Ethics

As most of my subject matter is from American cases, it is important to look into ethical codes adhered to by US journalists. Unlike their UK counterparts, the American press has no official code of ethics; in fact, it is illegal to implement one, as this would violate the first amendment of the American Bill of Rights. This amendment guarantees free speech, and therefore, a free press.

 There are several voluntary codes of conduct, for example, the Society of Professional Journalists has a Code of Ethics which is very similar to our own Press Complaints Commission Code of Ethics. Most major newspapers will have their own codes of conduct, but again, these are not official or legally binding.

 Anybody wishing to complain or take legal action against the American press must do this through the courts, be it through civil, or criminal lawsuits.

 It is interesting to note that many of the US journalists interviewed for this study have freely admitted to disobeying the requests of the police or FBI. Because they are no sanctions which can be legally placed upon journalists in these cases, the journalist (or their editor) will usually decide whether publication would be in the public interest, or beneficial to the sales of the newspaper (although this may seem a little crass, it is a very important factor in the US media, if not the worldwide media).

 I received a very helpful email regarding American press ethics from Sherry Chisenhall, editor of the Wichita Eagle.

 Peter Kane’s Murder, Courts and the Press gives an interesting explanation of the link between the courts and the press in the US.

 “In our system of government rwo of the most important safeguards of our freedom are the courts and the press. A secure and free society must percieve that its legal system is operating fairly and that justice is in fact being done. The press serves us by reporting on the activities of the legal system and government in general so that we who are supposed to be the ultimate decision makers in our system of government have the information needed to make those decisions.”

 In essence, this explains that the courts are there to serve the public, and the press is there to make sure that they are doing so.

 Kane also makes an interesting comparison between the US and the UK in this area.

 “In other countries such as Great Britain perceived excesses (both actual and imagined) in the gathering and dissemination of news are dealt with by strict laws and court orders. In the United States the First Amendment to our Constitution has been interpreted as a prohibition on interference with journalistic activity in the area of crime reporting.”

One can be left in no doubt that if the cases examined in this study had occured in the UK, the outcome would have been very different. There would simply have been less freedom available to the journalist in question to utilise the information fully.