The beauty and serenity of a garden owned by a professional painter with colorful ideas seem safe topics to write about.
That’s what a freelancer thought when she pitched that kind of story to a magazine editor in Seattle.
The editor liked the idea, until she learned that the painter/gardener is the freelancer’s aunt. The editor fears an article might be seen as a pitch for the artist’s work, and therefore a conflict of interest.
The freelancer asked David Ozar, an AdviceLine adviser, how to respond to that concern.
“I explained that the ethical question is whether a conflicting interest is interfering (or is likely to interfere) with the professional’s judgment in a way that would harm those the professional is serving (that is the readers.)
“So is the relationship to her aunt likely to impact the journalist’s judgment that the garden is newsworthy in the relevant sense and is the author describing it accurately rather than ‘puffing it up?’”
A beautiful garden
The freelancer replied that it is a beautiful garden by any standard and it shows the artist’s skills can enhance a garden; but there is nothing in the description of the garden to pitch the artist’s other work. Also, the article would be accompanied by photos so readers could judge for themselves whether the garden was outstanding.
“We also talked about transparency,” said Ozar, “that is that the author should mention in some appropriate way that the artist is her aunt so the readers can take that into account in their judgment of the garden.”
Conflicts of interest is an ethics issue often raised by journalists who contact AdviceLine for guidance. An article written previously about the topic by another AdviceLine adviser is among those visited most often by journalists searching the AdviceLine archives.
An “open concept“
Given that interest, here’s that article, written by Nancy Matchett, who pointed out that definitions of conflicts of interest can be elusive and confusing, making it an “open concept.”
The article was titled: Conflict of interest: What does it mean?
By Nancy Matchett
A reporter who covers town meetings wonders whether it is appropriate to pursue a relationship with a councilmember’s daughter.
A community activist learns that the editor of the local newspaper plans to run for town supervisor, and asks whether this is OK.
An editor discovers that one of her reporters is covering an issue he previously wrote editorials about, and wants to check whether her instinct to give the story to someone else is correct.
And a publisher posts a notice that “no anti-fracking info [is] welcome,” overturning the paper’s previous policy of printing flyers on both sides of the issue. This prompts at least one reporter to resign, and she wants to know whether we share her concern that the new policy poses a threat to journalistic integrity.
A general question
All of these AdviceLine cases raise the general question, “What counts as a conflict of interest?” Interestingly, the SPJ code is relatively silent on this.
It does say that journalists should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived,”and “disclose unavoidable conflicts.” But the code does not provide further details about what would make a conflict unavoidable, nor does it offer a precise definition of what it means to say a conflict of interest exists.
This is not a criticism of the code itself; it is a reason why ethical professionals sensibly seek advice from time to time.
Conflict of interest is an example of an “open concept.” While it’s possible to give some textbook examples, there is no single definition that adequately covers all cases.
A family resemblance
At best, there is what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called a “family resemblance” among the various situations in which the concept is appropriately used. When dealing with an open concept, testing your thinking against other professionals’ reactions is one of the best ways to ensure that you have fully understood what the concept means.
Whether a real conflict exists will also depend on facts about the particular individual whose interests potentially conflict. All of us have different abilities to bracket off our emotional attachments and understand conflicting points of view. So while one reporter might be able to draw a bright line between objective reporting and editorial work, another might find it impossible to report seriously on the arguments made by those with whom he disagrees.
One of the things AdviceLine respondents try to do is make sure callers are attending to this kind of detail. But even when it’s plausible to say that only the journalist herself knows whether a real conflict exists (the first three cases above could be examples of this), the need to avoid perceived conflicts of interest remains.
Fighting temptation
Why should journalists avoid perceived conflicts of interest even when no real conflict exists? The answer comes from reflection about the profession’s societal role. The average citizen isn’t in a position to know which reporters and editors can fight which forms of temptation.
And even the most seasoned journalist occasionally might be mistaken about his or her own ability to resist. To protect the profession’s integrity, it’s better for everyone involved if journalists avoid anything that looks remotely like conflict of interest. Only then can journalists and readers alike be confident that the profession is fulfilling its broader obligation to seek and report the truth.
