Content-Type: text/html

Applying Sociological Theory
to Statements of News Principles:

Functionalist, Monopolist, and Public Service/Status Claims
 in Four Recent Journalism Ethics Codes



Submitted for consideration for presentation
to the Media Ethics Division
AEJMC 2001 Convention
Washington, D.C.

Burnett Competition

By Susan Keith
Ph.D. student
University of North Carolina
1215 Cranebridge Place
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
(919) 967-9126
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0109B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D5154430%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_82093861%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>






Abstract
This paper examined four recently written or rewritten journalism ethics codes in light of functionalist, monopolist, and public service/status views of professional ethics described in the sociological literature. All three types of theoretical elements were present in the Gannett newspapers, Radio-Television News Directors Association, and Tampa Tribune codes. However, the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors code featured only monopolist elements. As predicted in Andrew Abbott's work on professional ethics, the elements present in the codes corresponded roughly to the external pressures on the organizations that wrote them.









Introduction
Journalistic codes of ethics have been criticized as being ineffectual,[1] vague,[2] and unenforceable.[3] Studies have suggested that they have less effect on behavior than workplace social norms.[4] Yet codes have been part of U.S. journalistic practice for more than eighty years[5] and currently are far more popular than other journalistic accountability tools, such as ombudsmen or news councils.[6] Why? Some mass communications scholars suggest it is so merely because news and professional organizations view codes as effective public relations tools.[7]
However, sociological theories of professional ethics suggest that the proliferation of journalism ethics codes may be a more complex phenomenon. For at least seventy years, sociologists have proposed that codes of ethics are natural outgrowths of occupations' attempts to professionalize. Three major theories have sought to explain how this works. Functionalists, including Talcott Parsons (1902-1979), have maintained that codes of ethics arise as a mechanism for protecting unsophisticated clients from the potential harm inherent in the uncontrolled expertise of autonomous professionals.[8] Monopolists, including Jeffrey L. Berlant, have found in codes of ethics efforts by professionals to control entry to their realm.[9] A third view, held by University of Chicago sociology professor Andrew Abbott, suggests that although codes of ethics can fulfill functionalist or monopolistic roles, they also serve as implicit claims to high social status for a profession and its members.[10]
Although some scholars do not consider journalism to be a profession,[11] others have maintained that it is a profession, an "emerging profession," or at least an occupation that possesses some characteristics of a profession.[12] It seems reasonable then to expect that journalism codes of ethics might contain the functionalist, monopolist, or status elements seen by sociologists in the ethics codes of professions such as medicine. If those elements are present, it may indicate that journalism's embrace of codes of ethics is a product not of a rather unethical desire to make the public believe that news organizations are more principled than they are but, instead, a natural outgrowth of the occupation's transition into a profession.
The research described here looked for functionalist, monopolist, and status elements in four of the most recently revised or created journalistic codes of ethics: the Gannett Newspaper Division Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms and associated documents (made public June 14, 1999),[13] the Tampa (Fla.) Tribune Newsroom Ethics Policy (made public September 29, 1999),[14] the Radio-Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (revision adopted September 14, 2000),[15] and the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors Standard for Editorial Independence (approved September 29, 2000).[16] This study is important for two reasons. First, it could help explain the continued popularity of journalism ethics codes in the face of research that suggests that the mere existence of codes is unlikely to change employee behavior. Second, it could provide ethics code-writers with insight into a sociological view of the claims they are likely to make when codifying their organization's principles.

Literature review

        Literature relevant to this study is found in two areas: studies of ethics codes by mass communication scholars and studies of professional ethics by sociologists. This section considers the mass communication literature first, then explores the relevant sociological literature.
Ethics codes in the mass communication literature
        Codes of media ethics have been a widespread part of U.S. journalism since the 1920s, when, as Phillip Meyer notes, newspaper journalists first began to feel enough of a shared identity to form associations.[17] The earliest codes were written by state press associations, with Kansas leading the way in 1910.[18] Other state press associations adopted codes in the 1920s,[19] as did the American Society of Newspaper Editors.[20] By 1934, codes were prevalent enough that Susan M. Kingsbury, Hornell Hart, and their associates could compare eighteen of them.[21] Later research on journalism ethics codes falls into four general categories: historical studies of older codes; descriptive studies of modern codes; normative discussions of what codes should address; and quasi-experimental or field-based studies of how well codes work.
Historic studies have been both descriptive and comparative. In 1973, for example, Harvey Saalberg described the circumstances surrounding the American Society of Newspaper Editors' adoption of the Canons of Journalism fifty years earlier.[22] Mary M. Cronin and James B. McPherson combined description and comparison when they analyzed twelve state press association codes written between 1910 and 1929. They found that although the codes differed widely in length, most mentioned professional practices, the purpose of the press, and appropriate relationships between editorial and advertising departments. Most also discussed four controversial topics of the time: press agents, propaganda, sensationalism, and editorial independence.[23] Similarly, Albert C. Skaggs compared 20th century statements to the statement of purpose found in the single issue of Benjamin Harris' Public Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick, published in Boston in 1690, and found "marked similarities" among the
 documents.[24]
Studies focusing on modern ethics codes also frequently have used a combination of description and comparison. For example, in a 1996 dissertation, Maury M. Breecher analyzed eighty-four newspaper codes and seven professional organization codes and reported that most proclaimed only minimal standards, yet did not discuss what would happen if those standards were not met.[25] Similarly, in a 1999 paper, Michael F. Lane compared the 1966, 1973, and 1987 versions of the Radio-Television News Directors Association code and noted several minor differences.[26]
Other studies have taken a normative approach. Some have defined specific behaviors that should be addressed by codes for particular groups, including news photographers[27] and sports journalists.[28] Others have suggested that there are some attributes all codes should have. For example, Deni Elliott-Boyle argued that to reduce confusion, journalistic codes should distinguish between statements about minimal standards, such as "don't plagiarize," and ideal standards, such as "the duty of journalists is to serve the truth."[29]
Still other studies have sought to determine whether and/or how journalists use ethics codes. A survey of 226 editors found that newspapers with ethics codes reported more ethics violations and more employee suspensions or disciplinary acts than those without codes.[30] However, other research has suggested codes have little effect on behavior. In 1988, a study of reports of the press conference suicide of R. Budd Dwyer concluded that there were not consistent differences in the way news organizations with and without codes handled the story.[31] In 1989, David Pritchard and Madelyn Peroni Morgan reported that staffers at two Indianapolis newspapers reacted similarly to hypothetical ethical dilemmas, even though the newspapers' codes were quite different and were written under different circumstances.[32] Five years later, David E. Boeyink reported that a study of three newsrooms indicated that use of codes was related to how strongly they were embraced by top management and how often and how vigorously ethics was discussed in the newsroom.[33]
Ethics codes in the literature of occupational sociology
However, mass communication scholars rarely, if ever, have considered journalistic codes in light of the three principle sociological theories of the functions of professional ethics.[34] The oldest theory, known as the imperative functionalist approach, holds, as Parsons noted, that professional ethics codes arose because professions "must have some institutional means of making sure that [professionals'] competence will be put to socially responsible uses."[35] This view also was stated by British sociologists A.M. Carr-Saunders and P.A. Wilson in their classic 1933 book The Professions:
Just as the public may fail to distinguish between competent and incompetent, so it may fail to distinguish between honourable and dishonourable practitioners. Therefore the competent and honourable practitioners are moved mutually to guarantee not only their competence but also their honour. Hence the formulation of ethics codes. It is hoped that the public will come to realize that in giving patronage to members of the association they are assured of honest as well as competent service.[36]

This approach also is implicit in the more recent work of Michael D. Bayles. He sees professionals as having a fiduciary duty to their clients because the professionals' autonomy and virtual monopoly over practice in a particular field put them in a position of dominance in relation to their clients.[37] According to Bayles, professional ethics standards provide a way of reducing the inequity in the  relationship by recognizing the professional's "responsibility for the public good."[38]
        During the mid-1970s, however, sociologist Jeffrey L. Berlant noted that the functionalist theory does not account for a familiar feature of the professional ethics landscape: the assumption that professionals have obligations not just to clients but also to colleagues. Berlant and like-minded scholars, known as monopolists, theorized generally that professional codes do not arise from empathy for the client. Instead, the monopolists said, professional ethics are tools for organizing, institutionalizing, and monopolizing the profession by figuratively drawing boundaries around it.[39] After studying British and U.S. medical codes of ethics, Berlant reported:
Ethics are a special organizational tool: appeals to men with self-identities of being highly principled, who tend to give little attention to the institutionalization problems of the profession because of busy everyday schedules. They are a means for achieving political effectiveness as a group without requiring Realpolitik consciousness from rank-and-file members. Ethics in fact tend to decrease political awareness among most professionals by confounding consequences with morals; they permit justifying decisions by simple labelling [sic] as "ethical," thereby shutting off contemplation and discussion.[40]

As Abbott has pointed out, this more cynical view would seem to gain support from the rapid diffusion of codes of ethics into business and the tendency of code enforcement to be related to the visibility of transgressions.[41] However, the monopolist theory, like the functionalist approach, fails to fully explain the popularity of professional ethics codes. As Abbott noted in 1983, the monopolist view does not account for the failure of codes to effectively control access to professions, the embrace of codes by occupations whose members have no say in who enters their fields, or the fact that codes more often sanction violations of obligations to clients than violations of obligations to colleagues.[42]
Abbott proposed a third theory: that professional ethics codes are popular because the claims made in them about unselfish service to the public confer status on the claimants. "[E]thics codes are universally distributed," he wrote, "because the claims of service they contain are claims to high social status. If recognized by society, such claims confer that status irrespective of the group involved - business or profession, hereditary or meritocratic. Service confers status because through it a group claims corporate necessity or even irreplaceability within society."[43] In Abbott's view, codes of ethics help a profession justify its existence.
Abbott did not view his status-claims theory as incompatible with the functionalist and monopolist views of ethics codes. Instead, he saw the three approaches as complementary. "A phenomenon like professional ethics is invariably involved in maintaining several effects at once," he wrote.[44] However, Abbott theorized that claims made in a specific code would correspond to external pressures on the profession that produced it. "Thus, other things being equal, where monopoly is most threatened . . . one expects professional ethics to emphasize monopoly goals. But when alternate strategies toward those goals become available (e.g., monopolistic licensure in 20th-century American law and medicine), the monopoly function exercises less power over professional ethics."[45]
In summary, mass communication research has both described the content of journalistic ethics codes and made recommendations about what those codes should contain. In addition, mass communication researchers have attempted to define whether and/or in what circumstances codes affect journalists' behavior. However, little, if any, research has analyzed codes from the standpoint of the three major sociological theories of professional ethics. The oldest theory, the functionalist view, holds that professional ethics codes arise to balance the power inequity between professionals, who possess potentially threatening expert knowledge, and their clients, who may be unsophisticated consumers of the professionals' services. The more cynical monopolist view suggests that ethics codes are tools for controlling the boundaries of the profession and emphasize obligations to other professionals rather than obligations to clients. A newer and complementary view, proposed by Abbott, suggests that
although ethics codes may display functionalistic and monopolist characteristics, the public service claims made in them function as status claims for the professions that use them.


