do not meet the criteria established here should decline politely. A sample reply appears below in the appendix.

Normally staff members are free to accept honorary degrees, medals and other awards from colleges, universities and other educational institutions. Those who cover higher education or supervise that coverage should be sensitive to any appearance of coziness or favoritism. Those in doubt should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members who borrow equipment, vehicles or other goods for evaluation or review must return the borrowed items as soon as possible. Similarly, items borrowed to be photographed, such as fashion apparel or home furnishings, should be returned promptly.

Staff members may keep for their own collections — but may not sell or copy — books, recordings, tapes, compact discs and computer programs sent to them for review. Such submissions are considered press releases. Recorded or digital media, such as tapes or disks, must be destroyed or returned to the provider if not retained by the journalist; they may not be copied, given away or left where they could be carried off for illicit copying or reuse.

Staff members may not collaborate in ventures involving individuals or organizations that figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. Among other things, this prohibition applies to collaborating in writing books, pamphlets, reports, scripts, scores or any other material and in making photographs or creating artwork of any sort.

Except in reviews or columns published in The Times or on its website or appropriately voiced in authorized public appearances, staff members may not offer endorsements, testimonials or promotional blurbs for books, films, television programs or any other programs, products or ventures. Masthead editors may authorize rare exceptions (for instance, when a staff member has become expert in a field unrelated to his or her Times duties). This restriction does not apply when permission is given to reprint Times material.

Participation in Public Life TOP

Staff members of The Times are family members and responsible citizens as well as journalists. The Times respects their educating their children, exercising their religion, voting in elections and taking active part in community affairs. Nothing in this policy is meant to infringe upon those rights. But even in the best of causes, Times staff members have a duty to avoid the appearance of a conflict. They should never invoke The Times’s name in private activities.

Certain of these requirements apply to all newsroom and opinion employees, journalists and support staff alike. No newsroom or opinion employee may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government. In particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other sign of political partisanship while on the job. Otherwise, “staff members” in this section refers only to the professional journalists defined above .

Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.

Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides.

No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office plainly violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. It poses a risk of having the staff member’s political views imputed to The Times, and it can sow a suspicion of favoritism in The Times’s political coverage when one of its staff is an active participant.

Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements, sign ads taking a position on public issues, or lend their name to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or The Times’s ability to function as neutral observers in covering the news. Staff members must keep in mind that neighbors and other observers commonly see them as representatives of The Times.

Staff members may appear from time to time on radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper. Opinion writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly because their business is expressing opinions. The Times nevertheless expects them to consider carefully the forums in which they appear and to protect the standards and impartiality of the newspaper as a whole.

Staff members must be sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. When such a possibility arises, the staff member should advise his or her department head and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even move to a job unrelated to the activities in question.

A staff member with any doubts about a proposed political activity should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. These restrictions protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Though The Times will consider matters case by case, it will be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception.

Staff members may not serve on government boards or commissions, paid or unpaid. They may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations or otherwise promoting journalism education. Those in doubt about such activities should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. Depending on circumstances, exceptions may be made to permit staff members to serve their alma mater (or their children’s alma mater) as a trustee or visitor at schools that seldom if ever generate news of interest to The Times.

The Times has no wish to impede good community citizenship. Normally the restriction on joining trustee boards or advisory committees will not apply to organizations that are highly unlikely to generate news of interest to The Times and that do not generally seek to shape public policy. These typically include houses of worship, community charities, local libraries, fine arts groups, hobby groups, youth athletic leagues, country clubs and alumni groups. Within reason staff members may help such groups with relatively modest fundraising. They should not play a leading role or ever lead a donor to expect a favor in return. They should never solicit anyone with whom they or The Times has professional dealings. Those in any doubt about what is permissible should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members may not solicit funds for political, social, religious, educational, philanthropic or other causes that reach beyond the sorts of groups described in the preceding paragraph. Doing so could create an expectation of a favor in return. Staff members should think carefully about their own contributions to various causes, bearing in mind the need for neutrality on divisive issues. Those in doubt about contributions should consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Advertisers, Marketing, Promotion TOP

The Times treats advertisers as fairly and openly as it treats readers and news sources. The relationship between The Times and advertisers rests on the understanding, long observed in all departments, that news and advertising are strictly separate — that those who deal with either one have distinct obligations and interests and neither group will try to influence the other.

Members of the news department should maintain their disinterest and objectivity by avoiding discussions of advertising needs, goals and problems except where those needs or problems are directly related to the business of the news department. In many instances, for example, the news and advertising departments may properly confer on the layout and configuration of the paper or the timing of special sections.

When authorized by the executive editor, members of the news staff may take part in interdepartmental committees on problems that affect several departments, including news. As far as possible they should leave advertising issues to colleagues from the business side.

From time to time, when authorized by the executive editor or the opinion editor, staff members may take part in events organized by The Times for marketing or promotion. But they should stick to their expertise and refrain from saying anything that sounds like a sales pitch.

No one in the news department below the masthead level (except when authorized by the executive editor) may exchange information with the advertising department or with advertisers about the timing or content of advertising, the timing or content of articles or the assignment of staff or freelance writers, editors, artists, designers or photographers.

Obligations to The Times TOP

The Times’s good name does not belong to any of us. No one has a right to expropriate it for private purposes.

Staff members may not use Times identification cards for purposes not connected with Times employment. Cards may not be used to obtain special treatment or advantage from governmental, commercial or other organizations (except when the card is required for a benefit available to all Times Company employees by virtue of its foundation’s charitable relationships, such as free admission to the Metropolitan Museum).

Staff members may not use Times stationery, business cards, forms or other materials for any purpose except the business of the newspaper.

Staff members must not disclose confidential information about the operations, policies or plans of The Times or its corporate affiliates.

Department heads and masthead executives may authorize other staff members to comment publicly on policies or plans within the staff members’ areas of responsibility and expertise. If staff members are approached by other media or other outsiders to discuss Times content or policy, they should refer the questioners to a masthead executive or the corporate communications department.

Staff members are free to discuss their own activities in public, provided their comments do not create an impression that they lack journalistic impartiality or speak for The Times.

None of these restrictions should be interpreted as barring a staff member from responding openly and honestly to any reasonable inquiry from a reader about that staff member’s work. If a reader asks for a correction, that request should be passed promptly to a supervisor. If the request threatens legal action or appears to be from a lawyer, the complaint should be promptly referred to the legal department through a department head.

Books, Movies, Reprints and Copyright TOP

Any staff member intending to write or assemble a nonfiction book based on material that derives from his or her assignment or beat must notify The Times in advance, so The Times can decide whether to make a competitive bid to publish the work. In this regard, staff members cannot accept or entertain any sort of preemptory bid from an outside publisher before allowing The Times to consider the project. Staff members are required to inform The Times of any such project or proposal, in writing, by sending a letter or email to their department head, as well as to the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor. The notification should include any information about the anticipated time frame of the project, including (if applicable) the time frame that an outside publisher has set for bidding on the project.

Within a reasonable period, taking into account the time frame for the project, The Times will inform the staff member in writing whether it wants to compete for the project. If it does, The Times will provide the staff member with a competitive bid. In the end, the staff member and his or her agent have no obligation to accept The Times’s offer. This process is intended to assure The Times a seat at the table in any negotiations, including auctions, involving books based on materials derived from a Times assignment or beat.