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Camelot was that legendary place where high ideals were honored and celebrated by King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table.
Centuries-old fables tell that story, which also was told by Broadway and Hollywood.
In a small way, Chicago was like Camelot. Long ago, the Chicago Headline Club gave Ethics in Journalism Awards to Chicago area reporters, editors or news organizations that distinguished themselves in journalism by performing in an ethical and sensitive manner.
You could imagine them as modern knights in shining armor.
The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics defines ethical conduct, in case you were wondering.
Like Camelot, the ethics awards also faded into history. Historians quarrel over whether Camelot really existed. But the ethics award did exist.
Walking the talk
It called upon anyone to nominate journalism candidates worthy of the award which honored those who “walk the talk” by doing the right thing.
“This means acting like a professional, taking into consideration the welfare of those we encounter in covering the news and the possible harm our reports might do to an individual or a community,” said the nominating form.
“It’s a tough line to walk, and is judged by our conduct. It means always asking ourselves if we are being fair and accurate.”
Some might say this was too idealistic, too much to expect. Even laughable.
Chief among those critics was Michael Miner, media critic for The Chicago Reader. Miner was a savvy, street-smart writer who often wrote about the ethics award and the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists in a caustic and dismissive way. He probably was typical of many hard-bitten journalists who wince and believe that journalism ethics is an oxymoron
Best solution
Miner wrote that the best solution to journalism’s intractable contradictions “was to build newsrooms no more than 100 feet from a bar.”
The media critic wrote several stories about me, ethics, the Society of Professional Journalists and AdviceLine. Actually, it could be said that Miner gave us more ink than anyone.
“Ethics? For Journalists? Is Casey Bukro Serious?” was the headline on a story he wrote in 1987, telling about my failed efforts to keep a sentence in the SPJ code of ethics that said: “Journalists should actively censure and try to prevent violations of these standards.” That part was stricken from the code, which I wrote 15 years earlier. I wanted the code to be more than words on paper, to make the code enforceable. SPJ leaders said paying attention to the code is entirely voluntary.
“Active censure may comport with a journalist’s temperament, but his inclination to police his own ranks is no sharper than a lawyer’s, a doctor’s or a cop’s,” Miner wrote. Some journalists might even consider it unconstitutional, he pointed out, contrary to the First Amendment.
Telling journalists
From the start, Miner had assumed that anyone who presumes to tell journalists what to do about ethics is a bit daft, silly or pretentious.
Miner zeroed in on AdviceLine shortly after it was created in 2001, offering a few snide comments, going so far as imagining reporters picking up a phone and saying, “Hello, sweetheart, Get me ethics.”
The man has a sense of humor and a soothing baritone voice on the telephone, teasing out information in a way that non-journalists might find disarming. Think of Morgan Freeman.
The story he wrote practically unhinged the AdviceLine team, which includes ethics experts who teach at universities. In other words, most were people not accustomed to being interviewed, especially by somebody like Miner who calls himself a critic. He was usually looking for ways to be critical.
Describing cases
After interviewing me, Miner told other members of the AdviceLine team that I described some of the calls from professional journalists asking for ethics advice and so should they. And they did.
I thought I was being careful about identifying callers or details that could not be disclosed under our confidentiality policy.
Then Miner’s story was published, and an uproar erupted. An AdviceLine team member emailed:
“I hardly know what to say about the extent to which confidences and commitments have been violated” in response to Miner’s cajoling questions.
Part of AdviceLine’s mission is to show what kinds of ethics problems confront professional journalists and the best advice for dealing with them. But AdviceLine offers confidentially to journalists who request it, so they and their news organizations must not be identified.
Sensitive world
Being new to this highly sensitive world of ethics public relations, some of the AdviceLine ethicists gave Miner more details than they should have under AdviceLine’s confidentiality policy. No names were revealed, but some locations were.
And it’s often a shock when people see their words in print, even when the words are true. Some journalists believed that nothing should be revealed about ethics cases, but that would frustrate AdviceLine’s mission to educate journalists and the public about journalism ethics.