Research questions, methodology, and limitations

In an attempt to further understand journalism ethics codes and their popularity, this paper analyzes four recently written or revised journalism ethics codes in light of sociological theories about professional ethics codes. It addresses two research questions:
1.  Do functionalist, monopolist, and status elements appear in the codes? If so, how are they expressed?
2. Do the elements emphasized match, as Abbott suggested they would, "external pressures" on the profession or occupation of journalism?
A theoretical sample[46] of four recently written or rewritten ethics codes - two from media corporations, two from professional organizations - was identified. The codes were chosen because they are relatively new, and thus might represent the state of the art in code writing, and because they come from diverse groups, which wrote them under differing circumstances. One of the professional codes, the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors' code, is the first compiled by the print journalists' group. The other professional organization code, the Radio and Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, is a revision of a code for a group of electronic journalists who have had formally articulated standards since 1966.[47] One of the corporate codes, the Gannett Newspaper Division Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms, was largely written at the corporate level[48] for all the company's newspapers after the Cincinnati Enquirer retracted an investigative series on the business practices of Chiquita Brands that was based on stolen voicemail.[49] The other corporate code, the Tampa (Fla.) Tribune Newsroom Ethics Policy, was written for a single newspaper newsroom by a committee of employees who initially drafted a traditional code, then opted for a down-home tone[50] and highly personalized language.[51]
The codes were examined using a modified form of the qualitative content analysis technique described by David L. Altheide[52] and some of the data analysis techniques used in grounded theory studies.[53] With the sentence functioning as the unit of analysis, the ethics codes were coded to see whether they contained elements related to the three sociological theories described above, which provided the "frames," or "broad thematic emphases,"[54] for the study. As coding proceeded during multiple readings of the ethics codes, newly considered statements were compared with others that previously had been coded, employing the constant comparison technique used in grounded theory studies.[55] Then, subcategories that Altheide calls "themes" or "mini-frames" were identified within the two of the three broad theoretical frames.[56] Finally, the types of statements made in the broad and mini-frames were examined to see if they were correlated with external pressures on the profession. Th
roughout the analysis, theoretical memos similar to those advocated by grounded theory researchers[57] were written in an effort to organize hypotheses and findings.
This analysis is subject to the same limitations as other types of qualitative analysis. The judgments made during coding are, of course, subjective, and reasonable people may disagree about them. In addition, it should be clear that the analysis offered here is particular to the codes analyzed. Support for sociological theories of professional ethics might or might not be found in other media codes of ethics. However, this analysis offers at least a new consideration in the discussion of what drives the popularity of journalism ethics codes.

Findings and analysis

Research question 1: Are functionalist, monopolist, and status claims made in the codes?
If so, how are they expressed?

        All three types of theoretical elements - functionalist, monopolist, and public service/status claims - were found in three of the four codes studied.[58] In addition, two of the three types of elements were found to contain subcategories (Altheide's "themes" or "mini-frames"). This section examines instances of those elements and subcategories in the codes. However, because it was sometimes challenging to determine to which of the three categories, if any, a particular sentence from an ethics code belonged, this section begins with an explanation of how ethics code statements were coded.
Functionalist claims

        In The Social System, originally published in 1951, Parsons described the relationship between one type of professional, a doctor, and that professional's client, a sick patient, this way: "The physician is a technical expert who by special training and experience, and by an institutionally validated status is qualified to 'help' a patient,"[59] whose "combination of helplessness, lack of technical competence, and emotional disturbance make him a particularly vulnerable object for exploitation."[60] Professional ethics, Parsons maintained, functioned to partially compensate for the inequity of power in that situation.
Journalists' work situations are not, of course, entirely analogous. First, it is not always as clear for journalists as for physicians who the clients are. For reporters, the clients might be both news consumers and sources. Second, journalists' clients may not need journalists to the same degree that sick patients need doctors or be vulnerable to the same degree that sick patients are. However, like physicians, journalists possess specialized expertise that the general public does not, and some of this expertise potentially could be used in ways that would hurt others.
Some of this expertise - including that which is based on technology, such as the ability to manipulate in Photoshop how images depict reality - is understood by some members of the public and could be learned by others, who then would be in less danger of being harmed or misled by its misuse. However, journalists possess another type of "expertise" - an ability to influence the news report - that is the result of their positions as newsworkers and rarely, if ever, can be matched by members of the public. Recognition of these two types of expertise led to the development of two subcategories into which functionalist code statements were grouped:
1.      Knowledge inequities - Those addressing an inequity of power caused by journalists' possession of a skill or an understanding of journalistic conventions that members of the general public could, at least theoretically, learn.
2.      Access/influence inequities - Those addressing an inequity of power resulting from journalists' access to the news report and their ability, as gatekeepers, to influence its content.
Functionalist elements also were grouped according to the explicitness with which they were made. Those that mentioned some sort of expertise as well as who would be harmed if the expertise was misused were coded as "explicit."[61] Those that explicitly mentioned just one factor - either an expertise or a "client" - were coded as "intermediate" claims.[62] Those that merely implied a certain expertise and/or the potential for that expertise to affect a "client" were coded as implicit.[63] So there were explicit, intermediate, and implicit claims addressing knowledge inequities as well as explicit, intermediate, and implicit claims about access/influence inequities. (See Fig. 1.)
        Functional inequities of both types are addressed on all three levels of explicitness by the Gannett, Tampa Tribune, and RTNDA codes. (They do not appear in the newest and shortest code, that of the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors.) However claims relating to knowledge inequities are more likely to be explicitly stated than claims related to access/influence inequities.
Technology is a frequent subject of explicit claims about knowledge inequities. One part of the Gannett statement, for example, says, "We will not alter photographs to mislead readers," and the Tampa Tribune code declares that "[p]hoto illustrations, computer enhancements, colorized and composite photographs should be labeled as such, out of regard for the public's trust. Removing or adding an object in an editorial photograph is not permitted. Nor is flopping a photograph."[64] Similarly, the RTNDA code asserts, "Professional electronic journalists should not . . . manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading [or] . . . present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public."



Fig.1
Functionalist statements
    About knowledge inequities                      About access/influence inequities
  explicit      intermediate            implicit
    explicit           intermediate         implicit

        The three codes that include functionalist claims also make explicit claims about the knowledge inequity that results from journalists understanding conventions of their craft better than the public. For example, the Gannett statements assert, "We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the press," and the RTNDA code says that electronic journalists should take special care when covering crime victims and children. Interestingly, both the Gannett and Tampa Tribune codes take care to include anonymous sources among groups deserving of explicit protection. The Gannett code discusses obligations to inform unnamed sources three times, urging reporters to "[i]nform sources that reporters will disclose sources to at least one editor" and  "[m]ake clear to sources the level of confidentiality agreed to." The Tampa Tribune code urges employees to "make sure the source is comfortable with" any description of him or her used. The RTNDA code sums up this protective function by calling on electronic journalists to "[e]xplain journalistic processes to the public, especially when practices spark questions or controversy."
        Claims relating to access/influence inequities were more likely than claims about knowledge inequities to be stated less clearly, at the implicit or intermediate level. For example, the RTNDA code notes that "[p]rofessional electronic journalists . . . [r]espond to public concerns [and] investigate complaints and correct errors promptly and with as much prominence as the original report." It is implied, rather than explicitly stated, that journalists' control of the news report gives them the power to do otherwise, to the detriment of "clients," sources or audience members harmed by the error. Similarly, the assertions in the Gannett statement that "[w]e will not intentionally slant the news" and in the Tampa Tribune code that "[t]he Internet's unique characteristics do not lower the standards by which we evaluate, gather and disseminate information" merely imply that journalists have the power to influence the content of news reports.
        Differences in the explicitness with which the two types of inequities are generally discussed may stem from differences in how long some of the specific inequities have existed. For example, journalists have had greater power than members of the general public to influence the content of news reports as long as there have been journalists disseminating news. However, technology has created new knowledge inequities between journalists and members of the general public. Code-writers may sense that because these ethical challenges are new, they need to be spelled out. However, code-writers also could be at least subconsciously reluctant to explicitly state the access/influence inequities involved in the journalist-client relationship because doing so might tend to emphasize the public's lack of control over the media it depends on for news.






Monopolist claims

        In his study of British and U.S. medical ethics codes, Berlant argued that American medical ethics promoted monopolization of health care by physicians and the American Medical Association by prohibiting fee splitting; calling for uniform fees; attacking "external competitors," who did not hold M.D. degrees or were "non-orthodox" practitioners; and using secrecy to maintain public trust.[65] The journalism ethics codes studied for this paper did not, of course, contain monopolist claims about fees, for journalists generally work as employees rather than fee-earning autonomous practitioners. However, there was evidence in all four codes of attempts to control the boundaries of the occupation and to prevent those not recognized as journalists - who might be seen as roughly analogous to Berlant's "external competitors" - from unduly influencing the news report.
Fig.2
Monopolist statements
         strong control                                implied control                      colleague obligation
Monopolist statements fall into three subcategories. (See Fig. 2.) A few, identified as "strong control" claims, strongly assert that a particular journalistic task is the job of journalists, not of outsiders. For example, the Gannett code states, "Editors are the gatekeepers who determine what will be published and what will not be," and admonishes staffers who choose to go over part or all of a complex story with experts, "[D]o not surrender editorial control." Similarly, the American Society of Sunday and Features Editors code, which consists almost wholly of monopolist claims, declares, "Editors will plan coverage according to the dictates of their news judgments and shall not be obliged to disclose schedules, deadlines, run dates, coverage plans or story play to any outside source or resource in exchange for access." Sometimes these explicit claims expand beyond the group covered by the code, as when the RTNDA code states, "Professional electronic journalists should defend the independence of all journalists from those seeking influence or control over news content."
Most monopolist claims, however, merely imply an attempt to assert exclusive control over the news report. All four codes contain such statements, identified as "implied control" claims, but they are particularly obvious in the RTNDA, Gannett, and Tampa Tribune ethics statements, which contain entire sections prohibiting acceptance of most gifts[66] and asserting that journalists should neither pay for news nor accept free transportation or accommodations.
A few monopolist claims, identified as "colleague obligation claims," stress journalists' duties to colleagues or employers. The Tampa Tribune code, for example, permits journalists to take on freelance assignments "as long as they don't interfere with regular duties or compete directly with The Tribune," and it warns staffers who volunteer with non-profit organizations not to let their "Tribune connection be exploited for publicity." The Tribune code also frames its admonition against plagiarism as an obligation to fellow journalists: "If you borrow a clever idea, joke, turn of phrase or unique observation, give the author credit, and maybe one day, someone will grant you the same courtesy."
Such lighthearted calls for collegial courtesy are far removed from the prescriptions about whom doctors might consult with that Berlant found in medical ethics codes.[67] However, the monopolist claims identified in the four journalism codes studied differ in an even greater way from those Berlant identified. Berlant saw monopolist claims in medical codes as usually harmful to the client and sometimes hypocritical.[68] But the monopolist claims in journalism ethics codes generally are related to journalists' efforts to remain independent. Journalistic independence, of course, is generally viewed as an ethical attribute that would benefit both types of journalists' clients, at least in the long run. News consumers benefit from journalistic independence by being able to place some confidence in the truth of claims made in the news. News sources, who may think they would prefer to have influence over news content, at least benefit if they know that no one - neither themselves nor th
eir foes or competitors - can control news content. So, in as much as the presence of monopolist claims in the four ethics codes analyzed represents an effort for journalistic independence, it should be lauded.

Public service/status claims

        Three of the four codes - those written by Gannett, RTNDA, and The Tampa Tribune - contain claims to public service that can be construed, as Abbott suggests, as claims to high social status for the journalists or corporations represented by the codes. Such claims are easily recognizable because they often explicitly discuss the role of journalism in society. Public service/status claims do not take up as much space in codes as functionalist or monopolist claims. However, they are more prominently placed.
For example, after a one-sentence statement of purpose, the RTNDA code contains a preamble that asserts, "[P]rofessional electronic journalists should operate as trustees of the public." The next section of the code deals exclusively with public service:
PUBLIC TRUST: Professional electronic journalists should recognize that their first obligation is to the public. Professional electronic journalists should:
- Understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility.
- Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events.
- Provide a full range of information to enable the public to make enlightened decisions.
- Fight to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public.
Similarly, the Gannett Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms devotes its second section to eight statements on "Serving the public interest," including, "We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process" and "We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public." The Tampa Tribune code sends a similar message of self-sacrifice and service, though it is served up with the same biting humor that is characteristic of the rest of the code: "We have forgone lucrative careers in medicine, business and law in order to defend democracy, free speech and the American way. Without us, Ann Landers would be just another know-it-all."

