Comprehensive guide to digital security: Motherboard tells how to guard against hackers and surveillance. Digital basics for privacy and messaging.
“As a consumer, you can’t control the bugs that your carrier leave open for hackers. But you can make it a bit harder for hackers to impersonate you with gullible tech support employees. The solution is easy, although not that many people know about it: A secondary password or passcode that you need to provide when you call your cellphone provider.”
News business faces charges of acting badly: Jason Schwartz quotes sexual harassment expert who says, “When Charlie Rose gets fired, the company (CBS News) means business.” Assessing newsroom cultures.
Poynter Institute gives guidelines for covering sexual abuse: “Journalists have a great obligation to investigate stories that potentially involve many victims.”
The Trust Project: Laura Hazard Owen says the project is a global effort to provide clarity on news organization ethics and standards and how journalists do their work.
Photographer apologizes for changing an actress’s hair style in a magazine cover photo, calling it “an unbelievably damaging and hurtful act.” Actress Lupito Nyong’o complained it was an attempt to make her fit “Eurocentric” beauty norms.
Media melees at mass shootings seen as a second trauma to grief-stricken communities. Jon Allsop offers five ideas for more respectful media coverage, like good manners.
Fixing journalism with a multibillion dollar endowment fund: Emily Bell writes tech giants could donate billions for a new type of engine for independent journalism. “Now is a good time to abandon the fantasy that the health of journalism is tied to free-market economics.”
Free stuff: Britt Aboutaleb writes about an ethics policy adopted by Racked, in the fashion industry, and its “Swag Project.”
Why believe polls? asks Margaret Sullivan, who quotes a source saying: “Pollsters and prognosticators — and I would include the media — need to do a better job presenting the uncertainty.”
By David Craig
BuzzFeed’s decision last week to publish a 35-page dossier containing allegations about President-elect Donald Trump’s relationships with Russia has prompted a great deal of discussion among journalists and journalism organizations about the ethics of the decision.
A number of those weighing in – such Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan and Poynter Institute for Media Studies ethicist Kelly McBride – have argued that BuzzFeed was out of line for publishing unverified information. But some – including Watergate reporter and now CNN analyst Carl Bernstein and Columbia Journalism Review managing editor Vanessa M. Gezari – supported the decision.
I have been thinking beyond this situation to similar ones that may arise in the future and the ethical questions involved.
Below is a list of questions I’m suggesting to help in thinking through the ethical issues in these situations. I have grouped the questions under the headings of the principles of the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, as well as other considerations – public relevance and journalistic purpose – that relate to the mission of journalism.
In writing these questions, I’m inspired by some lists that Poynter has done to help journalists in other areas of ethical decision-making such as going off the record and, recently, using Facebook Live. Two co-authors and I also raised some of these issues in a question list in an academic study on data journalism.
I welcome any comments from readers on how these questions might be used or revised.
Questions to consider in deciding on whether and how to publish unverified documents involving public officials:
Public relevance and journalistic purpose
Have the documents been discussed or used in any official settings (e.g. intelligence briefings, committee hearings)? Have they otherwise been discussed on the record by any public officials?
Is there a compelling reason for the public to know about the information in the documents?
Seeking truth and reporting it
Have you or others tried to verify the information? Where verification has been possible for specific pieces of information, has the information proved to be true?
Are the sources of the documents reliable? Why or why not?
Acting independently
Is your decision to publish based on your own independent judgment of the ethics of publishing or on competitive pressures or other considerations?
Minimizing harm
If the documents contain sensitive allegations, what potential harms could result if you release the documents in their entirety or publish those details and they prove to be false or impossible to verify?
If potential harm is a valid concern if you release the documents in their entirety or report details such as these, how could you minimize harm (e.g. redacting some details, summarizing)?
Being accountable and transparent
Are you explaining the process you used in your decision-making including any conflicting ethical considerations and the ethical reasons for making the decision you did?
Are you explaining any efforts you made to verify the content of the documents and the outcome of those efforts?
By thinking through these questions, journalists can uphold the importance of verification while also considering when and how to report on unverified documents there may be a compelling reason for the public to see.
Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists 