The SPJ Code of Ethics as Seen in Film

The SPJ Code of Ethics was invented with the intention of keeping journalists honest and preventing abuse of the immense power being a reporter holds. A journalist’s primary responsibility is to the public, and the code ensures this remains true throughout the rapidly changing landscape.

Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight follows a group of investigative journalists from the Boston Globe as they unravel an intricate history of deception and wrong doing of the Catholic church. 9/11 occurs in the midst of the investigation, throwing a wrench in their progress and begging the question of how a national emergency should be addressed in such a situation according to the SPJ code of ethics. In the Spotlight team’s case, they are initially ordered to immediately switch directions to cover 9/11, despite the gravity and time sensitivity of their investigation. They oblige, as this is a rare, unprecedented occurrence that does require tact and proper attention. However, the team is eager to return to their original research; the church’s crimes will not stop on account of 9/11, so why should they? This is an extremely complicated situation in the lens of minimizing harm. The code states that “journalists should balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort”. On one hand, the nation is already experiencing extreme senses of grief and fear, and their exposé on the church would significantly pile onto this. Yet, the longer they withhold this information, the more children and families are hurt. To the writers of Spotlight, taking even a brief step away is “abandoning the story”(Painter, Wilkins, 39). Painter and Wilkins’ Entertaining Ethics analyzes this with respect to the theme of loyalty consistent throughout the film. Mitch Garabedian and the Spotlight team feel loyalty to the victims they are trying to help, and Marty Baron is loyal to the truth. It’s because of this loyalty that the team is able to “overcome other loyalties to the church”(39). The team enters a slightly gray area in terms of the code of acting independently; since they were all raised Catholic, they, especially Michael Rezendes, become desperate to save others from the fate they were unknowingly at risk of. However, their intense loyalty to the victims helps them make the decision to pursue the story despite 9/11. I agree with their decision, as the harm the Catholic church is causing to children into their adulthood is far more direct than the emotional harm people might feel at such a massive organization being exposed. In this case, the importance of reporting the truth necessarily outweighed the need to minimize the harm to the nation’s trust in the church.

Throughout the film Good Night, and Good Luck, reporter Ed Murrow’s intention is to use his platform on CBS News to expose Senator McCarthy’s using communism accusations to fulfill his own agenda. Murrow sees that McCarthy will lie to the public with no hesitation in order to take power from those who oppose him, thus recognizing that by challenging him, he puts himself and many other members of the station at risk. However, Murrow’s dedication to the code “seek truth and report it”, as well as his personal hatred for McCarthy spurs his investigation, allowing him to expose McCarthy and inspire the public to turn on him, where he is then investigated by the army. Murrow revels in his victory in preventing McCarthy from spreading false information, but he is reminded by a coworker that he too is guilty of intentionally omitting information that takes away from his message. Despite his honorable pursuit of the truth, Murrow has forgotten the rest of the code, most importantly acting independently and being “accountable and transparent”. His hatred for McCarthy and his methods of gaining power cloud his judgment at times, especially after communist accusations lead to the suicide of one of his coworkers. When Murrow acknowledges his hypocrisy in intentionally omitting information and claims that he does not believe it’s possible to have two completely equal sides of a story, he is admitting to his own bias, having lost sight of the “abiding by the same high standards” that he holds others to. In this case, Murrow’s bias helped stop a power-crazed politician, but in other scenarios, such a conflict of interest could cause more harm than good. In regards to the code of minimizing harm, Murrow’s actions come down to morals. While he helped many people who were being hurt by McCarthy, his intentions towards the senator were harsh, even if deserved. One could argue that he intended to cause more harm to McCarthy and his career than necessary. However, in my opinion, politicians, especially those with as much power as McCarthy, require more intensive methods to remove them from power. It’s likely that, without Murrow’s extreme seriousness, it would have taken much longer for McCarthy to be taken down. In situations where a journalist can minimize harm to a large group of people in a dire situation, like the people suffering false accusations, or the children from Spotlight, I feel as though there is more cause to stretch the code of ethics, as long as the journalist does not allow themselves to stray too far.