Reseach question 2: Do the claims emphasized in the codes match, as Abbott suggested they would,
"external pressures" on the profession or occupation of journalism?

Abbot theorized that although professional ethics statements might contain claims corresponding to all three sociological theories of professional ethics, external pressures on the profession producing a specific code of ethics would lead it to emphasize concepts related to those pressures in its code.[69] In this study, it was not a single unified professional code that was analyzed, but several codes produced by different subgroups of a single occupation or profession. So it seems appropriate to consider whether the codes reflect pressures not on the entire profession or occupation but on the individual organizations. The answer is a qualified yes.
        The most compelling example is offered by the nine-paragraph code of the American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors, a 53-year-old group with about 200 members. [70] Its code was written partly in response to attempts by Star Wars creator George Lucas to control publicity for the 1999 film Episode I: The Phantom Menace.[71] His efforts were thwarted, in part, when three North American newspapers published reviews of the film ten days before the embargo date set for newspaper reviews by the film's distributor, 20th Century Fox.[72] In response, Tom Sherak, chairman of the studio's Domestic Film Group, reportedly threatened retaliation against the three critics.[73]
That appears to have been the last straw for AASFE. According to Karen Brooks, AASFE entertainment chair, the "long overdue" code was a response to a profound increase over the past ten years in pressure on features sections by arts and entertainment promoters. "The stakes involved in the successful product launchings of movies, television shows, CDs, and books have led studios and publishers to demand deals that can cross the ethical boundaries of our profession," Brooks wrote on the organization's Web site. "The industry sees us as part of their publicity arm and readers want the juicy stories only access can give. . . . Newspapers acting together through AASFE are in a better position to resist the demands of large media companies that hope to influence them by withholding access or offering 'special' favors. And we can guarantee to our readers that independent editorial judgment has been applied to the entertainment stories they read."[74]
The conditions under which the code was written and the fact that its authors never intended it to be anything more than a "Standard for Editorial Independence" help explain why it contains only monopolist claims. As Abbott predicted, "[W]here monopoly is most threatened . . . one expects professional ethics to emphasize monopoly goals."[75] The circumstances surrounding writing of the code also explain the absence of functionalist claims. The functionalist view of professional ethics assumes the existence of a certain degree of control over the professional realm and theorizes that such control contributes to the power inequity between professionals and clients. The AASFE code suggests newspaper features editors are trying to stake claim to their territory. They apparently do not possess adequate control of their realm to hold a functionalist power advantage over one of their "clients": the arts and entertainment promoters who provide access and resources for some of their work.[76]
External pressures also were evident in the Gannett code, though to a lesser extent than in the AASFE code. The Gannett statement of principles was made public a little more than a year after the Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett newspaper, apologized for an eighteen-page investigative report that cited serious problems with the business practices of Chiquita Brands International Inc.[77] Under the threat of a lawsuit charging theft, fraud, trespassing, and invasion of privacy,[78] the newspaper admitted a reporter had stolen the internal voicemails that provided one basis for reports that Chiquita misused pesticides in Central America,[79] treated banana plantation residents harshly,[80] and created secret trusts designed to skirt foreign land ownership and labor laws.[81] On June 28, 1998, the newspaper published a front-page statement headlined "An Apology to Chiquita," saying that the voicemail messages had been stolen by reporter Mike Gallagher "despite assurances to his editors
 prior to publication that he obtained his information in an ethical and lawful manner."[82] In addition to publishing the statement, which stretched across six columns and appeared on page A1 on three days,[83] Gannett agreed to pay Chiquita more than $10 million.[84]
Gannett officials left no doubt that the new principles had been developed in reaction to events in Cincinnati. Phil Currie, senior vice-president of news, and Gary Watson, president of the newspaper division, issued a statement that said: "In recent years, the credibility of the media has declined - in part because of the questionable news-gathering conduct. . . . [A] rededication at this time to our fundamental values is an important statement to our readers that they can trust and believe their local newspapers."[85] The link between what inspired revision of Gannett's previous ethics code and the sociological theories of professional ethics examined is less obvious than in the AASFE example. However, Gallagher and others who may have been involved in not vetting the story properly can be seen as having misused their access/influence expertise when they allowed information obtained via theft to be placed in the newspaper. That would suggest, following Abbott's theory, that the
Gannett code should emphasize functionalist claims designed to reduce the inequities of expertise between journalists and their readers or sources.
             Indeed, the Gannett ethics statements - made up of the Principles of Ethical Conduct and two associated declarations[86] - do contain more functionalist claims than monopolist or public service claims. Several appear to be "artifacts" of the pressure of the Chiquita scandal. First, the Principles tell employees, "We will uphold the law," something Gallagher, who was fired from the Enquirer, did not do.[87] Second, the accompanying recommendations for newsgathering practice devote an entire section to how anonymous sources should be treated, something that became an issue in the Chiquita case after Gallagher agreed to a plea bargain that forced him to name the person who gave him access to the corporation's voicemail.[88] Third, Gannett employees are urged repeatedly in the code to avoid making decisions alone, something Gannett charged Gallagher did when he illegally accessed the voicemails.[89] When principles conflict, "journalists should not act unilaterally," the
statement says. "The best decisions are obtained after open-minded consultations with appropriate colleagues and superiors." The ethics statements even indicate that advice can be sought from outside parties "such as experts, lawyers, ethicists, or others." Fourth, the recommendations for newsgathering that accompany the Principles say investigative projects should be closely scrutinized as they are being reported and edited near the time of publication by someone unfamiliar with the material. In addition, the statement includes a fifteen-sentence section on skeptical editing that urges newspapers to consider assigning an "in-house skeptic" to play the role of devil's advocate and challenge assumptions in major stories.
However, those functionalist claims do not dominate the Gannett code to the virtual exclusion of other types of claims, as monopolist claims do the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors' code. One reason may be that, unlike AASFE, Gannett previously possessed a general ethics code, whose text may have reminded the company to address issues beyond those evident in the Chiquita scandal. In addition, Gannett brought in outsiders to work on the code.[90] They may have helped the corporation look beyond immediate pressures.
Correlations between pressures on organizations and the types of claims made in ethics codes are more difficult to find in the Radio-Television News Directors Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and the Tampa Tribune Code of Ethics. The RTNDA code, last revised in 1987, was rewritten during 2000, in part, the chairman of the organization's Ethics Task Force has said, to address concerns about business pressures on news operations.[91] Those were spectacularly manifest in summer 1999 when the sales staff of WDSI, the Fox TV affiliate in Chattanooga, sent faxes to local businesses offering favorable news coverage for $15,000.[92] Abbott's theory of code content suggests that such pressures on who is allowed to decide the content of news broadcasts should result in a large number of monopolist claims in the new RTNDA code.
Monopolist claims do exist. A section on independence, which this study identified as being characteristic of monopolist claims, makes up about one-sixth of the code. It says, in part, that electronic journalists should "vigorously resist undue influence from any outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals, and special interest groups" and "recognize that sponsorship of the news will not be used in any way to determine, restrict, or manipulate content."
However, monopolist claims do not dominate the RTNDA code as they do the code of the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors, which also is struggling to control its domain.
        Two explanations seem possible. The first is based on the fact that functionalist, monopolist, and service claims are better integrated in the RTNDA code - all three sometimes occur in a single sentence - than in the Gannett or Tampa Tribune codes. That could be a function of the fact that the RTNDA code is much shorter than the two print codes and so has to fit more claims into a tighter space. However, the integration could also be a product of repeated rewriting of the RTNDA code, now in its fourth version since 1966. Redrafting a code over time might lessen the effect of the pressures of any one era. A second possible explanation is more pragmatic. It may be that so many pressures are being exerted on broadcast journalists that any code produced by thinking members of the occupation will be a mixture of functionalist, monopolist, and public service/status claims.
        Drawing conclusions about the correlation between claims in the Tampa Tribune code and pressures on the newspaper is even more difficult because the code, the newspaper's first,[93] was written in the absence of any controversy that has been widely discussed in print. However, in late 1999, several months after the code was announced, Alan Wolper, a columnist for Editor & Publisher, wrote the newspaper and asked why its readers had not been told that a longtime sports columnist, Tom McEwen, owned a company that did business with a local sports franchise.[94] Editor Gil Thelen answered the question in his column in the newspaper, explaining that it was true that McEwen Travel & Imports, of which the sports columnist was CEO, arranged travel for the front office staff of the National Hockey League's Tampa Bay Lightning.[95]
        Thelen describe McEwen as "an unabashed cheerleader for the Tampa area" during his thirty years as sports editor. After McEwen retired in 1992, he "became less involved in community affairs - but did not drop out." The former sports editor, who continued to write columns for the sports section, "used his forum in the Tribune - with the publisher's permission - to write about new stadium and arena dreams," Thelen wrote. Then Thelen explained that "[t]imes have changed." As a result of the newspaper's new ethics policy, "Tom and his wife, Linda, who runs the agency, have said they will cease doing business with the Lightning as of Dec. 31, 1999. Tom has a copy of the Tribune ethics policy and understands the difficulty this business connection presents for the newspaper."[96]
        Thelen's column, published several months after the Tribune's ethics code was approved, said that McEwen's arrangement with the Lightning had only recently been "brought to light."[97] So, it seems unlikely that the situation was the impetus for the code. However, Thelen's assertion that "[t]imes have changed" may indicate that the newspaper staff was aware when it crafted the code that it was functioning in an era in which journalism ethics was either defined differently or was more important than it had been in the newspaper's past. If that was the case, and if independence had been an issue for the newspaper in previous years, one might expect to find that monopolist elements predominated in the Tribune code.
        That is certainly the case. Nine of the code's twenty sections deal with independence, and thus, in the terms of this paper, monopolist claims. Those sections are titled Civic activity, Connections, Freelancing, Gifts, Newsroom independence, Paying our way" (with separate subsections for food, travel, and tickets), Political activity, Radio, TV, personal appearances, and "Relationships."
           Both the Relationships and Connections sections, for example, make it clear that an arrangement of the sort McEwen had - in which he stood to benefit financially from some of the people he wrote about - would violate the code. In the Connections section, the code says, "However tempting, it's unethical to mine professional contacts for personal gain. . . . Financial reporters and editors shouldn't own stock in Tampa area companies, excluding mutual funds. Nor should they own stock in companies they might reasonably anticipate covering. If a conflict emerges, someone else should do the story." In the Relationships section, the code says, "Friendships and relationships, while a matter of personal choice, may limit the sorts of stories we may write or edit. It's a conflict, for instance, to write a feature on a friend's business, to date a police officer while covering police, or to edit a child abuse story if married to a caseworker."