Describing actual ethics cases and how they were handled would show the public that journalists take ethics seriously, contrary to what they might think at a time when journalists are accused of “fake news.”
A learning experience
It was a learning experience for everyone involved, resulting in AdviceLine adopting more exacting rules for confidentiality. I thanked Miner for his contribution toward improving AdviceLine, which might have pained him.
It was a tumultuous beginning for AdviceLine.
It’s good for journalists, and ethicists too, to have unsympathetic, cold-eyed lampooners. Like it or not, their taunts and derision can be instructive, showing why idealists lose or can improve. Idealists also can say to hell with these critics and keep trying. Conventional wisdom is boring and would never have produced flying machines.
Fourteen years passed. By that time, I had retired from the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Headline Club gave an award to the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for its journalism ethics blog. Miner was not impressed.
A richer life
“But as life is richer when Bukro’s around to disagree with, I’m pleased to report he hasn’t gone away,” wrote Miner at the time. That was in 2015.
By then, the Chicago Headline Club had discontinued giving ethics in journalism awards. Like Camelot, it was a distant memory, but a shining moment.
Makes me think of a line in the Lerner and Loewe musical: “Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
As all things connected with ethics, the ethics award was controversial, including why some of the winners were chosen. They had to be nominated to qualify.
Most journalists ethical
Some journalists argued that most journalists always perform ethically, and it was unfair to pick out just a few. I figured it was better than nothing. You can decide for yourself.
In 1996, the first year ethics awards were presented, 19 journalists or media organizations in broadcast news, print news and print commentary were nominated. The winners:
Carol Marin was suspended from WMAQ-Channel 5 for objecting strongly to reading what she considered blatant plugs for sponsors while presenting the news.
Harris Meyer laid his job on the line for writing stories on Medicare and health-care reform that sometimes were contrary to American Medical Association policy. He was fired from American Medical News for insubordination.
Bill Rentschler, editor-in-chief and president of the weekly Voice Publications in Lake Forest, was cited for editorial integrity and a body of work spanning decades in columns and stories that tackled tough issues.
In 1997, Ethics in Journalism awards went to:
The Austin Voice, a Chicago weekly newspaper that became a target of threats and harassment for the first stories of police involvement with drug dealers and armed street gangs on Chicago’s West Side. The Austin Voice was nominated by two neighborhood groups.
John Lampinen, managing editor of the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, for refusing against intense pressure to print Richard Jewell’s name the day he was named but not charged as a suspect in a bombing at the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Lampinen followed with a front page story on privacy and the public’s right to know.
Bill Lazarus and The Times of Northwest Indiana for tenacious coverage in exposing political connections in waste disposal despite a $10 million libel suit filed against them by an East Chicago hazardous waste firm. The paper persisted in the exposé and a jury later found Lazarus and The Times of Northwest Indiana innocent.
Carol Marin, for courage in journalism, by resigning from WMAQ-Channel 5 in a dispute with management over news values and hiring “trash talk” host Jerry Springer as commentator. (The station’s viewership plummeted after Marin left.)
In 1998, the ethics award went to Ron Magers, of WLS-Channel 7, for consistently showing ethics leadership in the newsroom throughout his career at WMAQ-Channel 5.
In 1999, five nominees were offered, but the winner was Nigel Wade, editor-in-chief of the Chicago Sun-Times. Wade showed his abrasive side the previous year at the Chicago Headline Club’s annual awards banquet. The keynote speaker gave a speech telling what newspapers could do to be more ethical. Wade got up in the audience and said that newspapers that followed such advice would be as boring as the speaker. But that month, Wade went on to prove there’s nothing boring about being ethical.
On May 22, 1998, the Sun-Times printed a front page message to readers explaining that Wade refused to play the Springfield, Oregon, school shooting on the front page because the story might harm or frighten vulnerable children. The following day, the New York Times carried Wade’s op-ed piece explaining why he didn’t print the story on page one. Wade proved this was not a one-time gesture when he decided against playing the Littleton, Colorado, school shooting on the front page for the same reason.