These guidelines do not apply to book proposals or projects that involve the reproduction of articles, columns, photographs, artwork or other material created by staff members and published in The Times or on nytimes.com. The Times owns such material outright, and no such material may be reproduced elsewhere without the prior written permission of The Times, nor may it be rewritten, updated or otherwise altered and then republished without The Times’s prior written permission. Staff members are often approached by agents, producers, studios or others seeking rights to Times material. Such inquiries must be forwarded immediately to the standards editor or to the opinion editor or managing editor, and to the legal department. If a staff member represented by the Newspaper Guild has questions about rights to payment for reprints of articles that the staff member has written, he or she should refer to The Times’s collective bargaining agreement with the Guild. In general, this agreement calls for a 50/50 split of the fees involved.

In contemplating book projects — or other outside endeavors — staff members must never give an impression they might benefit financially from the outcome of news events. Staff members may not negotiate with any outside person or entity for any rights to an article or story idea before the article has run in The Times. Staff members involved in covering a running story may not negotiate over books, articles, films, programs or media projects of any sort based on that coverage until that news has played out, unless they have written permission in advance from the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

No staff member may serve as a ghost writer or co-author for individuals who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise.

No staff member will be given a leave of absence, paid or unpaid, to write a book without the explicit permission of the executive editor or the opinion editor. Ideally, a staff member who feels he or she will need to leave to complete a book project should inform The Times of the intention to seek a leave at the same time he or she first makes the book project available for consideration by The Times. A decision to grant or deny a request for a book leave — like requests for most other leaves of absence — will be based on many factors, including previous book leaves or accommodations the newspaper has granted to the staff member; the impact the leave will have on departmental staffing needs, and the degree to which The Times believes the book project will accrue to the newspaper’s interests. If a staff member represented by the Newspaper Guild has a question about a leave of absence, he or she should refer to The Times’s collective bargaining agreement with the Guild.

At no time may a staff member turn over notes, interviews documents or other working materials to any third party, including agents, producers, studios or outside production agencies, or share those materials with them unless legally compelled to do so. Staff members are advised that in such circumstances, The Times’s legal department will provide assistance. (Those represented by the Guild should refer to their collective bargaining agreement for the parameters of that assistance.) As a matter of policy, The Times will not give commercial producers or publishers access to working materials any more than it would turn them over to government prosecutors for use in court.

This paragraph applies only to television and film: Staff members offered “consulting” agreements by agents, producers, studios or others must consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting. No staff member may serve as a consultant to a film or program that he or she knows in advance is tendentious or clearly distorts the underlying facts. In no case should a consulting role be described in a way that invokes The Times or implies its endorsement or participation.

Journalistic Work Outside The Times TOP

Staff members are generally entitled to accept freelance assignments that do not directly compete with The Times’s own offerings. Normally, work for competitors will not be permitted. When allowed in rare instances, permission will be limited to cases in which The Times is not interested in assigning the staff member a similar piece or project.

The Times competes in a far larger arena today than in the past. The printed paper remains our flagship, as does The International Herald Tribune internationally, but we reach an audience of millions through The New York Times on the web. We are learning to translate our journalism into outstanding television. We publish numerous books, both original and drawn from past articles; we offer archival photos of museum quality. We deliver The New York Times in its complete form via the web. Our bedrock mission is to serve a high-quality audience that values Times journalism, relying on any appropriate medium.

Competitors include any newspaper, magazine or other media of publication, regardless of form, with an editorial focus on either New York City or general-interest news and information. If the competitive status of a publication, website or TV production is unclear, a staff member should consult with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Staff members are encouraged (but not required) to offer their freelance work to The Times or, in the case of a website, to The New York Times on the web before trying to sell it elsewhere. The Times offers a number of outlets for work for which a staff member is paid extra, including the Times Magazine, the Book Review and special sections. (Any freelance material that derives from a Times assignment or beat must first be offered to The Times before a staff member offers it elsewhere.)

Staff members must ensure that their freelance work does not interfere with their responsibilities to The Times and that it is consistent with these policies and guidelines. If any doubt exists, they must consult their supervisors and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor before accepting outside assignments.

Before accepting a freelance assignment, a staff member should make sure that the tone and content of the publication, website or program are in keeping with the standards of The Times. In general, a staff member should write nothing elsewhere that could not fit comfortably under his or her byline in The Times or that implies The Times’s sponsorship or endorsement. An outside publication, program or website may identify staff members by their Times positions but only in a routine way.

Because their primary identification is with The Times, staff members who accept freelance assignments should adhere to these guidelines in carrying out those assignments. For example, a staff member on freelance assignment may not accept compensation, expenses, discounts, gifts or other inducements from a news source. Similarly, staff members who establish their own sites online must insure that their online conduct conforms to these guidelines.

Frequency matters. Freelance work might create a conflict of interest if it is pursued with such regularity that it interferes with Times assignments or compromises the integrity or independence of The Times. Freelancing might also create a conflict if it identifies a staff member as closely with another publication or website as with The Times. A business reporter who wrote a column in every issue of a trade magazine might soon become more identified with that magazine than with The Times. A critic writing regularly for an arts magazine might foster the impression that The Times was not his or her prime responsibility. The use of a pseudonym does not alter the obligation to comply with this provision.

A regular contribution to an outside enterprise is permissible if it does not interfere with or flow from Times responsibilities or involve intellectual matter owed to The Times and its readers. Examples of acceptable affiliations might be a foreign desk copy editor who writes a monthly column on stamp-collecting or a mapmaker working as a freelance illustrator. Staff members considering such continuing ventures should confer with their supervisors and with the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Appearing on Broadcast Media TOP

Staff members may participate in radio, television or Internet interviews or discussions, paid or unpaid, that deal with articles they have written or subjects that figure in the coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. Such occasional appearances must not imply that they carry the sponsorship or endorsement of The Times (unless they do). Staff members should be careful about the use of their names and that of the newspaper in materials promoting the appearances. As a courtesy, they should let their department head know about their plans to appear.

In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering. Instead, we should offer thoughtful and retrospective analysis. Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times.

Staff members may not appear on broadcasts that compete directly with The Times’s own offerings on television or the Internet. They may not accept assignments from the Times’s TV clients or potential clients without its approval. As the paper moves further into these new fields, its direct competitors and clients or potential clients will undoubtedly grow in number. A staff member who has any doubt about the status of a particular program should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Appearances might create a conflict of interest if they come so regularly that they interfere with Times assignments or compromise the integrity or independence of The Times. They might also create a conflict if they identify a staff member as closely with a radio or television program or a website as with The Times. A Washington reporter who appeared weekly on a television program might soon become more known for that program than for work done for The Times. Occasional appearances on the same program would not run that risk.

Sorting Out Family Ties TOP

In a day when most families balance two careers, the legitimate activities of companions, spouses and other relatives can sometimes create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts. They can crop up in civic or political life, professional pursuits and financial activity. A spouse or companion who runs for public office would obviously create the appearance of conflict for a political reporter or an editor involved in election coverage. A brother or a daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.

To avoid such conflicts, staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgments about them. For similar reasons, staff members should not recruit or directly supervise family members or close friends. Some exceptions are permissible — in a foreign bureau, for instance, where a married couple form a team, or in the case of an article by a food writer profiling her brother the Yankee star, where the kinship is of genuine news interest.

Staff members must be sensitive to these possibilities. Any staff member who sees a potential for conflict or a threat to the paper’s reputation in the activities of spouse, friends or relatives must discuss the situation with his or her supervising editor and the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

In some cases, disclosure is enough. But if The Times considers the problem serious, the staff member may have to withdraw from certain coverage. Sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed. In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a different department — from business and financial news, say, to the culture desk — to avoid the appearance of conflict.

Although this policy necessarily imposes restraints, The Times has no wish to intrude upon the private lives of its staff members and their families. Nothing in this document seeks to prohibit a companion, spouse or other relative of a Times staff member from taking part in any political, financial, commercial, religious or civic activity. The Times understands that friends and relatives of its staff have every right to pursue full and active lives, personally and professionally. If restrictions are necessary, they fall on the Times employee. But any attempt to disguise a staff member’s participation in prohibited activity by using a relative’s name or any other alias (or by acting anonymously) violates this guideline.