Conclusion and recommendations

This study found that the functionalist, monopolist, and public service/status claims identified by sociologists in the codes of ethics of professions such as medicine also exist in four recent journalism codes. In three of the four codes studied - the Gannett, Radio-Television News Directors Association, and Tampa Tribune codes - all three types of claims were identified. However, the fourth code, that of the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors, contained only one type of claim: monopolist. That was to be expected, given sociologist Andrew Abbott's contention that professional ethics codes reflect the pressures on the profession - or, in this case, the organization - that creates them. The Gannett Principles also reflected, though to a lesser degree, pressures that the corporation felt when one of its newspapers was forced to disavow an investigative project based on illegally obtained information.
The presence of functionalist, monopolist, and public service/status elements in the four ethics codes studied suggests that journalism codes are in some way like codes of other professions, including medicine, in which these claims have been found. In fact, it may suggest that the presence of ethics codes in journalism is not the result of countless calculated public relations efforts by news and professional organizations but rather a natural outgrowth of the professionalizing process many scholars have argued journalism is undergoing. That does not mean that there are not self-serving elements in the codes. Statements in codes about public service, as Abbott pointed out, can mask public relations-oriented claims that the profession has high social status and is of value to society. However, the analysis conducted for this paper does indicate that rather than dismiss ethics codes out of hand, critics should consider the larger process of which they are a part.
The findings also suggest practical considerations for code-writers. The analysis revealed that when codes made functionalist statements about power inequities between journalists and their clients, statements dealing with knowledge inequities - especially knowledge inequities produced by technology - were more likely than those dealing with access and influence inequities to be described explicitly. Code-writers may want to give some thought to whether that is the best plan. As technology diffuses through society, more sources and consumers of news likely will become familiar with some journalists' expertise in these areas. However, journalists' gatekeeping function may remain as mysterious and distant as ever to most members of the general public, not just those - children, victims of crimes, and the unsophisticated - that most of the codes studied here remind journalists to protect. By explicitly describing this access/influence power inequity, code-writers might remind journal
ists to be aware of it.
        In addition, code-writers may want to take time for serious reflection before they commit to paper codes written in the wake of controversies. It probably is inevitable that such codes reflect the pressure of the controversies and figuratively, at least, shout, "Let's not make that mistake again!" In fact, that sentiment may be just what the organization needs at the time. However, code authors attempting to create a general ethics code that covers a wide range of subjects will certainly want to avoid producing a document, like the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors code, that addresses only a few narrow situations and makes only one type of claim.
        In fact, it could be argued that the best codes contain claims related to all three sociological theories. Codes that do not contain functionalist claims, like the AASFE code, may not adequately address the imbalances of power that can exist between journalists and sources or news consumers. Codes that do not contain monopolist claims, at least as they are defined in this paper, may not adequately promote the independence of journalists. Codes that neglect to make public service/status claims may fail to remind journalists of their public service roles.














[1] Endnotes

 Jay Black and Ralph D. Barney, "The Case Against Mass Media Codes of Ethics," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1 (Fall/Winter 1985-86): 27-36. For a similar view of codes outside journalism, see Margaret Anne Cleek and Sherry Lynn Leonard, "Can Corporate Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior?" Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1998): 619-630 and Richard Ford, Bonnie Gray, and Robert Landrum, "Do Organizational Codes of Conduct Really Affect Employees' Behavior?" Management Review (1982): 53-54.

[2]  Ron F. Smith, Groping for Ethics in Journalism 4th ed. (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1999): 20.

[3]  This claim is made chiefly about the codes of professional organizations, such as the Society of Professional Journalists, which have no mechanism for revoking the membership of those who violate the code. Individual news organizations, as employers, obviously have a greater ability to enforce their codes. See Elliot D. Cohen, "Codes of Journalism Ethics," in Journalism Ethics: A Reference Handbook, ed. Elliot D. Cohen and Deni Elliott, 139-154 (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997): 141;  Philip Meyer, Ethical Journalism: A Guide for Students, Practitioners, and Consumers (New York: Longman, 1987): 18-19. For a similar view of business ethics codes, see Betsy Stevens, "Communicating Ethical Values: A Study of Employee Perceptions," Journal of Business Ethics 20 (1999): 113-120.

[4]  Warren Breed, "Social Control in the Newsroom," in Steven R. Knowlton and Patrick R. Parsons, eds., The Journalist's Moral Compass: Basic Principles 114-120 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers, 1994): 120; David Pritchard and Madelyn Peroni Morgan, "Impact of Ethics Codes on Judgments By Journalists: A Natural Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 66 (Winter 1989): 934-941; David E. Boeyink, "How Effective Are Codes of Ethics? A Look at Three Newsrooms," Journalism Quarterly 71, no. 4 (Winter 1994) 893-904. See also David C. Wyld and Coy A. Jones, "The Importance of Context: The Ethical Work Climate Construct and Models of Ethical Decision Making - An Agenda for Research," Journal of Business Ethics 16 (1997): 465-472.

[5]  Mary M. Cronin and James B. McPherson, "Pronouncements and Denunciations: An Analysis of State Press Association Ethics Codes from the 1920s," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 72, no. 4 (1995): 891.

[6]  In a 1983 study, Phillip Meyer reported that nearly two-thirds of the newspapers in a sample had written codes. So did 59 percent of the forty-nine responding broadcast and forty-five responding print outlets surveyed by Lucinda D. Davenport and Ralph S. Izard during 1985, and four out of ten television and radio station news operations surveyed by K. Tim Wulfemeyer in 1990. Ninety-six percent of the 103 newspaper editors and television news directors responding to a 1991 survey by Douglas A. Anderson and Frederic A. Leigh agreed it is important for journalists to be made aware of ethics codes. About 28 percent said their news outlets posted codes; 54 percent said they distributed copies of a code of ethics to staff members. A study of online news operations by M. David Arant and Janna Quitney Anderson found that 77 percent of the 203 responding online newspaper operations had some sort of ethics code. In contrast, a 1994 study reported that the number of U.S. newspapers with
 ombudsmen has never been greater than thirty-four. The National News Council died in 1984, and Minnesota is the only U.S. state with a news council. See Phillip Meyer, Editors, Publishers, and Newspaper Ethics (Washington, D.C.: American Society of Newspaper Editors, 1983); Lucinda S. Davenport and Ralph Izard, "Restrictive Policies of the Mass Media," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1 (1985-86): 4-9; K. Tim Wulfemeyer, "Defining Ethics in Electronic Journalism: Perceptions of News Directors," Journalism Quarterly, 1990, 984-991; Douglas A. Anderson and Frederic A. Leigh, "How Newspaper Editors and Broadcast News Directors View Media Ethics," Newspaper Research Journal (Winter/Spring 1992): 112-122;  M. David Arant and Janna Quitney Anderson, "Online Media Ethics: A Survey of U.S. Daily Newspaper Editors," unpublished paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 2000 Convention, Phoenix, Ariz. Available online at http://www.elon.edu/an
dersj/onlinesurvey.html (accessed March 6, 2001); B.W. McKinzie, "How Papers With and Without Ombudsmen Resolve Disputes," Newspaper Research Journal 15, no. 2 (Spring 1994): 15; Smith, 22.

[7]  Meyer, Ethical Journalism, 19. See also Richard L. Johannesen, "What Should We Teach About Formal Codes of Communication Ethics?" Journal of Mass Media Ethics 3, no. 1 (1988): 59; and C. June Martin, "The Case of the Lost Ethic: Making Moral Decisions," Journalism Educator (Spring 1988): 11-14.
[8]
 Talcott Parsons, The Social System 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 1991).
[9]
 Jeffrey Berlant, Profession and Monopoly: A Study of Medicine in the United States and Great Britain (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1975).
[10]
 Andrew Abbott, "Professional Ethics," American Journal of Sociology 88, no. 5 (1983): 855-885.

[11]  A.M. Carr-Saunders and P.A. Wilson, The Professions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933) 265-266; Barrie MacDonald and Michel Petheram, Keyguide to Information Sources in Media Ethics (London: Mansell Publishing Ltd., 1998) 78; William E. Porter, "Journalism," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Vol. 8, 265-272 (The Macmillan Co. & The Free Press, 1968): 265.

[12]  Andrew Abbott, The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) 225-226; John Henningham, "Australian Journalists' Professional and Ethical Values," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 209-210; Morris Janowitz, "Professional Models in Journalism: the Gatekeeper and the Advocate," Journalism Quarterly 52, no. 4 (Winter 1975): 618-626, 662; Mike W. Martin, "Journalistic Ethics and Ordinary Morality," in Journalism Ethics: A Reference Handbook, ed. Elliot D. Cohen and Deni Elliott, 139-154 (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997): 86-91;  Jack McLeod and Searle E. Hawley Jr., "Professionalization Among Newsmen," Journalism Quarterly 41, no. 3 (Summer 1964); 529-538, 577; Allan Nevins, "Journalism," Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 7 (1932, reprinted 1959): 420-424; James R. Rest and Darcia Narv ez, Moral Development in the Professions (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
 1994) xi. Of course, different scholars have had different ideas of what attributes an occupation must possess to be considered a profession. Five often agreed upon are: a systematic base of knowledge and/or theory; authority recognized by clients; community sanction and approval; a code of ethics or other formal statement regulating relations between practitioners and clients; and a distinctive culture maintained by associations. See Ernest Greenwood, "Attributes of a Profession," Social Work 2, no. 3 (1957) 44-55 and Jay Black and Ralph D. Barney, Toward Professional, Ethical Journalism, Mass Comm Review 17, nos. 1&2 (1990) 3-5. For an account of the development of the idea of professionalism across the 20th century, see John Lawrence, Argument for Action: Ethics and Professional Conduct (Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Publishing Co., 1999) 53-99. In a provocative article, Douglas Birkhead identified journalists as members of a professionalizing occupation who largely lack autonomy.
They are forced "to share their professionalism with the business of journalism - owners, managers, and tacit allies in higher education - as part of the social bargain of professionalization." Douglas Birkhead, "News Media Ethics and the Management of Professionals," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1986) 37-46.

[13]  Gannett Newspaper Division Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms, Protecting the Principles, Reinforcing the Principles, available online at http://www.gannett.com/go/press/pr061499.htm. Accessed March 6, 2001. The Principles consist of thirty-two single-sentence assertions accompanied by two associated statements, Protecting the Principles (a list of "recommended practices") and Reinforcing the Principles (recommendations for communicating the standards). In this paper, the three statements will be referred to as "the Gannett statements" or "the Gannett code."

[14]  Tampa Tribune Newsroom Ethics Policy, available online at http://www.tampatrib.com/ethics.htm. Accessed March 6, 2001.

[15]  Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, Radio-Television News Directors Association, available online at http://www.rtnda.org/ethics/coe.shtml. Accessed March 6, 2001.

[16]  AASFE Guidelines, available online at http://www.aasfe.org/aasfe-guidelines.htm. Accessed March 6, 2001.

[17]  Meyer, Ethical Journalism, 18.

[18]  Cronin and McPherson, 891.

[19]  Ibid.

[20]  Meyer, Ethical Journalism, 18.

[21]  Susan M. Kingsbury, Hornell Hart, and associates, "Measuring the Ethics of American Newspapers: VII Comparative Analysis of Newspaper Codes of Ethics," Journalism Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1934): 361-381.

[22]  Harvey Saalberg, "The Canons of Journalism: A 50-Year Perspective," Journalism Quarterly 50, no. 4 (Winter 1973) 731-734.

[23]  Cronin and McPherson, 891.

[24]  Albert C. Skaggs, "Today's Codes Mirror Credo of Benjamin Harris," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 5, no. 1 (Fall/Winter 1985/86): 37-42.

[25]  Maury M. Breecher, What Do Newspaper Codes of Ethics Say, How do They Say It, and What Happens if Minimal Standards Are Not Met? Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1996.