In The Killing Fields, American journalist Sydney Schanberg and photographer Al Rockoff are in Cambodia in the midst of the Cambodian civil war, working with a Cambodian journalist, Dith Pran, to shed light on the situation, particularly America’s alleged involvement. Towards the beginning of the film, an explosion occurs across the street from where Sydney and Al are sitting, having coffee. Al immediately springs from his chair to start taking photos of the scene. Meanwhile, Cambodian citizens are injured and desperately trying to escape the scene. This is potentially much more of a moral issue than an ethical one: the idea of minimizing harm does not literally mean that journalists, specifically, have a duty to help people in real life emergencies, especially on foreign terrain where their lives would then be endangered. According to the code, journalists simply owe society what they can accomplish through seeking and reporting truth to the best of their ability, even “under the most extreme of pressures”(47). Ethically speaking, Sydney and Al stuck to the code very truthfully, using their platforms at The New York Times to spread awareness on the violence between the national army and the communist party and how it is hurting innocent citizens. But does the code of ethics supersede human morals and the will to help others? I can’t say that, if I were in their shoes, I would absolutely have the instinct to jump into the fire and put myself at risk to save others. Being a journalist on foreign soil is an inherently dangerous task to take on, and I admire how Sydney followed the code even when his friend was imprisoned. One of the most morally draining parts of the profession is feeling as though you didn’t do enough just by reporting. With all this taken into account, it is still incredibly difficult and saddening to watch Sydney and Al stand by while innocent Cambodians are literally dying before their eyes. It makes me wonder if I would be able to remain independent and uninvolved in the face of such tragedy.

In The Paper, Alicia Clark, the managing editor of The New York Sun, is struggling in her personal life, largely with financial issues. She is living larger than she can afford, and seems to be unsatisfied with her position and reputation at The Sun. She pushes for a raise, but The Sun is already facing troubling financial struggles. As Alicia becomes more frustrated with her current situation throughout the film, she is motivated to run a story she knows to be false in order to save time and money. Editor Henry Hackett points out to her that their ‘Gotcha!’ story regarding the murder of two white men and the false arrest of two young black men would be grossly inaccurate and harmful to publish; she stubbornly maintains that it’s better to run the story for the day and amend it later, saying “we taint them today, we make them look good on Saturday”(The Paper). This is an explicit violation of the code in more ways than one; first and foremost of the principles of seeking truth and being accountable. Clark knows her story is not the truth, but refuses to waste resources seeking out the true story. As seen in the West Virginia Mining incident example from Howard Good’s Journalism Ethics Goes to the Movies, publishing an incorrect story with the intention of correcting it later is not ethical, as it can cause harm to both its subjects and its readers. As Hackett points out, publishing this story would fuel building tensions regarding a “race war”, and could permanently ruin the reputations of the teenagers. This scene is the exact opposite of my morals. Aside from the rampant ethical violations, I find Clark’s actions to be morally reprehensible. If I were in a position like Clark’s, I would want to use my power to help prevent abuse of power from the police and other organizations, not promote it.

The topic of ethics and morals is nuanced, varying by situation and reporter. As highlighted by the ethical dilemmas of these four movies, it is not black and white; life is always more complicated than a set of principles. A good journalist does their best to operate by the code, and trusts their morals to cover the gap when it falls short.

Bibliography:
Borden, S. (n.d.). Responsible Journalistic Inquiry. In Journalism Ethics Goes to the Movies. essay, Rowan & Littlefield.
Good Night, and Good luck. (2005).
The Killing Fields. (1984).
Painter, C., & Wilkins, L. (n.d.). Entertaining Ethics.
The Paper. (1994).
Spotlight. (2015).