In all cases The Times depends on staff members to disclose potential problems in a timely fashion so that we can work together to prevent embarrassment for staff members and The Times.

Investments and Financial Ties TOP

Every member of the Times staff must be constantly vigilant against any appearance that he or she is abusing nonpublic information for financial gain. That imperative applies to all departments.

Though staff members must necessarily accept certain limits on their freedom to invest, this policy leaves a broad range of investments open to them. Any staff member, regardless of assignment, is free to own diversified mutual funds, money market funds and other diversified investments that the reporter or editor cannot control. Any member also may own treasury bills, investment-grade municipal bonds, debt securities other than speculative bonds, and securities issued by the New York Times Company. And staff members are of course free to own stocks entirely unrelated to their Times assignment.

No staff member may own stock or have any other financial interest in a company, enterprise or industry that figures or is likely to figure in coverage that he or she provides, edits, packages or supervises regularly. A book editor, for example, may not invest in a publishing house, a health writer in a pharmaceutical company or a Pentagon reporter in a mutual fund specializing in defense stocks. For this purpose an industry is defined broadly; for example, a reporter responsible for any segment of media coverage may not own any media stock. “Stock” should be read to include futures, options, rights, and speculative debt, as well as “sector” mutual funds (those focused on one industry).

Staff members may not buy or sell securities or make other investments in anticipation of forthcoming articles that originate with The Times. In general, staff members must refrain from acting on such information before noon Eastern time the day of print publication. This restriction does not apply to spot news that first appears on wire services or that originates elsewhere. That information is public.

Staff members in any department will be asked when hired to affirm that they have no investments that would violate the rules above with respect to the assignment they are being given. If a new staff member is unable to make this affirmation, the staff member may choose to sell the conflicting holding. If not, he or she must be given a different assignment where no such conflict exists.

Staff members should be acutely sensitive that the investments and business interests of their spouse, family and companions may create real or apparent conflicts of interest by raising questions of favoritism. Staff members will be asked when hired to affirm that to the best of their knowledge no spouse, family member or companion has financial holdings that might reasonably raise doubts about the impartiality of the staff member’s reporting or editing in his or her proposed assignment. Depending on circumstances, the new staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or accept an alternative assignment unrelated to the holdings in question.

The standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor may from time to time ask staff members in any department to affirm that they have no investments in violation of the rules above. Such a request might be expected, for example, when a staff member is about to begin a new assignment or work on a particularly sensitive article.

Similarly, staff members may be asked on occasion to affirm that to the best of their knowledge no spouse, family member or companion has financial holdings that might reasonably raise doubts about the impartiality of the staff member’s reporting or editing. If and when such conditions come up, the staff member must alert his or her department head and the standards editor. Depending on circumstances, the staff member may have to recuse himself or herself from certain coverage or even to move to a job unrelated to the holdings.

If a reporter who owns stock in a company outside his or her regular beat is assigned to write an article about that company or its industry, the reporter must discuss the investment with the assigning editor before beginning the work. Similarly, editors assigned to major articles or a series about companies or industries in which they have investments must advise their supervisors of potential conflicts before beginning the editing. In many instances it will be perfectly permissible for the work to proceed, but the reporter or editor who works on such an article or series may not buy or sell stock in the company or industry until two weeks after publication.

Staff members in business-financial news regularly work with sensitive information that affects financial prices. Because of that sensitivity, they are subject to additional and stricter requirements. Staff members in technology news and media news are subject to the same rules as those in business-financial news, for the same reason.

Members of these three departments may not play the market. That is, they may not conduct in-and-out trading (buying and selling the same security within three months). They may not buy or sell options or futures or sell securities short. Any of these actions could create the appearance that a staff member was speculating by exploiting information not available to the public.

In special circumstances — a family financial crisis, for example — the associate managing editor for news administration may waive the three-month holding period.

Supervising editors in business-financial, technology or media news should be especially cautious in investing because they may reasonably expect to become involved in the coverage of virtually any company at any time. Their counterparts in other departments should be equally sensitive to possible conflicts in supervising coverage of companies in their domain.

Because of the sensitivity of their assignments, some business financial staff members may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company). These include the Market Place writer, other market columnists, the regular writer of the daily stock market column, reporters regularly assigned to mergers and acquisitions, the daily markets editor, the Sunday investing editor, the Sunday Business editor, the business and financial editor and his or her deputies.

Masthead editors and other editors who play a principal part in deciding the display of business and financial news, including its display on Page 1, may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company).

The opinion editor and opinion managing editor may not own stock in any company (other than the New York Times Company). Nor may opinion writers and columnists regularly assigned to write about business, finance or economics.

A staff member who owns stock and moves into an assignment where such holdings are not permitted must sell the stock. Those who are newly barred from owning stock of any sort (for example, on being promoted to deputy business and financial editor) may dispose of their shares in phases, following a reasonable plan worked out with the associate managing editor for news administration. But the phase-out does not apply to reporters or editors who own shares in specific industries they are newly assigned to cover. For instance, it is manifestly untenable for a new Automobiles editor to own stock in an auto company, so divestiture must be prompt.

Whenever this document requires the sale of stock holdings, a staff member can satisfy the requirement by putting the shares into a blind trust (or into an equivalent financial arrangement that meets the same goal: preventing an individual from knowing at any given time the specific holdings in the account and blocking the individual from controlling the timing of transactions in such holdings). If The Times assigns a staff member to a new job where mandatory divestiture would impose an undue hardship, The Times will reimburse the staff member for the reasonable costs of setting up a blind trust.

To avoid an appearance of conflict, certain editors must annually affirm to the chief financial officer of The Times Company that they have no financial holdings in violation of the rules above or any other provision of these guidelines. They include the executive editor, the managing editor, deputy and assistant managing editors, associate managing editors, the business and financial editor, his or her deputies and the Sunday Business editor. They also include the opinion editor and opinion managing editor.

Rules for Specialized Departments TOP

To avoid an appearance of bias, no member of the sports department may gamble on any sports event, except for occasional recreational wagering on horse racing (or dog racing or jai alai). This exception does not apply to staff members who cover such racing or regularly edit that coverage.

Except for journalists who receive press passes to cover sporting events, members of the sports department may not accept tickets, travel expenses, meals, gifts or any other benefit from teams or promoters.

Sports reporters assigned to cover games may not serve as scorers. Members of the sports department may not take part in voting for the Heisman Trophy, most valuable player and rookie of the year awards, entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame or similar honors.

The Times has exceptional influence in such fields as theater, music, art, dance, publishing, fashion and the restaurant industry. We are constantly scrutinized for the slightest whiff of favoritism. Therefore staff members working in those areas have a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict.

Reporters, reviewers, critics and their editors in the Book Review, the Times Magazine and the cultural news, media news and styles departments, beyond abiding by the other provisions of this document, may not help others develop, market or promote artistic, literary or other creative endeavors.

They may not suggest agents, publishers, producers or galleries to aspiring authors, playwrights, composers or artists. They may not suggest chefs to restaurant owners or designers to clothing manufacturers. They may not recommend authors, playwrights, composers or other artists to agents, publishers, producers or galleries.

They may not offer suggestions or ideas to people who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise. They may not invest in productions that figure or are likely to figure in their coverage. (Food writers and editors may not invest in restaurants.) They may not comment, even informally, on works in progress before those works are reviewed.

They may not serve on advisory boards, awards juries, study committees or other panels organized by the people they cover or whose coverage they supervise. They may not accept awards from such people. And they may not request extra copies of books, tapes or other materials that are routinely submitted for review.