[26]  Michael F. Lane, "Secret Codes and the Cost of Silence: Unethical Journalism in Search of Guidance," unpublished paper presented to the Southeast Regional Colloquium of the Association of Education for Journalism and Mass Communication, Lexington, Ky., 1999.
[27]
 George E. Padgett, "Codes Should Address Exploitation of Grief by Photographers," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1 (Fall/Winter 1985/86): 50-56.
[28]
 K. Tim Wulfemeyer, "Ethics in Sports Journalism: Tightening up the Code," Journal of Mass Media Ethics (Fall/Winter 1985/86) 57-67.
[29]
 Deni Elliott-Boyle, A Conceptual Analysis of Ethics Codes, Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1, no. 1 (Fall/Winter 1985-86): 22-23.  Maury M. Breecher reported that few codes mention ideal standards.

[30]  "Newsroom Ethics: How Tough is Enforcement?" Journal of Mass Media Ethics 2 (Fall/Winter 1986-87): 7-16.

[31]  Patrick R. Parsons and William E. Smith, "R. Budd Dwyer: A Case Study in Newsroom Decision Making," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 3, no. 1 (1988) 134-137.
[32]
 Pritchard and Morgan, 934-941.
[33]
 David E. Boeyink, "Codes and Culture at The Courier-Journal: Complexity in Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 13, no. 3 (1998): 165-182; Boeyink, "How Effective are Codes of Ethics?, 893-904.
[34]
 David Craig and Doug Birkhead have considered the intersection of journalism ethics and professionalism. See David Craig, "A Framework for Evaluating Coverage of Ethics in Professions and Society," Journal of Mass Media Ethics 14, no. 1 (1999): 16-27; Doug Birkhead, "News Media Ethics," 43-44; and Doug Birkhead, "The Power in the Image: Professionalism and the 'Communications Revolution,' " American Journalism (Winter 1984): 1-14. However, neither has evaluated journalism ethics codes in light of sociological theory. Craig has focused on how journalism covers or should cover the ethics of other professions, such as medicine. Birkhead has focused on the history of professionalization in journalism and suggested that journalists' lack of professional autonomy has affected their ability to engage in ethical decision-making.
[35]
 Talcott Parsons, "Professions," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 12, David L. Sills, ed. (The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, 1968) 536.
[36]
 Carr-Saunders and Wilson, 302.

[37]  Michael D. Bayles, Professional Ethics (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1981) 10-11, 21.

[38]  Ibid, 109.

[39]  Berlant, 66.

[40]  Ibid. 66-67.
[41]
 Abbott, "Professional Ethics," 865.

[42]  Ibid.
[43]
 Ibid, 866.
[44]
 Ibid, 872.

[45]  Ibid, 873.
[46]
 "Essentially, theoretical sampling means selecting a study population on theoretical rather than, say, statistical grounds." Janet Finch and Jennifer Mason, "Decision Taking in the Fieldwork Process: Theoretical Sampling and Collaborative Working" 291-318 in Alan Bryman and Robert G. Burgess, eds., Qualitative Research Volume I (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1999) 294.

[47]  Lane, 16.

[48]  "An Apology to Chiquita, Enquirer: Voice Mail Tapes Were Taken Illegally," Cincinnati Enquirer, June 28, 1998, 1; "Gannett Newspaper Division Issues Guidelines on Ethical News-Gathering Conduct for Newsrooms," June 14, 1999, available from http://www.gannett.com/go/press/pr061499.htm, accessed October 9, 2000.

[49]  Associated Press, "Gannett Issues Ethical Guidelines for Its Newspapers," June 21, 1999.
[50]
 Mark Fitzgerald, "Ethics Codes Out of the Closet: Warnings Against Written Policies Fading," Editor & Publisher, October 16, 1999.
[51]
 In the section headlined "Relationships," the code mentions a popular metro columnist by name: "Steve Otto gets to humiliate family members in print. Others should stick to covering strangers." In the section titled "Paying our way," the code offers an example that mentions by name the mayor of Tampa. "You're on a restaurant review. Dick Greco stops by the table to say hello. Minutes later, the owner is at Greco's table. Not long after, the owner brings you a bottle of wine 'on the house.' Geez: Does he know you're from The Tribune? Does he just think you're Greco's friend? Either way, if you drink the wine, you pay."

[52]  David L. Altheide, Qualitative Media Analysis, Qualitative Research Methods Volume 38 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996).

[53]  Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss, "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria," Qualitative Sociology 13, no. 1(1990) 3-19; Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998).

[54]  Altheide, 30.
[55]
 "As an incident is noted, it should be compared against other incidents for similarities and differences. The resulting concepts are labeled as such, and over time, they are compared and grouped. _ Making comparisons assists the researcher in guarding against bias, for he or she is then challenging concepts with fresh data. Such comparisons also help to achieve greater precision (the grouping of like and only like phenomena) and consistency (always grouping like with like)." Corbin and Strauss, 9.
[56]
 Ibid.

[57]  Corbin and Strauss, 12.
[58]
 The newest and shortest code, that of the American Association of Sunday and Features Editors, was found to contain only monopolist statements.
[59]
 Parsons, The Social System, 439.

[60]  Ibid, 445.

[61]  One example from the RTNDA code: "Use surreptitious newsgathering techniques, including hidden cameras or microphones, only if there is no other way to obtain stories of significant public importance and only if the technique is explained to the audience." The statement mentions both the expertise involved (knowledge of how to use hidden cameras or microphones) and one group (the audience) who might be affected by use of the expertise.

[62]  One example from the Tampa Tribune code: "No using your position to get better seats at a concert or a table in an already booked restaurant." The statement concedes that journalists may have the expertise, or  the position, to obtain good concert seats or coveted restaurant tables. It does not, however, mention who might be affected if they misused such power.

[63]  One example from the Tampa Tribune code: "Financial reporters and editors shouldn't own stock in Tampa area companies, excluding mutual funds." Neither the expertise involved (presumably knowledge the general public wouldn't have about local companies) nor who would be harmed if the journalists misused it (investors who lacked such knowledge) is explicitly stated. However, both can be inferred.

[64]  A print newsroom colloquialism for turning the negative before printing a photograph or digitally manipulating an image in an electronic darkroom so that the right side of the original appears on the left side of the frame. The technique could be used, for example, to make a person facing right in a photograph appear to be facing left, which might be more aesthetically pleasing in some page designs.

[65]  Berlant, 111.

[66]  From the Tampa Tribune code comes this typically colloquial passage: "Nobody bribes us with bundles of cash. But if tins of cheddar popcorn were gold, we'd be rich. On any given day, free stuff loads the newsroom mailboxes. The general rule: Accept no gifts. . . . The readers' desk will maintain a charity bin and preprinted gift return cards. (No raiding the bin!) . . . If you receive a gift of value . . . return it by mail or in person. Write a note or use a preprinted gift return card. Example: 'The crystal toad was adorable, but I must return it. We can't accept gifts. Maybe I did, as you say, overlook a few warts, but the chocolate mousse was ribeting.' . . . Fresh flowers may be kept, but consider intent. A $100 arrangement from a developer grateful for publicity should be returned. Not so for a daisy basket from a reader, delighted we noticed his 100th birthday."

[67]  Berlant, 105-106.
[68]
 Ibid, 301. "Many recent codes of the American Medical Association . . . seem to be caught in the dilemma of pushing for monopolization and yet trying to convince external observers that the profession is not monopolistic."

[69]  Abbott, 873.

[70]  "History of AASFE:  More than a Half Century of Features Excellence," available online at http://www.aasfe.org/about.htm. Accessed November 27, 2000.

[71]  David Astor, "Features Editors Adopt Ethics Guidelines: Effort Spurred In Part By 'Phantom
Menace,' " Editor & Publisher, October 10, 2000.

[72]  Jack Mathews, "Pre-Release Reviews a Phantom Menace, Earth to Studio: Breaking Embargo 'Rule' Does Right by Readers & Won't Hurt You a Bit," New York Now, Daily News, May 11, 1999, 39. Newsmagazines apparently were exempt from the embargo.

[73]  Ibid.
[74]
 Karen Brooks, "AASFE's New Arts and Entertainment Ethical Guidelines," available online at http://www.aasfe.org/aasfe-artsguidelines.htm. Accessed November 27, 2000. Jane Freiman, a staff member of the New York Daily News, one of the papers that broke the studio embargo, is credited as being a driving force behind the code.

[75]  Abbott, 873.

[76]  Interestingly, the code also hints that features editors may not feel they hold power in their own newsrooms. It begins by stating, "Each newspaper sets the rules of ethical conduct for its staff with respect to outside sources which grant access, supply photographs, illustrations or products, bear the cost of travel or trips or stage junkets for which the costs of transportation, lodging or meals may be provided." Then, in the next paragraph, the code suggests that features editors can reject those rules. "If it is a newspaper's policy to accept services, trips or junkets from outside sources, AASFE asserts the right of editors to make independent judgments about the acceptability of editorial material gathered for articles in these circumstances. Editors retain the right to assign, schedule, or cancel editorial material independently and without regard to any services that may have been accepted or provided."

[77]  Available through Nexis or online at http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/chiquita.

[78]  Alicia C. Shepard, "Bitter Fruit," American Journalism Review, September 1998, 34.

[79]  Cameron McWhirter,, and Mike Gallagher,"Workers Sprayed in the Fields," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3 1998, C9; Cameron McWhirter and Mike Gallagher, "Unregistered Toxins Used Despite Claims," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C12; Mike Gallagher and Cameron McWhirter, "Chiquita Executive Assigned to Investigate the Polymer Plastipak Problems; Smokestack Emits Toxins; 'We Cry for Our Children'," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C13; Cameron McWhirter and Mike Gallagher, "Death on Farm Shows Danger Pesticides Can Kill More Than Pests," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C14.

[80]  Cameron McWhirter and Mike Gallagher, "Villagers Fear Brutal Guards," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C6; Cameron McWhirter and Mike Gallagher, "Workers Lead Precarious Lives in Squalid Camps," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C7; Cameron McWhirter and Mike Gallagher, "Life on a Banana Plantation," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, C10.

[81]  Mike Gallagher and Cameron McWhirter, "Chiquita: An Empire Built on Controversy," Cincinnati Enquirer, May 3, 1998, A1.

[82]  "An Apology to Chiquita Enquirer: Voice Mail Tapes Were Taken Illegally," Cincinnati Enquirer, June 28, 1998, 1.

[83]  June 28, June 30, and July 1, 1998.

[84]  "Some Gannett insiders put the figure as high as $50 million." Nicholas Stein, "Banana Peel," Columbia Journalism Review, September-October 1998, 46.

[85]  "Gannett Adopts Ethics Guidelines," Quill, July/August 1999, 7.

[86]  The Principles, thirty-two single-sentence assertions, take what has been described as the "green light" approach to ethics. See Jay Black and Ralph Barney, "Journalism Ethics Since Janet Cooke," Newspaper Research Journal 13 and 14, nos. 4 and 1 (Fall 1992/Winter 1993) 2-16. Rather than focus on what is prohibited, the Principles are affirmative; each begins with the words "we will." Statements that could be considered "thou shalt nots" are saved for two associated statements, Protecting the Principles and Reinforcing the Principles.

[87]  Gallagher pleaded guilty to two felony charges of voicemail theft and was sentenced to five years of probation and 200 hours of community service. Brian Lyman, "More Bad Banana," Columbia Journalism Review (May/June 1999) 14. Arevalo, "Former Chiquita Counsel Pleads Guilty, Avoids Jail in Strange Whistleblower Case," Corporate Legal Times (October 1999) 62.

[88]  That source, former Chiquita attorney George Ventura, pleaded guilty to four counts of misdemeanor unauthorized access to computer systems and received a two-year suspended sentence and was assigned to do 40 hours of community service. Arvelo, 62.

[89]  "An Apology to Chiquita," 1.

