American Professional Journalists’ Moral Standards

Two Professional Codes of Ethics Related to Digital and Mediated Communication

Organizations develop ethical guidelines for their personnel to adhere to and for the general public to be aware of. The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) moral standards will be examined in this milestone. I selected The PRSA since it purports to specialize in digital interactions and public affairs in the United States. I decided on the SJP because they think that general populace clarity is crucial to justice and the foundation of a democratic society. The PRSA’s ethical principles are founded on campaigning, sincerity, professionalism, autonomy, commitment, and fairness (PRSA Code of Ethics, 2022). For members of the PRSA, adhering to their professional conduct is paramount. The PRS’s code of ethics contains instances of unethical behavior to illustrate how ethical issues are handled (PRSA Code of Ethics, 2022). They endeavor to benefit the general public by demonstrating highly efficient and competent requirements. Every new member must sign a statement committing to abide by the organization’s code of ethics.

The SPJ maintains that access to public information is the most important aspect of justice and the foundation of a democratic society. They assert that journalistic ethics aim to ensure the free circulation of information is factual, unbiased, and exhaustive (SPJ, 2020). They believe that ethical journalists will always have integrity. They claim that members of the Society of Professional Journalists and all professionals in all channels should always adhere to four guiding dimensions.

1. Seek and report the Truth. This entails accepting responsibility for a journalist’s work’s authenticity, confirming material before publishing, and utilizing primary sources. It involves providing background so as not to misrepresent or oversimplify. Documentation must be revised to reflect the proper narrative, and all commitments must be kept (SPJ, 2020).
2. Minimize Harm. Journalists must treat people with dignity. This entails comparing the public’s right to access information against a harmful article. Journalists must empathize with individuals impacted by their job, particularly victims (SPJ, 2020). While documenting, they must have legal access to the material, respect the confidentiality of private individuals, and safeguard the rights of an accused to a fair trial.
3. Independently act. To act freely, one must avoid conflicts of interest like the plague, never accept bribes, never bribe their sources, and refuse to favor people with special interests. It also involves determining when their compositions are advertisements.
4. Be responsible and forthcoming. Journalists must explain their decisions and justify their righteous acts, reply promptly with the Truth, and acknowledge their errors while attempting to correct them (SPJ, 2020). In the same way that they serve as watchdogs in other contexts, they must also do so regarding unethical behavior in journalism. The basic principle also applies; thus, they must uphold these principles as they want others to do likewise.

Common Themes in Professional Codes of Ethics

While there are numerous distinctions between these two codes’ approaches to ethics, they share a substantial amount in common. The concepts of transparency, responsibility for errors, and the open flow of knowledge are pervasive. Transparency and a duty to the customer or topic of an article are also shared, although these rights vary. The PRSA primarily protects the client’s cash and personal information, whereas the SPJ concentrates on protecting individual rights. Both require honesty and precision in interaction, disclosure of all interests and advertisements, and avoiding conflicting interests and extortion. I believe they are pretty similar, but the SPJ does a better job of conveying the ethical conduct it expects its members to keep. Therefore, the PRSA is occasionally more brief and fundamental than the SPJ.

My Ethical Guidelines

Using these frequent motifs as a basis for my principles, I have developed the following:

• Remain truthful, not only regarding the facts an individual’s conversations rely on but also in terms of their goals and objectives.

  • SPJ – Seek Truth and report it points 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 16
  • SPJ – Be Accountable and Transparent points 1 and 2 (SPJ, 2020)
  • PRSA – Honesty
  • PRSA – Free Flow of Information guidelines points 1 and 2
  • PRSA – Disclosure of Information guidelines points 1, 3, and 4
  • PRSA – Conflicts of Interest guidelines point 3 (PRSA Code of Ethics, 2022)
• Establish creative works based on one’s honest interpretation of the subject matter’s Truth and evidence, eschewing any sort of reward, monetary or otherwise.

  • SPJ – Function Independently points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (SPJ, 2020)
  • PRSA – Autonomy
  • PRSA – Free Flow of Information guidelines point 4.
  • PRSA – Conflicting Interest regulations point 2
  • PRSA – Encouraging the Profession morals point 4 (PRSA Code of Ethics, 2022)
• Never restrict the dissemination of knowledge, but be aware that doing so can result in mistakes and actively work to remedy any that do occur. Not only professionally but also as swiftly as possible with acknowledgment.

  • SPJ – Seek Truth and Report It point 4
  • SPJ – Minimize Harm point 7
  • SPJ – Be Accountable and Transparent point 3 (SPJ, 2020)
  • PRSA – Free Flow of Information guidelines point 3
  • PRSA – Disclosure of Information guidelines point 2 (PRSA Code of Ethics, 2022)

Justification

The straightforward argument is that these are prevalent topics among ethical codes. However, I also chose them for personal reasons as I believe that truthfulness, including precision in the word truth, should be the foundation of all communications. All types of relationships depend on it, and organizations that manufacture lies or manipulate the Truth are doomed to fail (Lovari & Bowen, 2020). Businesses have been driven to their knees by greenwashing, deceptive marketing, and hidden objectives. Activia’s unique bacterial components and Eclipse’s deception regarding the anti-germ properties of their gum spring to mind (Patel et al., 2019). The second is straightforward, as I believe all writing should be original, as that is what good authors do.

The copyright infringer is not a writer, in my opinion, if they claim to be one and steal the ideas of a true writer. I have incorporated facts and Truth to build upon the first while acknowledging that all original writing represents the author’s understanding of the topic. I also included the SPJ’s and PRSA’s stances on accepting no kind of pay in exchange for the creation of work, although both organizations permit compensation when it is declared. I prefer to avoid it since it enables a conversation to be traded and purchased. Ultimately, I agreed with both positions that knowledge should flow freely.

I am aware that North Korea and other authoritarian regimes hold divergent views and that not everyone is on board. However, I cannot even imagine what life is like when information freedom is severely curtailed. I included fixing typos or misunderstandings and reiterating the importance of openness and honesty while including an apology. A reporter recently tweeted a photograph of an empty Trump rally, which was taken before the event (Sanders, 2017). I am all for bringing the president down at every opportunity, but this incident was unjustified. The reporter erased the tweet immediately and rewrote it with an apology. That is how media operates, in my and the SPJ’s opinions.

References

Lovari, A., & Bowen, S. A. (2020). Social media in disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1), 1-9. Web.

Patel, A., Thakkar, H. M., & Modi, H. (2019). Probiotics in food and health-current perspective. Annals of Food Science and Technology, 20(4), 762-775. Web.

PRSA Code of Ethics. (2022). Www. Web.

Sanders, A. (2017). WaPo reporter apologizes after Trump calls out “wrong” rally photo. New York Post. Web.

SPJ. (2020). SPJ Code of Ethics – Society of Professional Journalists. Spj.org. Web.