On Monday, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) dropped new proposed revisions to its code of ethics — the first revision to one of the most-cited media ethics standards in the country since 2014.
As any Nieman Lab reader knows, journalism has seen drastic changes since 2014. One major shift in the last 12 years? About 20% of Americans now turn to news and commentary from influencers, content creators, and others on social media and platforms. Many of those do not self-identify as “journalists,” let alone subscribe to a professional association’s code of ethics, notes the SPJ committee that spearheaded the proposed revisions. The committee also highlighted the “dramatic rise” in the use of generative AI in newsrooms, citing a study that found 56% of journalists now use AI tools at least weekly. As AI-generated content is increasingly published by news organizations, the committee also says this introduced “persistent ethical and practical questions about the use and misuse of technology.”
One striking thing about the revision is that “AI” is actually nowhere to be found in the new code of ethics. In a report accompanying the proposed revisions, the committee writes that the term was sidestepped due to concerns it might “date” the code. (The SPJ omitted “social media” in its 2014 code for similar reasons.) Even so, these technologies motivate many of the changes and additions that were made, according to the report.
For one, the committee has added a whole new tenet to the job: “Identify misinformation and disinformation. Challenge provable falsehoods and avoid uncritically repeating them.” It is an implicit acknowledgement that the work of journalists increasingly revolves around authentication and verification. That’s no doubt in part because of the emergence of social media as a powerful vector for disinformation since 2014. It also calls attention to the responsibility of journalists to combat the recent flood of AI-generated imagery online.
There is another hat tip to this work in a revision that reads, “Journalists should verify the provenance and authenticity of information and sources.” The committee said it added phrases like “verify” and “provenance and authenticity” to add specificity for the “digital and AI age,” and strengthen the language around this work.
The new code also recognizes that journalists can be complicit in the spread of falsehoods and misleading imagery online. “Never publish fabricated content that could be confused with reality,” reads another revised line. Here “content” was added to “better address AI-generated images, graphics, and the misuse of AI in image production,” according to the committee.
The closest the code gets to naming AI outright is the addition of the word “technology” to one of its tenets. “Remember that speed, technology or medium do not excuse inaccuracy or unfairness,” reads the new copy. The committee explained that the addition is meant to address AI, but also “whatever technology may come next.”
Tacked onto that line is also a new sentence: “Journalists are ethically responsible for their work, regardless of tools and technologies used.” Here the committee says it’s conveying, in part, that human journalists are ultimately accountable for what they publish, even if their work is generated or assisted by AI.
The proposal caps a yearlong review process by a blue-ribbon committee. Now, SPJ members will have the opportunity to review, discuss, and comment on the proposal leading up to the SPJ’s national convention in October. There, the association will hold a vote for all members on the new code.
You can read the full proposal with the committee’s comments here.