[90]  They included First Amendment attorneys Floyd Abrams, Richard Winfield, Lee Levine, and Robert C. Bernius; Tribune Publishing Co. president Jack Fuller, author of News Values; Poynter Institute for Media Studies ethics program director Robert Steele; and Reid MacCluggage, editor and publisher of The Day in New London, Conn., and immediate past president of the Associated Press Managing Editors. Gannett Co. Inc., "Gannett Newspaper Division Issues Guidelines on Ethical News-Gathering Conduct for Newsrooms," June 14, 1999, available from http://www.gannett.com/go/press/pr061499.htm. Accessed November 27, 2000.

[91]  Dan Trigoboff, "New Rules: RTNDA is Updating Guide to Journalistic Integrity," Broadcasting & Cable, September 11, 2000, 52.

[92]  Lou Prato, "Punishing the Ethically Challenged," American Journalism Review (September 1999), 86.
[93]
 Gil Thelen, "Looking Back, We Made Strides for Readers," Tampa Tribune, December 26, 1999, Florida/Metro 2.
[94]
 Gil Thelen, "Tribune Questioned on McEwen's Business Ties," The Tampa Tribune, December 12, 1999, 2.
[95]
 Ibid.

[96]  Ibid.
[97]
 Ibid.


Appendix - ethics codes examined
Gannett Newspaper Division
I. Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms
We are committed to:
Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way
We will dedicate ourselves to reporting the news accurately, thoroughly and in context.
We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news.
We will be persistent in the pursuit of the whole story.
We will keep our word.
We will hold factual information in opinion columns and editorials to the same standards of accuracy as news stories.
We will seek to gain sufficient understanding of the communities, individuals and stories we cover to provide an informed account of activities.

Serving the public interest
We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process.
We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public.
We will provide the news and information that people need to function as effective citizens.
We will seek solutions as well as expose problems and wrongdoing.
We will provide a public forum for diverse people and views.
We will reflect and encourage understanding of the diverse segments of our community.
We will provide editorial and community leadership.
We will seek to promote understanding of complex issues.

Exercising fair play
We will treat people with dignity, respect and compassion.
We will correct errors promptly.
We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story and not take sides in news coverage.
We will explain to readers our journalistic processes.
We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the press.
We will use unnamed sources as the sole basis for published information only as a last resort and under specific procedures that best serve the public's right to know.
We will be accessible to readers.

Maintaining independence
We will remain free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report.
We will maintain an impartial, arm's length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.
We will avoid potential conflicts of interest and eliminate inappropriate influence on content.
We will be free of improper obligations to news sources, newsmakers and advertisers.
We will differentiate advertising from news.

Acting with integrity
We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.
We will obey the law.
We will observe common standards of decency.
We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.
We will be conscientious in observing these Principles.
We will always try to do the right thing.


II. PROTECTING THE PRINCIPLES

No statement of principles and procedures can envision every circumstance that may be faced in the course of covering the news. As in the United States Constitution, fundamental principles sometimes conflict. Thus, these recommended practices cannot establish standards of performance for journalists in every situation.
Careful judgment and common sense should be applied to make the decisions that best serve the public interest and result in the greatest good. In such instances, journalists should not act unilaterally. The best decisions are obtained after open-minded consultations with appropriate colleagues and superiors - augmented, when necessary, by the advice of dispassionate outside parties, such as experts, lawyers, ethicists, or others whose views in confidence may provide clarity in sorting out issues.
Here are some recommended practices to follow to protect the Principles. This list is not all-inclusive. There may be additional practices - implicit in the Principles or determined within individual newsrooms - that will further ensure credible and responsible journalism.

Ensuring the Truth Principle
"Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way" includes, specifically:
We will not lie.
We will not misstate our identities or intentions.
We will not fabricate.
We will not plagiarize.
We will not alter photographs to mislead readers.
We will not intentionally slant the news.

Using unnamed sources
The use of unnamed sources in published stories should be rare and only for important news. Whenever possible, reporters should seek to confirm news on the record. If the use of unnamed sources is required:
Use as sources only people who are in a position to know.
Corroborate information from an unnamed source through another source or sources and/or by documentary information. Rare exceptions must be approved by the editor.
Inform sources that reporters will disclose sources to at least one editor. Editors will be bound by the same promise of confidentiality to sources as are reporters.
Hold editors as well as reporters accountable when unnamed sources are used. When a significant story to be published relies on a source who will not be named, it is the responsibility of the senior news executive to confirm the identity of the source and to review the information provided. This may require the editor to meet the source.
Make clear to the reporters and to sources that agreements of confidentiality are between the newspaper and the sources, not just between the reporter and the sources. The newspaper will honor its agreements with sources. Reporters should make every effort to clear such confidentiality agreements with the editors first. Promises of confidentiality made by reporters to sources will not be overridden by the editors; however, editors may choose not to use the material obtained in this fashion.
Do not allow unnamed sources to take cheap shots in stories. It is unfair and unprofessional.
Expect reporters and editors to seek to understand the motivations of a source and take those into account in evaluating the fairness and truthfulness of the information provided.
Make clear to sources the level of confidentiality agreed to. This does not mean each option must be discussed with the source, but each party should understand the agreement. Among the options are:
a) The newspaper will not name them in the article;
b) The newspaper will not name them unless a court compels the newspaper to do so;
c) The newspaper will not name them under any circumstances.
All sources should be informed that the newspaper will not honor confidentiality if the sources have lied or misled the newspaper.
Make sure both sides understand what is being agreed to. For example:
a) Statements may be quoted directly or indirectly and will be attributed to the source. This is sometimes referred to as "on the record."
b) The information may be used in the story but not attributed to the source. This is sometimes referred to as "not for attribution" or "for background."
c) The information will not be used in the story unless obtained elsewhere and attributed to someone else. This is sometimes referred to as "off the record."
Describe an unnamed source's identity as fully as possible (without revealing that identity) to help readers evaluate the credibility of what the source has said or provided.
Do not make promises you do not intend to fulfill or may not be able to fulfill.
Do not threaten sources.

Handling the wires
These Principles are intended to provide front-line guidance for locally generated material. Wire-service material already has been edited professionally. Gannett News Service observes these same Principles. The Associated Press has its own standards for the use of unnamed sources. Other wire-service standards may be lower. Additional scrutiny often is required, and further editing is encouraged. Ultimately, an editor must make a sound judgment about how to reconcile conflicts between wire-service and local-newsroom practices. Whenever possible, these Principles should prevail.

Being fair
Because of timeliness or unavailability, it is not always possible to include a response from the subject of an accusation in a news story. Nevertheless:
We should make a good-faith effort to seek appropriate comment from the person (or organization) before publication.
When that is not feasible, we should be receptive to requests for a response or try to seek a response for a follow-up story.
Letters to the editor also may provide an appropriate means for reply.
Some public records will identify persons accused of wrongdoing. Publication of denials is not necessary in such circumstances.

Being independent
"Maintaining independence" helps establish the impartiality of news coverage. To clarify two points:
News staff members are encouraged to be involved in worthwhile community activities, so long as this does not compromise the credibility of news coverage. When unavoidable personal or business interests could compromise the newspaper's credibility, such potential conflicts must be disclosed to one's superior and, if relevant, to readers.

Conducting investigative reporting
Aggressive, hard-hitting reporting is honorable and often courageous in fulfilling the press' First Amendment responsibilities, and it is encouraged. Investigative reporting by its nature raises issues not ordinarily faced in routine reporting. Here are some suggested procedures to follow when undertaking investigative reporting:
Involve more than one editor at the early stages and in the editing of the stories.
Question continually the premise of the stories and revise accordingly.
Follow the practices outlined in the use of sources.
Document the information in stories to the satisfaction of the senior editor.
Have a "fresh read" by an editor who has not seen the material as you near publication. Encourage the editor to read it skeptically, then listen carefully to and heed questions raised about clarity, accuracy and relevance.
Make certain that care, accuracy and fairness are exercised in headlines, photographs, presentation and overall tone.
Evaluate legal and ethical issues fully, involving appropriate colleagues, superiors, lawyers or dispassionate outside parties in the editorial process. (For example, it may be helpful to have a technical story reviewed by a scientist for accuracy, or have financial descriptions assessed by an accountant, or consult an ethicist or respected outside editor on an ethical issue.)
Be careful about trading information with sources or authorities, particularly if it could lead to an impression that you are working in concert against an individual or entity.

Editing skeptically
Editors are the gatekeepers who determine what will be published and what will not be. Their responsibility is to question and scrutinize, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. Here are some suggested practices that editors can follow:
Take special care to understand the facts and context of the story.
Guard against assumptions and preconceived notions - including their own.
Ensure time and resources for sound editing. Nothing should be printed that has not been reviewed by someone else. When feasible, at least two editors should see stories before publication. Complex or controversial stories may require even more careful scrutiny.
Consider involving an in-house skeptic on major stories - a contrarian who can play the role of devil's advocate.
Challenge conventional wisdom.
Heed their "gut instinct." Don't publish a story if it doesn't feel right. Check it further.
Consider what may be missing from the story.
Consider how others - especially antagonists or skeptical readers - may view the story. What questions would they ask? What parts would they think are unfair? Will they believe it?
Be especially careful of stories that portray individuals purely as villains or heroes.
Beware of stories that reach conclusions based on speculation or a pattern of facts.
Protect against being manipulated by advocates and special interests.
Consider these questions: "How do you know? How can you be sure? Where is the evidence? Who is the source? How does he or she know? What is the supporting documentation?"
Watch carefully for red flags that give reason to be skeptical of news-gathering or editing conduct.
Don't be stampeded by deadlines, unrealistic competitive concerns or peer pressure.

Ensuring accuracy
Dedication to the truth means accuracy itself is an ethical issue. Each news person has the responsibility to strive for accuracy at each step of the process.
Be aware that information attributed to a source may not be factually correct.
Be sure the person quoted is in a position to know.
Be especially careful with technical terms, statistics, mathematical computations, crowd estimates and poll results.
Consider going over all or portions of an especially complicated story with primary sources or with outside experts. However, do not surrender editorial control.
Don't make assumptions. Don't guess at facts or spellings. Asking the person next to you is not "verification" - he or she could be wrong too.
Improve note taking. Consider backing up your notes with a tape recorder when ethically and legally appropriate.
Be wary of newspaper library clippings, which may contain uncorrected errors.
Develop checklists of troublesome or frequently used names, streets, titles, etc.
Understand the community and subject matter. Develop expertise in areas of specialized reporting.
Reread stories carefully after writing, watching especially for errors of context and balance as well as for spelling and other basic mistakes.
Use care in writing headlines. Do not stretch beyond the facts of the story.
Follow a simple rule on the copy desk to double-check the accuracy of headlines: "Find the headline in the story." (For example, if the headline says, "Three die in crash," go to the story and count the dead and be certain they died in the crash.)
Consider using "accuracy checks" as an affirmative way to search out errors and monitor accuracy. (Accuracy checks are a process by which published stories are sent to sources or experts asking for comment on accuracy, fairness or other aspects.)