An arts writer or editor who owns art of exhibition quality (and thus has a financial stake in the reputation of the artist) may inspire questions about the impartiality of his or her critical judgments or editing decisions. Thus members of the culture staff who collect valuable objects in the visual arts (paintings, photographs, sculpture, crafts and the like) must annually submit a list of their acquisitions and sales to the associate managing editor for news administration.

The Times recognizes that members of its talented staff write books, operas and plays; create sculpture, and give recitals. It further recognizes that such projects require commercial arrangements to come to fruition. A writer requires a publisher, a playwright a production company.

Nevertheless those commercial ties can be a breeding ground for favoritism, actual or perceived. Staff members who enter into such arrangements must disclose them to their supervisors, who may require them to withdraw from coverage of the parties involved. Staff members who have a publisher or a movie contract, for example, must be exceedingly sensitive to any appearance of bias in covering other publishers or studios. Those with any doubts about a proposed arrangement should consult the standards editor or the opinion editor or managing editor.

Certain positions, such as those of the Book Review editor and the culture editor, have such potential for conflicts that those editors may not enter into any commercial arrangements with publishers, studios, or other arts producers without the executive editor’s written approval.

Beyond honoring all the other provisions of this document, Times photographers, picture editors, art directors, lab personnel and technology editors and reporters may not accept gifts of equipment, programs or materials from manufacturers or vendors. They may not endorse equipment, programs or materials, or offer advice on product design. This guideline is not meant to restrict The Times from working with vendors to improve its systems or equipment.

With the approval of the picture editor, the design director, the technology editor or the Circuits editor, staff members may test equipment or materials on loan from manufacturers or vendors, provided such tests are properly monitored. The equipment or materials should be returned promptly after testing unless purchased by The Times.

It is our policy that no one may test drive or review a vehicle for The Times unless the paper is paying the vehicle’s owner the normal market rental or its equivalent. Rare exceptions may occur when an equivalent rent is largely hypothetical, as with military vehicles, vintage autos or race cars.

Reviewers should carry out their testing expeditiously and return the vehicle promptly. A reasonable amount of personal use is permissible provided that the use contributes to the review.

No writer or editor for the Travel section, whether on assignment or not, may accept free or discounted services of any sort from any element of the travel industry. This includes hotels, resorts, restaurants, tour operators, airlines, railways, cruise lines, rental car companies and tourist attractions. This prohibition applies to the free trips commonly awarded in raffles at travel industry events. It does not apply, however, to routinely accumulated frequent-flyer points.

Travel editors who deal with non-staff contributors have a special obligation to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. They must bear in mind that it is our policy not to give Travel assignments to freelance writers who have previously accepted free services. Depending on circumstances, the Travel editor may make rare exceptions, for example, for a writer who ceased the practice years ago or who has reimbursed his or her host for services previously accepted. It is also our policy not to give Travel assignments to anyone who represents travel suppliers or who works for a government tourist office or as a publicist of any sort. The Travel editor may make rare exceptions, for example, for a writer widely recognized as an expert in a particular culture.

Writers on assignment for Travel must conceal their Times affiliation. The validity of their work depends on their experiencing the same conditions as an ordinary tourist or consumer. If the Times affiliation becomes known, the writer must discuss with an editor whether the reporting to that point can be salvaged. On rare occasions, the affiliation may be disclosed, for example, when a special permit is required to enter a closed area.

No Travel writer may write about any travel service or product offered by a family member or close friend.

These rules also apply to writers and editors of travel content in other sections.

Dealing with Outside Contributors TOP

Times readers apply exacting standards to the entire paper. They do not distinguish between staff written articles and those written by outsiders. Thus as far as possible, freelance contributors to The Times, while not its employees, will be held to the same standards as staff members when they are on Times assignments, including those for the Times Magazine. If they violate these guidelines, they will be denied further assignments.

Before being given an assignment, freelance contributors must sign a contract with The Times. These contracts oblige them to take care to avoid conflicts of interests or the appearance of conflict. Specifically, in connection with work for The Times, freelancers will not accept free transportation, free lodging, gifts, junkets, commissions or assignments from current or potential news sources. In addition, they will publish no similar article in a competing publication within 14 days unless The Times approves.

The contracts’ concise provisions cannot cover every circumstance that might arise. Assigning editors should ensure that contributors are aware of this document and to the greatest extent possible, in fact honor its provisions while on assignment for The Times. Any disagreement over whether a specific provision applies to outside contributors should be resolved before the assignment proceeds.

Assigning editors in business and financial news who deal with non-staff contributors have a special duty to guard against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflict. To the extent possible, assigning editors should ensure that outside contributors meet the strict standards outlined above for the business and financial news staff.

Appendix TOP

Dear XXXXXXXXX,

Your recent gift came as a pleasant surprise. I appreciate your thinking of me.

But the gift puts me in an awkward position. The New York Times bars its reporters and editors from accepting anything of value from the people or groups they cover. The paper does not want to risk the perception that it will cover a subject more thoroughly or skew its coverage of controversial subjects because interested parties have expressed appreciation for its efforts.

So I must return your gift with thanks. I hope you understand our position, and I thank you for your thoughtfulness.

Your recent letter informing me that I’d been selected to receive an award from XXXXXXXX came as a pleasant surprise. I appreciate the sentiment behind the award.

But your decision puts me in an awkward position. The New York Times bars its reporters and editors from accepting awards conferred by groups that have an interest in the subjects covered by the award recipients. The paper does not want to risk the perception that it will cover a subject more thoroughly or skew its coverage of controversial subjects because interested parties have applauded its efforts.

So I must decline your award with thanks. I hope you and your colleagues understand our position.

Thank you again for your kind words.

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

University of South Florida

Journalism and Digital Communication

College of Arts and Sciences

Main Navigation

Guidelines on academic honesty & journalism ethics.

All Journalism & Digital Communication students are expected to follow the University’s Academic Integrity Policy and adhere to the principles outlined in these Departmental guidelines, in all academic and extracurricular activities and work. 

According to the University’s code , “Academic integrity is grounded in certain fundamental values, which include honesty, respect and fairness. Broadly defined, academic honesty is the completion of all academic endeavors and claims of scholarly knowledge as representative of one’s own efforts.”

Academic Dishonesty

Some of the behaviors that violate academic integrity are listed below.

Definition: Cheating is using or attempting to use materials, information, notes, study aids or other assistance in any type of examination or evaluation which have not been authorized by the instructor.

Clarification

• Students completing any type of examination or evaluation are prohibited from looking at or transmitting materials to another student (including electronic reproductions and transmissions) and from using external aids of any sort (e.g. books, notes, calculators, photographic images or conversation with others), unless the instructor has indicated specifically in advance that this will be allowed.
• Students may not take examinations or evaluations in the place of other persons. Students may not allow other persons to take examinations or evaluations in their places.
• Students may not acquire unauthorized information about an examination or evaluation and may not use any such information improperly acquired by others.
• Instructors, programs and departments may establish, with the approval of the colleges, additional rules for exam environments and behavior. Such rules must be announced in advance in a course syllabus or other advance written notice to students.

Fabrication, Forgery & Obstruction

Definitions:

• Fabrication is the use of invented, counterfeited, altered or forged information in assignments of any type, including those activities done in conjunction with academic courses that require students to be involved in out-of-classroom experiences.
• Forgery is the imitating or counterfeiting of images, documents, signatures and the like.
• Obstruction is any behavior that limits the academic opportunities of other students by improperly impeding their work or their access to educational resources.
• Fabricated or forged information may not be used in any laboratory experiment, report of research or academic exercise. Invention for artistic purposes is legitimate under circumstances explicitly authorized by an instructor.
• Students may not furnish instructors fabricated or forged explanations of absences or of other aspects of their performance and behavior.
• Students may not furnish, or attempt to furnish, fabricated, forged or misleading information to University officials on University records, or on records of agencies in which students are fulfilling academic assignments.
• Students may not steal, change or destroy another student’s work. Students may not impede the work of others by the theft, defacement, mutilation or obstruction of resources so as to deprive others of their use.
• Obstruction does not include the content of statements or arguments that are germane to a class or other educational activity.

Multiple Submissions

Definition: Multiple submissions are the submissions of the same or substantially the same work for credit in two or more courses. Multiple submissions include the use of any prior academic effort previously submitted for academic credit at this or a different institution.

All work submitted must be the student’s own and especially created for each class. Work created by someone else (friend, another student, family member, etc.), or created by the student for other purposes such as other classes, extra-curricular activities, own personal purposes (i.e., vacation, family event) or for other university, educational or personal activities not covered by the class, is an offense to academic integrity, will be disqualified for grading purposes and will receive zero credit.

• Students may not normally submit any academic assignment, work, or endeavor in more than one course for academic credit of any sort. This will apply to submissions of the same or substantially the same work in the same semester or in different semesters.
• Students may not normally submit the same or substantially the same work in two different classes for academic credit even if the work is being graded on different bases in the separate courses (e.g. graded for research effort and content in one course vs. grammar and spelling in another).
• Students may resubmit a prior academic endeavor if there is substantial new work, research or other appropriate additional effort. The student shall disclose the use of the prior work to the instructor and receive the instructor’s permission to use it prior to the submission of the current endeavor.
• Students may submit the same or substantially the same work in two or more courses, with the prior written permission of all faculty involved. Instructors will specify the expected academic effort applicable to their courses and the overall endeavor shall reflect the same or additional academic effort as if separate assignments were submitted in each course. Failure by the student to obtain the written permission of each instructor shall be considered a multiple submission.

Definition: Complicity is assisting or attempting to assist another person in any act of academic dishonesty.

• Students may not allow other students to copy from their papers during any type of examination.
• Students may not assist other students in acts of academic dishonesty by providing material of any kind that one may have reason to believe will be misrepresented to an instructor or other University official.
• Students may not provide substantive information about test questions or the material to be tested before a scheduled examination unless they have been specifically authorized to do so by the course instructor. This does not apply to examinations that have been administered and returned to students in previous semesters.

Computer Misuse

Definition: Misuse of computers includes unethical or illegal use of computers of any person, institution or agency in which students are performing part of their academic program.

• Students may not use the University computer system in support of any act of plagiarism.
• Students may not monitor or tamper with another person’s electronic communications.

Additional violations are listed in USF Regulation 3.027 .

Plagiarism is also a violation of academic and professional integrity. it goes against the University's code of ethics, as well as our profession’s ethics.

In Academic Writing

Definition: Plagiarism is intentionally or carelessly presenting the work of another as one’s own. It includes submitting an assignment purporting to be the student’s original work which has wholly or, in part, been created by another person. It also includes the presentation of the work, ideas, representations or words of another person without customary and proper acknowledgement of sources. Students must consult with their instructors for clarification in any situation in which the need for documentation is an issue, and will have plagiarized in any situation in which their work is not properly documented.

• Every direct quotation must be identified by quotation marks or appropriate indentation and must be properly acknowledged by parenthetical citation in the text or in a footnote or endnote. In journalistic writing, a simple attribution immediately before or after a direct quotation (e.g., “I approved the bill,” Jane Smith said.) is sufficient.
• When material from another source is paraphrased or summarized in whole or in part in one’s own words, that source must be acknowledged in a footnote or endnote, or by parenthetical citation in the text. In journalistic writing, a simple attribution immediately before or after the paraphrased or summarized material (e.g., The dispute took weeks to settle, according to Joe Smith.) is sufficient.

Submitting someone else’s work as yours, intentionally or by accident, is considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is not limited to copy/paste from a document (web page, paper, media source, photographs and other visuals, etc.) into yours. Plagiarism can take many forms, such as taking someone’s ideas, words or any form of work and presenting them as yours.

The golden rule: If you take anything from someone else, give credit.

All plagiarism and academic integrity issues will be enforced using the rules above. No exceptions.

Situations that ARE plagiarism:

• submitting large or small sections of someone else’s work as your own, without attributing the source even if you rephrased the original wording
• paraphrasing from one source or multiple sources without attribution
• presenting ideas developed by someone else without attribution, even if you paraphrase the wording
• submitting an assignment that contains perfectly cited sources but the assignment is mostly made of citations and includes no to little original work by the student
• submitting work created by other people and presenting it as your own, such as taking someone else’s online submission or files and presenting them as your own
• working with another student or another person on an assignment that requires no collaboration, and/or receiving assistance in doing an assignment or taking an exam that’s supposed to be individual work; this includes taking online exams and quizzes in the presence of other people and receiving assistance from them during the exam, quiz or assignment.

This list is not comprehensive. 

Journalism Ethics & Values

In addition to the University’s regulations, Journalism & Digital Communication students are expected to follow the profession’s Code of Ethics, as articulated by the Society of Professional Journalists. 

The first principle  in SPJ’s Code is to Seek Truth and Report It . Embodying this principle means, in part, to:

• “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.”
• “Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.”
• “Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.”

SPJ’s Code also enshrines the principles to Minimize Harm , Act Independently , and Be Accountable and Transparent .

Read the entire code .

When writing and producing news and media content, don’t do the following:

• Don’t copy/paste from other sources such as: web pages, news stories, press releases, etc. without attribution and/or links .
• Don’t copy/paste quotes from other media stories without attribution and/or link.
• Don’t rewrite without attribution and/or link.

It’s good journalism practice to do research, but also to conduct interviews, find additional sources to double-check the information you obtained through research and find fresh information that no one else has. Avoid repeating information, and strive for fresh original perspectives and insights.

In certain situations, no attribution is needed:

• when you witness/see something first-hand and write from those observations or
• when presenting common knowledge.

Violations and Sanctions 

Violations are classified into four levels according to the nature of the infraction. For each level of violation, a corresponding set of sanctions is recommended; however, specific violations may include additional or different sanctions. 

These examples are not to be considered all-inclusive.

It is recommended that the instructor forward a concise written statement describing the academic dishonesty of an incident with its particulars to the department chair for violations in Levels 1 through 4. 

These records will be maintained until graduation, or until they are of no further administrative value. This will enable better handling of multiple violations.

Level 1 Violations

Level 1 violations may occur because of inexperience or lack of knowledge of principles of academic integrity on the part of persons committing the violation. These violations address incidents when intent is questionable and are likely to involve a small fraction of the total course work, are not extensive, and/or occur on a minor assignment. 

• Working with another student on a laboratory or other homework assignment when such collaborative work is prohibited.
• Failure to footnote or give proper acknowledgment in an extremely limited section of an assignment.

Recommended Sanctions for Level 1 Violations

• Reduction or no credit given for the original assignment.
• An additional assigned paper or research project on a relevant topic.
• A make-up assignment at a more difficult level than the original assignment.
• Required attendance in a non-credit workshop or seminar on ethics or related subjects.

Level 2 Violations

Level 2 violations are characterized by dishonesty of a more serious character or affecting a more significant aspect or portion of the course work.

• Quoting directly or paraphrasing, to a moderate extent, without acknowledging the source.
• Submitting the same work or major portions thereof to satisfy the requirements of more than one course without permission from the instructor.
• Using data or interpretative material for a laboratory report without acknowledging the sources or the collaborators. All contributors to preparation of data and/or to writing the report must be named.
• Receiving assistance from others, such as research, statistical, computer programming or field data collection help, that constitutes an essential element in the undertaking, without acknowledging such assistance in a paper, examination or project.

Recommended Sanctions for Level 2 Violations

• Failing grade for the assignment involved with the grade in the course determined in the normal manner.
• Failing grade for the course, which may be an "F" or "FF" on the internal transcript.

Level 3 Violations

Level 3 violations are those that go beyond Level 1 or 2 violations and that affect a major or essential portion of work done to meet course requirements, or involve premeditation, or are preceded by one or more violations at Levels 1 and/or 2. 

• copying on examinations
• plagiarizing major portions of a written assignment
• acting to facilitate copying during an exam
• using prohibited materials, e.g. books, notes or calculators during an examination
• collaborating before an exam to develop methods of exchanging information and implementation thereof
• altering examinations for the purposes of regrading
• acquiring or distributing an examination from unauthorized sources prior to the examination
• presenting the work of another as one's own
• using purchased term paper or other materials
• removing posted or reserved material, or preventing other students from having access to it
• fabricating data by inventing or deliberately altering material (this includes citing "sources" that are not, in fact, sources
• using unethical or improper means of acquiring data

Recommended Sanctions for Level 3 Violations

• failing grade for the course with a designation of "FF" on the student's internal transcript
• possible suspension from the University for one semester

Level 4 Violations

Level 4 violations represent the most serious breaches of intellectual honesty.

• all academic infractions committed after return from suspension for a previous academic honesty violation
• infractions of academic honesty in ways similar to criminal activity (such as forging a grade form, stealing an examination from a professor or from a University office; buying an examination; or falsifying a transcript to secure entry into the University or change the record of work done at the University.
• having a substitute take an examination or taking an examination for someone else
• fabrication of evidence, falsification of data, quoting directly or paraphrasing without acknowledging the source, and/or presenting the ideas of another as one's own in a senior thesis, within a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation, in scholarly articles submitted to refereed journals or in other work represented as one's own as a graduate student
• sabotaging another student's work through actions designed to prevent the student from successfully completing an assignment
• willful violation of a canon of the ethical code of the profession for which a student is preparing

Recommended Sanctions for Level 4 Violations

• The typical sanction for all Level 4 violations is permanent academic dismissal from the University with the designation of "Dismissed for Academic Dishonesty" to be placed permanently on a student's external transcript.

Additional Resources

• You can quote me on that: Advice on attribution for journalists by Steve Buttry
• What is plagiarism? Quiz by Steve Buttry

This document was adopted in fall 2015 and updated in fall 2022.

• SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS

Home > Tools for Freelancers > Publications > On Your Own: A Guide to Freelance Journalism > Tools of the trade

Tools of the trade Why journalism ethics matter

On Your Own: A Guide to Freelance Journalism

> Introduction: The freelance side of life

Freelance journalism 101

> Vocabulary lesson

> Dollars and sense     – Pay structures     – Payday     – Retainers and draws     – Rate specifics: Mum’s the word

> Contracts are essential

> Copyright 101

> Dressing for success as a freelancer

> Staying productive even when you’re not working

Business matters

> Five reasons to pay attention to business

> Contracts and copyright — beyond the basics

> Getting your business organized     – Licenses and permits     – Form of business

> Separating yourself from your business     – Money     – Contacts

> Keeping track of business     – Tracking productivity and business results     – Recordkeeping for tax purposes     – Recordkeeping systems

> Taxing matters     – Income adjustments for self-employed health insurance premiums

> Insurance considerations for freelance journalists     – Liability insurance for media freelancers     – Protecting your business property, income and budget

Making a living

> Time and money     – Time — out of hand     – Money — out of pocket

> Budgeting without a salary

> A simple way to boost your pay: Ask

> Retirement planning: Where to stash your cash?

Finding work

> Finding your way to work

> Trolling the web for work     – How to succeed on jobs websites without killing your schedule     – Beware the temptation of bidding websites

> Inspiration for finding the story

> Brainstorming ideas you can sell

> Pitching your way to a full story calendar

> Tips on freelancing for newspapers     – How to get a newspaper editor’s attention

Marketing yourself

> Paying attention to business

> Making a home for your business on the web     – A website of your own

> Networking: the key to staying happy and fed     – Networking in local groups     – Networking through SPJ and other journalism organizations     – Following up

> Business cards help make the best first impression

Tools of the trade

> Why journalism ethics matter

> Four tips for better self-editing

> Selected websites for finding freelance journalism assignments

> Journalism organizations

> Journalism reading list

So-called citizen journalists who write enthusiastically and mostly (or entirely) for free have been a subject of much debate, particularly regarding their effect on freelance pay rates. The fact that many such writers may not understand the nature of journalism ethics is an equally serious concern that affects the way credible freelancers do their work. Some of these amateur freelancers act as if they are allowed to follow standards that are different from those followed by staff journalists. Consider, for example:

• a freelancer fired for taking an active role in an event she was covering;
• a blogger making personal attacks on an attorney, who in turn sued; and
• a hobbyist photographer who melded two images, which a newspaper published as one before the editor or publisher knew how the image came to be.

These people used their amateur status to justify their actions. Kevin Smith, past president of SPJ and past chairman of the society’s Ethics Committee, expressed concern a few years ago in an email discussion with SPJ Freelance Committee members that such misbehavior “will only grow among freelancers.” Citizen journalists also often don’t understand ethical niceties such as attributing quotes properly, confirming basic facts and separating opinion from fact. The same can be said for some freelancers who call themselves journalists but have never worked in a formal journalism environment and haven’t put in the time or effort to learn about professional practices and ethics. The credibility of all journalists depends, to a large extent, on ethical behavior. Conflicts of interest don’t disappear when a journalist stops working on a staff. A prime guide for good behavior is SPJ’s Code of Ethics , which was rewritten in 2014 to be more inclusive of all publication media. Not following this code is “idiocy,” according to Boston freelancer Jeff Cutler. “If a freelancer isn’t held to the same requirements and ethics that a staffer has to follow, then the system is broken,” he said. “We need editors and publications to realize that whether a story is written internally or externally, all standards must be adhered to and all ethical T’s and i’s should be crossed and dotted.” Because media outlets are using outside contributors more often than they did in the past, editors and publishers must educate their freelancers about journalism ethics. Assignments and contracts with new contributors could include a copy of the SPJ Code and a statement that freelancers are expected to adhere to it. This constitutes an efficient and easily implemented first step — and might be all that is needed. One argument is that freelancers do not have to adhere to the same institutional standards as staffers because they do not receive benefits. But no journalist should bend rules based on job status, says former SPJ Freelance Community Chair Michael Fitzgerald. And ethics have nothing to do with getting benefits. “I try to apply the standards of the strictest organization I work for to all situations, regardless of whether I’m on assignment for it or not,” Fitzgerald said. At the core of this conversation is whether media outlets can and should have a say in the lives of their freelancers. That employers of in-house, full-time journalists have such a role has been established and codified, but those journalists who have moved from in-house to freelance work and want to be considered professional should continue being ethical without being told. It should not be necessary to create a separate code of behavior for freelancers who call themselves journalists. “Being a freelancer doesn’t relieve a journalist of his or her ethical obligations,” said Dana Neuts, SPJ president, a freelance journalist from Washington state. “We should do everything possible to avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, in the course of our work. This is perhaps more important for freelancers, whose identity and potential relationships to a story may not be readily transparent.” Audiences deserve freelance journalists who represent the best of journalism, not its worst. Contributor: Ruth E. Thaler-Carter Resources: – SPJ Code of Ethics , as amended in 2014 – Ethics Answers on the SPJ website – Ethics Case Studies on the SPJ website – “On the Basics: Thou Shall Behave — A 4th Commandment for Editors” at An American Editor

Last updated: December 2018

Copyright © 2012-2018 by Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved.