The 2000 ethics award went to John Cherwa, the Chicago Tribune’s associate managing editor for sports, who turned back staff credentials to cover the Indianapolis 500 race. A Sports Illustrated staff writer had been denied such credentials because his coverage of auto racing was considered unfavorable. Cherwa said he took “a stand against a form of censorship by a sports organization.” Other newspapers followed Cherwa’s example, and the Indy Racing League reconsidered and gave credentials to the Sports Illustrated writer.
The 2001 ethics award went to Victor M. Crown, assistant editor of Illinois Politics Magazine, for his diligence in seeking guidance on fairness and balance on a story involving Illinois Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and ethics in government. Crown posted all of his evidence in the case on a website so it could be scrutinized by journalists and the public, following advice from the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists.
In 2002, Carolyn Hulse, director of news reporting and writing at Columbia College in Chicago, got the award for resigning as interim chairwoman of the college’s journalism program to protest an attempt to name as acting dean of the school of media arts a person who had been fired at a Chicago newspaper for fabricating a story. Hulse said it was unacceptable for a person like that to teach journalism and be held up as a model for students.
In 2003, Mike Waters, Daily Southtown managing editor, and columnists Phil Arvia and Phil Kadner, won the award for their roles in challenging their newspaper’s decision to promote supporting U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, which could tarnish the newspaper’s and staff’s reputation for objectivity.
Also in 2003, an ethics award went to the Chicago Tribune for taking steps to enforce its newsroom ethics code, forcing the resignation of columnist Bob Greene for inappropriate sexual conduct.
In 2004, Virginia Gerst took the award. She resigned as an arts and entertainment editor for the Glenview-based Pioneer Press newspaper, saying the integrity of the editorial process was violated when the publisher assigned an editor, who Gerst described as a marketing director, to write a restaurant review to replace one already written. Gerst quit after 27 years with Pioneer Press.
In 2005, anchor/reporter Anna Davlantes of WMAQ-Channel 5 and Chicago Sun-Times publisher John Cruickshank won ethics awards. Davlantes was cited for courage and professionalism in reporting the sale of the Village of Bridgeview golf dome despite repeated threats and intimidation from a man involved in the sale who wanted her to stop her investigation. Friends and relatives urged Davlantes to drop the story. Instead, she produced five reports on the sale, which involved a man who said he was forced to sell his property.
Cruickshank discovered in 2004 that the Sun-Times had overstated its circulation for years. He urged company officials to go public with his discovery. Some of them feared that would kill the newspaper. Cruickshank said the future of the newspaper depended on doing the right thing, and correcting an unethical practice. Under his leadership, parent company Hollinger International disclosed the overstated circulation figures and set aside $27 million to reimburse advertisers.
In 2006, no ethics award was given. Contest judges decided that year’s nominees failed to demonstrate the high standards required for the award.
Story ends
And that’s where the Ethics in Journalism Award story ends, after nine years. It became dormant, and stays that way.
Looking back on it, giving awards strictly on the basis of ethics was difficult. Often those nominating reporters for the award cited forceful reporting resulting in changes. Other awards recognize that kind of work.
The ethics awards honored journalist who made personal sacrifices and often took an unpopular stand. That is more difficult to find. And all nominations were submitted to a panel of judges, who do not always agree on what is ethically laudable. It boils down to humans making decisions.
Zeal for ethics faded in a time of media staff cuts and disappearing newspapers, some say at the rate of two a week. Ethics takes a certain amount of boat-rocking, not something young journalists eager to keep their jobs want to do.
Lost newspapers
The Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University predicts that by the end of 2024, the U.S. will have lost a third of its newspapers and almost two-thirds of its newspaper journalists since 2005.
Into that bleak landscape came another threat: Generative artificial intelligence able to create news content with little human involvement. Medill reports that “could be the final nail in the local news coffin.”
Medill is careful to point out that this new technology also could bring benefits, creating new tools to improve storytelling and to monetize content. It also could free human journalists to devote their time to more original enterprise reporting.
But the potential downsides are worrying.