Correcting errors
When errors occur, the newspaper has an ethical obligation to correct the record and minimize harm.
Errors should be corrected promptly. But first, a determination must be made that the fact indeed was in error and that the correction itself is fully accurate.
Errors should be corrected with sufficient prominence that readers who saw the original error are likely to see the correction. This is a matter of the editor's judgment.
Although it is wise to avoid repeating the error in the correction, the correction should have sufficient context that readers will understand exactly what is being corrected.
Errors of nuance, context or tone may require clarifications, editor's notes, editor's columns or letters to the editor.
When the newspaper disagrees with a news subject about whether a story contained an error, editors should consider offering the aggrieved party an opportunity to express his or her view in a letter to the editor.
Corrections should be reviewed before publication by a senior editor who was not directly involved in the error. The editor should determine if special handling or outside counsel are required.
Errors should be corrected whether or not they are called to the attention of the newspaper by someone outside the newsroom.
Factual errors should be corrected in most cases even if the subject of the error does not want it to be corrected. The rationale for this is rooted in the Truth Principle. It is the newspaper's duty to provide accurate information to readers. An exception may be made - at the behest of the subject - when the correction of a relatively minor mistake would result in public ridicule or greater harm than the original error.
Newsroom staffers should be receptive to complaints about inaccuracies and follow up on them.
Newsroom staffers have a responsibility to alert the appropriate editor if they become aware of a possible error in the newspaper.

III. REINFORCING THE PRINCIPLES
Communicating standards
Editors have a responsibility to communicate these Principles to newsroom staff members and to the public. They should:
Ensure that sound hiring practices are followed to build a staff of ethical and responsible journalists. Such practices include making reference checks and conducting sufficient interviewing and testing to draw reasonable conclusions about the individual's personal standards.
Provide prospective hires with a copy of these Principles and make acceptance of them a condition of employment.
Conduct staff training at least annually in the Principles of Ethical Conduct.
Require staff members at the time of hire and each year thereafter to sign a statement acknowledging that they have read the Principles of Ethical Conduct and will raise any questions about them with their editors.
Communicate these Principles to the public periodically.

Being accountable
Because these Principles embody the highest standards of professional conduct, the Gannett Newspaper Division is committed to their adherence. They have been put in writing specifically so that members of every Gannett Newspaper Division newsroom know what the Division stands for and what is expected of them. The public will know, too.

Tampa Tribune Newsroom Ethics Policy

 People ought to trust us. It irks us when they don't.
 All we have are our principles.
We have forgone lucrative careers in medicine, business and law in order to defend democracy, free speech and the American way. Without us, Ann Landers would be just another know-it-all.

Prominent correction: Some of us failed science and math.
Readers don't know our sacrifices.
We suffer through elections without benefit of bumper stickers. We know which politicians are idiots but can't scream it in a crowded room.
We lunch with millionaires but can't let them pick up the check.
Meanwhile, our siblings, who drive better cars, expect us to shower them with Bucs tickets and Disney passes. Our neighbors, who boast of knowing us, want publicity. We fail, unable to profile their tire stores on Page 1.
We feel quietly superior at high school reunions. But that's pretty much the end to the fun.
Credibility is a platform for words and ideas.
Without it, no one can hear us.
It's not a stomping ground for our personal viewpoints.
And it can't take the weight of our personal gain.

Anonymous sources
It's sometimes necessary, but seldom a good idea, to quote an unnamed source. Likewise for using fictitious names.
When we do so, we in effect tell readers: "Trust us."
The more we ask for trust, the less we seem to deserve it.
By not revealing a source, we vouch for the veracity of what's said. That puts our own credibility on the line.
So we ought to be judicious in bestowing anonymity.
A few thoughts:
1. Exhaust other options. Don't stop interviewing. Will someone else go on the record, now that you know, or seem to know, the story?
 Example: A Tampa surgeon cuts the wrong foot off a patient. We learn of it from an insider who does not wish to be identified. The hospital spokesman won't comment. The surgeon won't comment. We don't know the patient's name. An editor suggests calling hospital board members. One goes on the record, confirming our report.
2. Talk it over with an editor. Is the interview even worth using, given the ground rules? If a reporter and team leader can't agree, get a senior editor involved.
Be careful what you promise sources. Assure anonymity in print, when necessary. But editors may need the source's identity to make an informed decision. The source may have burned us before.
3. Grant anonymity only if someone's professional, financial or physical well-being are at stake -- or if the subject matter suggests a need for privacy. For instance, stories about AIDS, impotence, personal debt, divorce, incontinence, rape and child abuse may require anonymity for candor.
4. Be skeptical of a source's motives and be fair: Don't permit anonymous character attacks.
5. When quoting unnamed sources, describe their credentials as thoroughly as possible without jeopardizing identity. Make sure the source is comfortable with the description.
Fictitious or composite characters aren't allowed, except in cases of obvious exaggeration.
These guidelines do not preclude confidential conversations between reporters and sources, sometimes necessary in the news-gathering process. It's OK to go off the record, and reporters should guard the integrity of their relationships with sources.
But published material, in general, ought to be clearly attributed.

Civic activity
Few other ethical issues cause more head scratching.
We're supposed to be plugged into the community, able to recognize the heart and soul of our neighbors. Yet we're also supposed to be neutral about the issues that concern them.
The compromise: Be independent but not detached.
And if a conflict emerges, declare it.
Don't give up your right to be a citizen. Just be cautious when choosing civic bedfellows, particularly if you cover a beat.
There are only a few hard-and-fast rules: Don't join fund-raising arms of political parties. Avoid organizations with hot agendas, such as abortion rights or gun control. Don't take a stand on something you cover.
Join a church, but stay away from religious lobbying groups.
Don't sign petitions. Research before you sign a check.
Join the Sierra Club, hoping for a few good canoe trips, and your dollars may pay for local opposition to a road. It's not so embarrassing if you're the food writer, but what if you cover roads?
The environmental reporter shouldn't belong to Greenpeace. The education reporter shouldn't run for PTA office. Otherwise, professional, humanitarian, cultural, environmental, support, alumni, hobbyist, athletic and neighborhood associations pose few risks.
Use common sense.
The AARP is one of America's largest lobbying groups, but membership likely won't cause a conflict.
Generally, it's fine to volunteer with groups such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Habitat for Humanity, the Spring or local theater companies -- but don't let your Tribune connection be exploited for publicity.
Civic activity may demand a case-by-case consideration. Don't hesitate to get others' opinions.
See also ``Political activity.''

Connections
However tempting, it's unethical to mine professional contacts for personal gain.
That means no personal letters on Tribune stationery. No threats, overt or implicit, of retaliation or pressure. No using your position to get better seats at a concert or a table in an already booked restaurant. No attempts to speed up personal business with public agencies.
No benefiting from unpublished information.

Financial reporters and editors shouldn't own stock in Tampa area companies, excluding mutual funds. Nor should they own stock in companies they might reasonably anticipate covering. If a conflict emerges, someone else should do the story.
We shouldn't use our beats to look for better jobs. If a source -- a political candidate, for instance -- offers a job, the offer should be disclosed to an editor, so as not to jeopardize the newspaper's appearance of impartiality.
See also ``Paying our way.''

Corrections
There's no hiding from a correction. It's like a blemish. Coworkers who didn't even read your story will manage to see the correction.
Nobody likes the embarrassment.
But in correcting mistakes, we reaffirm to readers our intent to get things right.
Corrections and clarifications appear on the section front in which the error occurred. They shouldn't repeat a mistake but should contain enough detail for clarity.
If incorrect information was provided to the Tribune, we should say so, but we shouldn't engage in internal finger-pointing in print.
A team leader should be made immediately aware of factual errors and misleading statements, and should sign off on the correction.

Diversity
We flinch at one-source stories. They seem incomplete.
But how about one-race stories?
It's false and misleading to put African-Americans on the sports page and in the crime log, if general reporting automatically defaults to a backdrop of white voters, white Girl Scouts and white commuters.
It's our job to reflect the community. Each day's newspaper creates a snapshot of the Tampa Bay area. The snapshot shouldn't overlook minority members. Nor, in an attempt to feature aspects of race, ethnicity or religion should we overstate the differences among us, while ignoring our common ground.
We must not lose the nuances of individuality by casting a community through a high-contrast filter.
Diverse voices should be woven into the everyday fabric of the newspaper.
Do Muslims tell us about Ramadan but offer no opinions on education, zoning or Monica Lewinsky? Must a disability be a news peg? Aren't people in wheelchairs also parents and taxpayers?
While we seek diverse voices, we avoid labeling individuals. Unless relevant, we don't identify someone's race or ethnicity in a story.
Nor do we imply that any one person speaks for others by virtue of a common denominator such as race or gender.
Crime suspects should be identified by race only if it is part of a complex description. Unacceptable: "a black male in his 40s." Acceptable: "a light-skinned black man with freckles and short, graying hair, wearing khaki slacks and driving a blue Escort." One description merely perpetuates a stereotype. The other may solve a crime.
Lastly, we don't repeat slurs without good reason, such as when a public figure speaks inappropriately.

Fairness
It's good to get both sides but even better to get all sides.

Insight is our constant goal, even in the shortest of stories.
If we quote the advocates and the naysayers, we should also consider the undecided, the compromised and the confused. We must seek out the silent.
Before sullying a person's reputation, we should make every effort to elicit a response, even at the expense of delayed publication, when possible.
If we've reported criminal charges, we should report verdicts in corresponding court cases, especially when the accused is acquitted. If an arrest drew prominent play, the acquittal demands equally prominent play.

Freelancing
It's permissible to take on freelance assignments, as long as they don't interfere with regular duties or compete directly with The Tribune. Competing publications usually are considered to be those within the circulation area.
Supervisors should be told.
Work done for The Tribune becomes the newspaper's property. Stories and photographs can't be resold. That doesn't preclude staff members from rewriting or photographing familiar subjects for new markets after publication in The Tribune.
Company equipment, including camera gear and computers, should not be used for freelance ventures.
The employee manual also addresses outside employment.

Gifts
Nobody bribes us with bundles of cash.
But if tins of cheddar popcorn were gold, we'd be rich.
On any given day, free stuff loads the newsroom mailboxes.
The general rule: Accept no gifts.
That includes food, alcohol, clothing, tickets, travel offers, sample products and offers of free services.
For the sake of sanity, items of token value (under $10) are exempt. Other stuff should be returned or donated to charity. The readers' desk will maintain a charity bin and preprinted gift return cards. (No raiding the bin!)
The logistics:
1. If you receive a gift of value from a source, subject or reader, return it by mail or in person. Write a note or use a preprinted gift return card.
Example: ``The crystal toad is adorable, but I must return it. We can't accept gifts. Maybe I did, as you say, overlook a few warts, but the chocolate mousse was ribeting.''
2. Mass mailings from marketing companies require less delicate treatment. Put the gift in the charity bin and send a gift return card to the giver.
3. Review copies of books, music CDs, software and videos -- in effect, press releases -- may be kept by the reviewer. It's OK for writers to keep reference copies: a food writer might keep a cookbook for future use.
Otherwise, review materials should be donated to charity. They should never be sold or traded at commercial outlets.
4. Perishables, by nature, are handled differently.
Food may be offered up for newsroom consumption, within reason. Return all sides of beef and cases of caviar. All alcohol should be returned.
Fresh flowers may be kept, but consider intent: A $100 arrangement from a developer grateful for publicity should be returned. Not so for a daisy basket from a reader, delighted we noticed his 100th birthday.

If in doubt about what's appropriate, talk to an editor.

Misrepresentation
People have a right to know they're talking to a reporter before an interview begins.
We don't sneak around trying to trick people into talking.
In rare instances, a reporter may require candid, first-hand knowledge of how an agency, company or individual behaves. Senior news management should first approve of any such activity.

Newsroom independence
Increasingly, reporters and editors hear of relations forged between The Tribune's advertising and promotions departments and the business community -- unique arrangements with a stadium, a shopping mall, a housing development.
It's important to remember that the newsroom's impartial voice exists independently of all other departments.
News is news. Advertising is advertising. News content is not dictated by advertising sales. Advertisers attempting to influence coverage deserve only a polite refusal.
Similarly, the editorial staff expresses the newspaper's opinion as a business. The editorial board, by nature, attempts to persuade, commenting on community issues.
Columnists enjoy similar latitude, although columnists should not use news pages to promote candidates, legislation or referendum issues.
Likewise, news pages are not an appropriate venue for a reporter or editor's crusade or cause.