Questions or comments? Please post them in the Freelance Guide Comments forum of the Freelance Community Board or email [email protected] . We’ll answer as soon as we can!

Return to table of contents • Freelance Community home page

SPJ News –  Cicero Independiente and MuckRock, Los Angeles Times, Retro Report win New America Award –  SPJ strongly condemns Oklahoma Dept. of Ed. for denying journalists access to news conference –  $175M California journalism agreement sparks debate on industry impact and inclusivity

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics Training
• Ethics Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• IFCN Grants
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

The assignment: Build AI tools for journalists – and make ethics job one

A recent poynter summit on ai, ethics and journalism challenged leaders to dream big and solve ethical challenges.

Imagine you had virtually unlimited money, time and resources to develop an AI technology that would be useful to journalists.

What would you dream, pitch and design?

And how would you make sure your idea was journalistically ethical?

That was the scenario posed to about 50 AI thinkers and journalists at Poynter’s recent invitation-only Summit on AI, Ethics & Journalism . 

The summit drew together news editors, futurists and product leaders June 11-12 in St. Petersburg, Florida. As part of the event, Poynter partnered with Hacks/Hackers , to ask groups attendees to  brainstorm ethically considered AI tools that they would create for journalists if they had practically unlimited time and resources.

SEE POYNTER’S AI WORK: One stop for journalist resources, ethics guidelines and more.

Event organizer Kelly McBride , senior vice president and chair of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, said the hackathon was born out of Poynter’s desire to help journalists flex their intellectual muscles as they consider AI’s ethical implications.

“We wanted to encourage journalists to start thinking of ways to deploy AI in their work that would both honor our ethical traditions and address the concerns of news consumers,” she said.

Alex Mahadevan , director of Poynter’s digital media literacy project MediaWise , covers the use of generative AI models in journalism and their potential to spread misinformation.

“I thought a hackathon would be a great way to speed-run through the thorny ethics issues that’ll come up as newsrooms start incorporating generative AI in the newsroom,” he said. “The goal wasn’t necessarily to create the perfect journalism AI product, but to identify areas where we need to be careful to respond to audience fears about trust, security and ethics behind artificial intelligence.”

Paul Cheung, with Hacks/Hackers, talks to participants at Poynter’s Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism about how the day-long hackathon to create ethically considered AI journalism products will work. Alex Smyntyna/Poynter.

The hackathon led to six imagined technologies, which ranged from apps to websites to software. All the theoretical inventions sought to help people, answer questions and improve the quality of life for news audiences. While the exercise was theoretical, one group is actually taking steps to try to pursue and get funding for its idea, an AI-powered community calendar. 

As the working groups conceptualized their visions, they identified plenty of ethical considerations. Here’s what some of them came up with, and what they learned through this exercise.

Just because it’s AI doesn’t mean it’s not time-consuming

PolitiFact editor-in-chief Katie Sanders helped conceptualize a tool that would serve as a guide to local elections.

Vote Buddy was meant to be a local news product , which required detailed information about precincts and candidates and their positions. Seemingly endless details stacked up as her team considered the experiment, she said, which called for more and more journalistic firepower.

Her team noted almost immediately that “the ethical concerns were abundant.”

They started by asking hard questions about use and users. Sanders said it was important to understand exactly what the team wanted to create, consider the problems it would solve for users, and make sure there was an actual need; and if audience members/users would be comfortable with the means by which the AI tool provided the information. 

“As we started to tease out what this service could be, we aso realized how much human manpower would be needed to pull it off and maintain it,” she said. “The experience showed me that your product is only as good as the amount of time and energy that you set aside for the project.”

Just because it’s an AI product, she said, doesn’t mean it won’t eat up resources, especially when it comes to testing and rooting out any and all inaccuracies. 

“Hallucinations around something as serious as someone’s vote are just unacceptable,” she said. “I felt better about having been through the experience, roleplaying what it would take.”

Help journalists figure out an AI entry point

Mitesh Vashee , Houston Landing’s chief product and technology officer, said that many journalists are simply afraid of AI, which creates a barrier to journalists learning how to use it at all — especially ethically. 

He said it’s helpful for journalists to start their journey toward ethical AI use by playing around with AI tools and discovering practical  uses for it in their day-to-day work. 

That way, “It’s not just this big, vague, nebulous idea,” he said, “but it’s a real-world application that helps me in my day. What’s the doorway that we can open into this world?”

His group conceptualized Living Story , a “public-facing widget that appears at the article level, which allows readers to interact with the story by asking questions.”

Vashee said that journalists’ fear that AI would replace them has been front and center in many of his conversations. 

“We’ve made it clear at Houston Landing that we won’t publish a single word that’s generated by AI — it’s all journalism,” he said. “It’s written by our journalists, edited by our editors, etc. …That being said, the editorial process can get more efficient.” 

He said that as newsrooms look to implement new technology to help with efficiency, more work needs to be done to define roles. 

“What is truly a journalist’s job? What is an editor’s job? And what is a technology job? I don’t know what that full answer looks like today, but that’s what we will be working through.”

Don’t wait to consider potential harm

One hackathon group identified less with workaday journalism and more with theoretical issues adjacent to journalism.

“(Our group was) mostly educators and people in the journalism space, more so than current working journalists,” said Erica Perel , director of the Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media at the University of North Carolina. “The product we came up with dealt with bias, trust and polarization.”

The Family Plan was a concept that helped people understand what news media their loved ones were consuming, and suggested ways to talk about disparate viewpoints without judgment or persuasion.

Their biggest ethical concerns centered on privacy and data security.

“How would we communicate these privacy and security concerns? How would we build consent and transparency into the product from the very beginning?,” she said. “And, how could we not wait until the end to be like, ‘Oh yeah, this could be harmful to people. Let’s figure out how to mitigate that.’”

Consider your journalist role and its boundaries

Members of the hackathon team that created an AI product called CityLens explain their idea to a panel of judges: (seated, l-r) Tony Elkins, Poynter faculty; Phoebe Connelly, The Washington Post; and Jay Dixit, OpenAI. Credit: Alex Smyntyna/Poynter.

The hackathon team behind CityLens envisioned it as a free, browser-based tool that would use interactive technology to help users learn about and act on their local environment.

Smartphone cameras would capture a local image and then users could enter questions or concerns, which theoretically would lead them to useful information, including, “how to report a problem to the right entity, whether a public project is in the works at that location, and what journalists have already reported,” according to the team’s slides.

It would also offer an email template for reporting concerns like dangerous intersections, unsanitary restaurants, code violations,  malfunctioning traffic devices, etc.

“I really liked the audience focus,” said Darla Cameron, interim chief product officer at The Texas Tribune. “The framing of the whole event was, how do these tools impact our audiences? That is something that we haven’t thought enough about, frankly.”

Cameron said for their group, the ethical concerns involved boundaries and the role of journalists. 

She said that several of the groups grappled with questions about the lines between journalistic creation of data and the tech companies’ collection of personal data. 

“How can journalism build systems that customize information for our audiences without crossing that line?” she asked, noting that there was also a concern about journalists being too involved. “By making a tool that people can use to potentially interface with city government … are we injecting ourselves as a middleman where we don’t have to be?”

Think about personal data collection and storage

Omni is “a personalized news platform that delivers the most relevant and engaging content tailored to your preferences and lifestyle,” according to the presentation of the group that created it.

Adriana Lacy , an award-winning journalist and founder of an eponymous consulting firm, explained that the group started with some nerves about their tech savvy.