“Given how some chain owners have prioritized cost-cutting and profit-making over sustained journalistic quality, what is to stop them from replacing more reporters and editors with robots?” asked Medill. “Can news consumers be relied upon to discern between human-reported journalism and machine-generated content – and does it matter?”
Artificial intelligence makes mistakes and could be prone to spreading misinformation and disinformation, either by accident or design.
In these times of chaotic technological transition driven by artificial intelligence and robots, some might see ethics as a mere luxury. Others might see it as a way out of the chaos.
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
A publisher, at the top of a media organization’s pecking order, might scold underlings for stepping out of line ethically.
But who scolds a publisher?
That is one of the underlying issues brought to AdviceLine where publishers and other high-ranking editors decide to serve on the boards of outside groups, including civic organizations.
Civic organizations typically hope this cozy relationship with media leaders will result in publicity. For media leaders, it often is seen as a way to serve and create ties with the community.
But is it a good idea? It can lead to trouble.
The publisher of a Tennessee newspaper called AdviceLine, saying: “I have a difficult confidentiality problem.”
The publisher was a member of the board of directors for an international nonprofit fundraising organization. In an emergency board meeting, the publisher learned from the organization’s new executive director that the former executive director failed to file federal tax forms by the time required.
Penalties owed
The penalty for such an oversight is $90 a day, and the organization already owes the federal government more than $20,000. Failure to file the tax forms and pay the penalty before a looming deadline could result in a bigger fine and loss of the organization’s nonprofit status.
As far as anyone could tell, no fraud was involved, just wretched administration, terrible book-keeping and poor audits. The nonprofit organization has enough cash on hand to pay the penalty in time to avoid any further losses. But that was money intended for local charities and other worthy groups in a cash-strapped rural area.
The board’s immediate actions will include paying the penalty, getting the organization’s financial records audited and deciding when and how to explain all of this to the public.
A complicating factor is that a fund raising drive is now under way. Donors might be less generous if they knew of the nonprofit organization’s tax, financial and management problems.
Publish now or later?
The publisher asked AdviceLine if he would be acting ethically if he refrains from publishing what he knows immediately? Can he wait until the problems are fixed?
“We talked at length about benefit and harm,” the AdviceLine adviser wrote in his case report. The publisher’s reasoning mirrored the adviser’s.
“Although the public will be much upset at this, and at the misapplication of their previous contributions, the cause of that has been remedied already by the arrival of the new, and competent, executive director.
“So there is no great loss to the public in not knowing this right at this time, whereas there is good reason to believe that, even with the corrective action already taken…many people might reduce their contributions and many potential beneficiaries of (the organization) might suffer accordingly.
Benefit and harm
“That is, reporting this matter right now seems to produce more harm than benefit to the public.”
The adviser adds, however, that all of that depends on whether the board and the executive director took the corrective actions needed, then reported the situation to the public.
If they failed to do that, “then there would be a story that would then need to be told promptly; but that is not yet the situation.” The publisher does not expect that situation to arise because the board is determined to act properly and promptly, “including proper notification of the public when all the facts are in order and all the remediation with the feds has been attended to.”
The publisher has one additional concern: In preserving the board’s confidentiality, he might appear to the board, and later to the public, “to be involved in covering up something that, as a journalist, he should have reported.”
The reasoning
Said the AdviceLine adviser: “But I told him that the reasoning we had just gone through was the appropriate benefit-harm reasoning for the case from a professional ethics point of view, and in fact that the principles supporting this would be found (in general terms only, however) in the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) code” of ethics.”
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists has a team of four ethicists, all of whom teach or taught ethics in universities. They meet periodically to review advice that was given to journalists who called or query AdviceLine for guidance.
In this case, several ethicists vehemently disagreed with the advice that was given. They pointed out that one of the main themes of the SPJ code of ethics is to seek the truth and report it.
Ethics tricky
This case helps to underscore that even professional ethicists do not always agree on what is an ethical course of action. Ethics is tricky business, especially when applied to journalism.
The ethicist involved in the case accurately spelled out the benefit-harm reasoning often used to resolve ethics problems. But in this case, it could be argued that it led to a debatable conclusion.