Online journalism
The Internet's unique characteristics do not lower the standards by which we evaluate, gather and disseminate information.
Material gathered online should be verified.
Material disseminated online should be solidly confirmed.
The ability to change information around the clock does not lessen the need for accuracy.

Paying for news
We barely pay reporters, let alone sources.
Be wary of anyone offering information for money. We never pay for news, and the very attempt to solicit payment raises questions about truthfulness and motives.
We do, of course, pay material costs such as copying expenses for documents.

Paying our way
Food: Restaurant critics dine anonymously, so there's seldom a scramble for the bill. However, critics, columnists and other journalists are sometimes recognized, and owners may try to sweeten the experience by dismissing the check or adding a complimentary bottle of wine. While sometimes awkward, we must pay our way.
Example: You're on a restaurant review. Dick Greco stops by the table to say hello. Minutes later, the owner is at Greco's table. Not long after, the owner brings you a bottle of wine "on the house." Geez: Does he know you're from The Tribune? Does he just think you're Greco's friend? Either way, if you drink the wine, you pay.
When dining with sources, pick up the check _ or take turns. Our standards differ from those of the regular business world, and it's incumbent upon us to explain the rules.

Do so in a way that doesn't make people feel like crooks. Sometimes it helps to explain that the newspaper will reimburse you.
None of this precludes common sense.
Reporters aren't expected to go hungry just because there's no way to pay for the buffet at a conference or sporting event. Sometimes there's nowhere else to go without missing what you're there to cover. But news-savvy organizers may know of your concern and already have a plan in place to allow you to pay.
Tickets: We don't take free tickets, unless they're free to anyone.
We can't ask for them, and we can't use them, whether delivered in person or unsolicited by mail. We can't give them away to family, friends or coworkers. We should send them back with an explanation or a gift return card. Otherwise, donors may assume we used them.
If we want tickets, we stand in line like the rest of the world. It builds character. It reminds us how much average people pay for mediocre performances. Likewise for admission to sporting events. Ethics would not spare us the joy of a foul ball to the upper, upper, upper tier.
We shouldn't accept special treatment, either on or off the job.
Exceptions exist.
Concert and theater promoters may set aside press seating for critics. We accept the convenience but pay for the tickets. Critics should sample acoustics throughout the arena. We pay when possible.
We can't buy seats at movie preview screenings or in the press box during athletic events, but competitively, we can't afford not to be there.
We don't pay for stage or field access when photographing musicians or athletes. But we don't sell, lend or give away credentials.
Credentials are tools. If we aren't taking notes or shooting pictures, we should question their use.
Regularly, the Tribune promotions department gets tickets to dinners and events in exchange for sponsorship. Those tickets, obtained through the business arm of the newspaper, may be enjoyed without restraint when distributed to the staff.
Travel: During any business trips, we cover our own travel costs.
That includes travel with political candidates and sports teams.
In charter situations, we pay our share of total costs.
Under special circumstances, senior newsroom management may approve of different arrangements, such as when military transport is the only way to reach a disaster scene or war zone.
Media days at theme parks and other attractions are off limits, unless we're covering the event, as in the debut of a ride. Such previews shouldn't be parlayed into family outings.
Commercially sponsored media parties _ including those staged during political conventions and Super Bowl festivities _ create conflicts and should be avoided. In some cases, they may offer newsgathering opportunities. If you go, attempt to pay. If in doubt, talk with an editor before going.
We don't accept free or reduced-price travel to research travel stories. If freelancers take free or reduced-price accommodations, we should say so in print.

Photography
Photographs should remain truthful in spirit, manipulated only through quality enhancements such as burning, dodging, contrast control, color balancing, spotting and cropping.

We don't stage, re-enact or recreate news events for photos. Personality portraits and studio illustrations shouldn' create an artificial sense of spontaneity. Photo illustrations, computer enhancements, colorized and composite photographs should be labeled as such, out of regard for the public's trust.
Removing or adding an object in an editorial photograph is not permitted.
Nor is flopping a photograph.
Readers deserve accuracy and honesty, whether viewing an image or reading words. Their eyes may deceive them, but the newspaper should not.

Plagiarism
Please, only original work.
If you borrow a clever idea, joke, turn of phrase or unique observation, give the author credit, and maybe one day, someone will grant you the same courtesy.

Political activity
No running for public office. No working for a candidate, government agency or special interest group.
No placards, buttons or bumper stickers, on your person, desk, car or yard.*
No campaign contributions.
No political demonstrations marches or rallies.
No giving advice to candidates.
Yes, by all means, you should vote.
Political affiliation is a matter of public record. It's an individual choice, but some reporters find it prudent to declare "no party" when registering to vote.
* In the interest of marital harmony, the newspaper does not attempt to control the activities of spouses. But if a spouse becomes active in a political campaign or public cause, please tell an editor.

Radio, TV, personal appearances
If you're going to be a star, clear it first with your supervisor.
Newsroom staff may appear as unpaid panelists and guests on radio and television shows, with prior approval.
Professional standards don't change with the migration to airwaves. A news reporter should remain impartial, while a columnist or editorial writer will be free to express opinions.
Don't say anything you wouldn't be willing to write, and don't scoop The Tribune on significant news.

Relationships
Steve Otto gets to humiliate family members in print.
Others should stick to covering strangers.
Exceptions may be made for first-person accounts, but generally, we don't write, photograph or make news judgments regarding relatives, close friends, business partners or romantic interests.
Friendships and relationships, while a matter of personal choice, may limit the sorts of stories we may write or edit.
It's a conflict, for instance, to write a feature on a friend's business, to date a police officer while covering police, or to edit a child abuse story if married to a caseworker.

Ethics: Winging it

The ethical decisions we face can't all be covered here.
Even if they were, there's little to keep a crafty journalist from finding ways to benefit between the lines.
Consider this code to be a yardstick. See how your own situations measure up to the spirit of these words.
If it's not on the list, talk it over among people whose values you trust.
Think critically.
All we have are our principles.


Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct
Radio-Television News Directors Association
The Radio-Television News Directors Association, wishing to foster the highest professional standards of electronic journalism, promote public understanding of and confidence in electronic journalism, and strengthen principles of journalistic freedom to gather and disseminate information, establishes this Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
PREAMBLE
Professional electronic journalists should operate as trustees of the public, seek the truth, report it fairly and with integrity and independence, and stand accountable for their actions.
PUBLIC TRUST: Professional electronic journalists should recognize that their first obligation is to the public.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility.
Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events.
Provide a full range of information to enable the public to make enlightened decisions.
Fight to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public.
TRUTH: Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Continuously seek the truth.
Resist distortions that obscure the importance of events.
Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.
Professional electronic journalists should not:
Report anything known to be false.
Manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading.
Plagiarize.
Present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public.
FAIRNESS: Professional electronic journalists should present the news fairly and impartially, placing primary value on significance and relevance.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Exercise special care when children are involved in a story and give children greater privacy protection than adults.
Seek to understand the diversity of their community and inform the public without bias or stereotype.
Present a diversity of expressions, opinions, and ideas in context.
Present analytical reporting based on professional perspective, not personal bias.
Respect the right to a fair trial.
INTEGRITY: Professional electronic journalists should present the news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Identify sources whenever possible. Confidential sources should be used only when it is clearly in the public interest to gather or convey important information or when a person providing information might be harmed. Journalists should keep all commitments to protect a confidential source.
Clearly label opinion and commentary.
Guard against extended coverage of events or individuals that fails to significantly advance a story, place the event in context, or add to the public knowledge.
Refrain from contacting participants in violent situations while the situation is in progress.
Use technological tools with skill and thoughtfulness, avoiding techniques that skew facts, distort reality, or sensationalize events.
Use surreptitious newsgathering techniques, including hidden cameras or microphones, only if there is no other way to obtain stories of significant public importance and only if the technique is explained to the audience.
Use the private transmissions of other news organizations only with permission.
Professional electronic journalists should not:
Pay news sources who have a vested interest in a story.
Accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
Engage in activities that may compromise their integrity or independence.
INDEPENDENCE: Professional electronic journalists should defend the independence of all journalists from those seeking influence or control over news content.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Gather and report news without fear or favor, and vigorously resist undue influence from any outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals, and special interest groups.
Resist those who would seek to buy or politically influence news content or who would seek to intimidate those who gather and disseminate the news.
Determine news content solely through editorial judgment and not as the result of outside influence.
Resist any self-interest or peer pressure that might erode journalistic duty and service to the public.
Recognize that sponsorship of the news will not be used in any way to determine, restrict, or manipulate content.
Refuse to allow the interests of ownership or management to influence news judgment and content inappropriately.
Defend the rights of the free press for all journalists, recognizing that any professional or government licensing of journalists is a violation of that freedom.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Professional electronic journalists should recognize that they are accountable for their actions to the public, the profession and themselves.
Professional electronic journalists should:
Actively encourage adherence to these standards by all journalists and their employers.
Respond to public concerns. Investigate complaints and correct errors promptly and with as much prominence as the original report.
Explain journalistic processes to the public, especially when practices spark questions or controversy.
Recognize that professional electronic journalists are duty-bound to conduct themselves ethically.
Refrain from ordering or encouraging courses of action which would force employees to commit an unethical act.
Carefully listen to employees who raise ethical objections and create environments in which such objections and discussions are encouraged.
Seek support for and provide opportunities to train employees in ethical decision-making.
In meeting its responsibility to the profession of electronic journalism, RTNDA has created this code to identify important issues, to serve as a guide for its members, to facilitate self-scrutiny, and to shape future debate.

American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors
Standard for Editorial Independence

The American Association of Sunday and Feature Editors affirms the highest ethical standards of newspaper journalism and supports every newspaper's traditional independence from commercial or extra-journalistic pressures. We believe that editorial integrity and credibility are our most important assets.

Standard Practices
AASFE encourages its members to adopt policies against accepting free trips, meals or non-review products from organizations seeking coverage. Each newspaper sets the rules of ethical conduct for its staff with respect to outside sources which grant access, supply photographs, illustrations or products, bear the cost of travel or trips, or stage junkets for which the costs of transportation, lodging, or meals may be provided.
        If it is a newspaper's policy to accept services, trips or junkets from outside sources, AASFE asserts the right of editors to make independent judgments about the acceptability of editorial material gathered for articles in these circumstances. Editors retain the right to assign, schedule, or cancel editorial material independently and without regard to any services that may have been accepted or provided.
Editors should not sign waivers or contracts that grant approval, ownership, or editorial control to outside sources or resources over any photographs or other feature story or editorial material. Editors will plan coverage according to the dictates of their news judgments and shall not be obliged to disclose schedules, deadlines, run dates, coverage plans or story play to any outside source or resource in exchange for access.
Editors shall resist attempts by any outside source to influence the content or structure of any article in exchange for access.
Editors should not release quotes taken from critical reviews for use in advance of the publication of reviews.
Should any editor receive threats of censure, withdrawal of access, or any other signs of so-called "punishment" by an outside source or resource in connection with the reporting, scheduling, or cancellation of any review or feature, such threats should be brought to the attention of the AASFE president and Arts and Entertainment Committee chair.
AASFE members/journalists should act in accordance with the highest standards of newsgathering and maintain editorial independence at all times. Fanlike behavior (i.e requesting autographs or posed pictures) while on assignment or in other professional situations is discouraged.
            Freelancers should be subject to the guidelines as accepted by the assigning newspaper.