However, they quickly found their footing — and ethical concerns. It became obvious that for Omni to work, its inventors would have to contend with the ethical issues surrounding personal data collection, she said.

“Our goal was figuring out how can we take information … and turn it into various modes of communication, whether that’s a podcast for people who like to listen to things, a video for people who like to watch video, a story for people who prefer to read,” Lacy said. “Basically, compiling information into something that’s super personalized.”

Much of the information they would need to gather was essentially first-party data.

“We had some conversations about how we could ethically get readers to opt into this amount of data collection and we could be compliant in that area,” Lacy said. “We also discussed how we could safely and securely store so much data.”

Their other big ethical concern was figuring out how they could integrate the journalistic process into the project.

“So much of our idea was taking reporters’ writing, video and audio and turning that into a quick push alert, a social media video, a podcast, an audio alert for your Alexa or Google Home — anywhere you choose to be updated,” she said. “The question remains: How can we apply our journalistic ethics and process into all these different types of media?” 

Some work didn’t stop at the hackathon

One team is even looking to launch a real product based on its session at Poynter.

Dean Miller, managing editor of LeadStories.com, said his team of four focused on “the community-building magic of granular local newsroom-based calendars.”

He said their idea, Calindrical , would bring real value to busy families and much-needed time to newsrooms, so the group has bought specific URLs and is working on paperwork to make the idea a reality. 

“Our goal is a near-zero interface,” he said. “Think Mom driving (her) son to soccer, calling or texting to ask when (her) daughter’s drumline show is tonight, and where, and getting the info immediately and sending the info to Grandma and Dad.”

Miller said the group proposes to use AI to both collect event information and to “assiduously” reach out to organizers to verify.

He said Poynter’s focus on AI ethics was helpful and necessary.

“(The) hackathon process was an early and quick way to surface bad assumptions,” Miller said. “We were spurred to focus our thinking on privacy protection, data security, user power and how to stave off the predations of Silicon Valley’s incumbents.”

Poynter as incubator for AI ideas

Participants at Poynter’s Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism, along with leaders from Hacks/Hackers, study sticky notes with ideas they might want to develop as part of the event’s hackathon. Credit: Alex Smyntyna/Poynter.

The summit was led by McBride , one of the country’s leading voices on media ethics;  Mahadevan , who covers the use of generative AI models in journalism and their potential to spread misinformation; and Tony Elkins , a Poynter faculty member who has been studying AI’s use in visual journalism. 

Partner Hacks/Hackers is an international grassroots journalism organization whose mission is to “create a network of journalists (‘hacks’) and technologists (‘hackers’) who rethink the future of news and information.”

The goal was to challenge those in attendance to think about AI concepts beyond traditional applications like transcriptions, translations or content automation.

Mahadevan said, “I thought it went great. I was worried people would default to the basic headline writing, transcribing and summarizing popular in generative AI use. But we saw some incredibly creative ideas. I think this really positions Poynter as an incubator of what I’m calling ethically sourced AI products.”

The summit took place following Poynter’s release of its AI Ethics Guidebook , and organizers expect to release a research paper from the symposium in the near future.

Elkins said, “As generative AI development and usage starts to intersect more with journalism, it’s important that Poynter facilitates the discussion between journalists and technologists on ethical frameworks for its use. It’s imperative we have meaningful discussion on the ramifications these models will have on our industry and our customers.”

Opinion | Donald Trump says there will be no more debates

He and his supporters are making the rounds criticizing debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News

Fact-checking Donald Trump on the scale and causes of inflation under Biden, Harris

Trump inaccurately claimed Harris cast a vote that ’caused the worst inflation in American history, costing a typical American family $28,000’

How to avoid sanewashing Trump (and other politicians)

Sanewashing is the act of packaging radical and outrageous statements in a way that makes them seem normal. Here’s how reporters can eschew it.

Poynter: When it comes to using AI in journalism, put audience and ethics first

New report distills work from Poynter summit that brought together top journalists, product leaders and tech experts

Opinion | Will there be another presidential debate?

Harris’s team says she’d do another. Trump’s team is trying to spin that as proof that she lost the first one. Trump himself is sending mixed signals.

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

• Voter Guide
• Michigan Politics
• John Carlisle
• M.L. Elrick
• Observer & Eccentric

Macomb prosecutor's lawsuit against county's top attorney, ethics board to get new judge

A judge in another county is expected to preside over a lawsuit filed by the Macomb County prosecutor against the county's top attorney and ethics board after Macomb's chief circuit judge disqualified himself from the case Friday.

Macomb Chief Circuit Judge James Biernat signed an order of disqualification/reassignment in Prosecutor Peter Lucido's suit against Corporation Counsel John Schapka and the ethics board.

Biernat indicated "my continued assignment would create an appearance of impropriety." No additional reasons were given.

The request for reassignment will be forwarded to the State Court Administrative Office.

This isn't the first time a judge or judges in the Macomb Circuit Court have recused themselves from a case involving an elected official in the county. A St. Clair County Circuit judge handled a case involving ousted Macomb County Clerk Karen Spranger and an Oakland County Circuit judge handled a criminal case involving former Prosecutor Eric Smith .

Biernat's order came less than a month after Circuit Judge James Maceroni decided to not disqualify himself from the case, per Lucido's request, after Lucido raised concerns about a campaign contribution linked to Maceroni that Lucido argued created an appearance of impropriety as it related to the lawsuit.

Maceroni's decision was expected to be reviewed by Biernat and a hearing was scheduled for Sept. 16, but it was adjourned without a date because of "out of county assignment," per online court records. Other matters scheduled in the case also are adjourned without dates.

"It's disappointing that this matter has dragged on and on and on, and everyone involved needs some closure," Schapka told the Free Press on Friday.

Lucido's attorney, Todd Perkins, wrote in an email Friday: "Clearly, Judge Biernat sees the entire landscape and not from a myopic view. Even I argued this case seeking a different Macomb jurist, but Judge Biernat's order takes the precaution and preserves all appearances of appropriateness for the entire bench. The people involved in this litigation are so entrenched into the fabric of the community that the possibility of finding a jurist who is untethered to a particular side, even if that association is casual, is improbable."

Perkins, representing the Republican prosecutor, filed a motion  Aug. 12  after he discovered Maceroni had contributed to the campaign of Christina Hines, the Democratic candidate for county prosecutor in the upcoming November general election. The date of the campaign contribution was more than seven months before the June 28 filing of Lucido's lawsuit, which was in Maceroni's court.

Perkins argued the $100 political contribution made to Hines' campaign on Nov. 15, 2023, is "not about the money, but a bias, the perception of what could be impropriety."

Maceroni decided that no evidence had been presented as to a connection resulting in the alleged appearance of impropriety between the contribution and the decision before the court in the lawsuit, according to his opinion and order, which detailed many points behind his reasoning.

Mark Brewer, a former Michigan Democratic Party chairman, filed his first of two  complaints  against Lucido with the ethics board in February. Lucido's motion to disqualify Maceroni indicated Brewer is the leader and/or adviser for Hines' political campaign.

The  ethics board dismissed  one of Brewer's complaints and voted to forward the other to a public hearing. The remaining complaint alleges Lucido used county property, buildings and offices to create a photo of himself for political campaign purposes. Perkins has disputed the allegation. The public hearing has not been held.

Perkins wrote in his email Friday that Lucido has suffered politically-motivated attacks by Brewer, that Schapka is reluctant to advise the ethics board on the "basic precepts of the law" and there is "acrimony" against Lucido by the executive branch. He wrote that what has happened to Lucido "has just been plain wrong."

Contact Christina Hall: [email protected]. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @challreporter.

Support local journalism.  Subscribe  to the Free Press.

Submit a letter to the editor at  freep.com/letters .