The opposing ethicists pointed out that the public had a right to know immediately how money donated for charity and other worthy causes was being managed.
No doubt, the nonprofit organization with management problems would be embarrassed by such disclosures. But the publisher in this case failed to recognize where his greatest loyalties lie: To the public. And he does risk being seen as a participant in a coverup, as he feared.
In a jam
He got himself in this jam by serving on that nonprofit organization’s board of directors. This is not a rare or isolated ethics issue.
The Washington Post recently reported that NBC News Group chairman, Cesar Conde, is a member of Walmart and PepsiCo’s corporate boards – for which he earned $595,018 in 2022 in cash and stock.
There’s no evidence that Conde has been involved with any NBC stories about the two outside corporations, but the Post said “the arrangement has raised some ethical concerns, and reveals a potential blind spot for a news business usually very serious about conflicts — real or perceived.”
The headline on the Post story read: “Outside roles by NBC’s Conde, others reveal a journalism ethics issue: being paid to sit on boards.” Others include CNN’s chief executive and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post.
Paid positions
Paying news executives to sit on corporate boards brings the issue to a new level of concern. They amount to paid jobs.
Typically, editors and publishers serve as volunteers on the boards of local school or civic organizations. A similar case in which an editor asked AdviceLine for help led to some guidelines that could be useful.
An editor for the Mankato Free Press in Minnesota asked about the wisdom of editors joining civic groups.
In that case, the AdviceLine adviser said the first rule should be to avoid influencing, or interfering with, reporting on civic organizations – as was done in the Tennessee nonprofit organization case.
The Free Press editor was concerned that editors and publishers schmoozing with community power brokers sends a mixed message to reporters – that it looks like editors are breaking the traditional barriers between the editorial and business departments.
Staff feedback
In the Mankato case, AdviceLine urged the editor to discuss the situation with her staff to get feedback on how best to avoid compromising the paper’s standards.
This is a good ethics strategy: Get everyone involved in thinking about what is good for the organization. They become part of reaching solutions.
Later, AdviceLine called the Free Press editor to ask what happened in this case.
The newspaper was bought by another media company, which had a corporate handbook. It encouraged journalists to “participate in worthwhile community activities, so long as they do not compromise the credibility of news coverage or the independence of the newspaper.
“Avoid involvement in organizations or activities that could create a conflict of interest or an appearance of conflict.”
It helps to have written corporate policies that are known and understood by the staff, and by management, who sometimes think ethics rules don’t apply to them.
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists was founded in 2001 by the Chicago Headline Club (Chicago professional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists) and Loyola University Chicago Center for Ethics and Social Justice. It partnered with the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University in 2013. It is a free service.
Professional journalists are invited to contact the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for guidance on ethics. Call 866-DILEMMA or ethicsadvicelineforjournalists.org.
Verify Social Media Virus News: People spread hoaxes thinking they’re sharing valuable information with friends and family, writes Jessica Roy. Verify social media accounts, sites and the information, she writes.
Being ethical on social media: Ethicist David Craig says being ethical on social media involves asking hard questions and doing it in the open. From the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists archives.
Facebook fake news: It’s not easy to spot fake news, writes Laura Hazard Owen, who conducted a test on whether posts identified as fake are flagged as false.
Tweets backfire: The Des Moines Register fires a reporter for offensive tweets while he was working on a story about offensive tweets. His own tweets from nine years ago came to light, writes Sydney Smith.
The Facebook effect: Users often think they are immune to negative influences of social media, while others are not, writes Joseph B. Walther.
“That paradox helps explain why more than 2 billion people continue to use the site each month,” writes Walther, “and it also helps explain what’s behind the pressure to regulate” Facebook.
Correcting errors in the digital age: “One essential element of transparency is doing corrections right,” writes Dan Gillmor.
In the digital age, “we can fix the error right in the news article (or video or audio) and append an explanation, thereby limiting the damage, because people new to the article will get the correct information,” he writes.
Brits propose global tech ethics code: Taking aim at fake news and disinformation, a United Kingdom parliament committee reports “our democracy is at risk” from election interference through social media.
Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists 