A Brief Note on Journalistic Integrity
Wisdom, tolerance and compassion are lacking in contemporary society. Our media reflects those deficiencies — and we need to do better.
1/26/2024: Article updated to reflect the Federal Court of Canada’s ruling against the Canadian government for its treatment of protestors during the protests described in this post.
During a 1959 appearance on the BBC interview show “Face to Face,” British philosopher and polymath Bertrand Russell advised future generations:
“… In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way, and if we are to live together — and not die together — we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.”
In the spirit of Russell’s advice — and in light of the remarkable loss of public trust in the media over the last several years — I felt the need to remark on something that happened last week that I worry might cause the public’s trust to sink to an even more depressing low. It is part of a trend that media and transparency experts refer to as “weaponized transparency” — that is, the publishing of sensitive information about regular people online for politicized purposes.
Last week, following the hacking of a digital payment platform for the purpose of doxxing people that had donated to the “Freedom Convoy,” a complex and controversial1 Canadian anti-mandate/anti-COVID-restrictions protest movement notably comprised of semi-truck drivers, reporters from a handful of news outlets in Canada and the U.S. used the doxxed information to report on those donors, including private citizens.
Like other contemporary protest movements, this particular movement has been rife with controversy, conflicting narratives and varying reactions. Government agencies have threatened to seize demonstrators’ pets and freeze their personal bank accounts. Reporters have identified members of far-right extremist groups participating in the protests and, in some cases, their organization. Others have pointed out that working-class citizens, unconnected to any extremist groups, have demonstrated en masse to push back against government overreach and lengthy pandemic restrictions. Some academics have even questioned whether Canada’s inequality and stark income disparities, rather than COVID restrictions, might have been at the heart of the protests, comparing the movement to Occupy Wall Street.
Still, in addition to seeking comment from prominent or controversial donors, some larger news organizations chose to use the doxxed information to track down regular people for public comment about small donations. As a result of the hacking, and possibly the reporting that amplified it, those private citizens became the targets of threats from members of the public that disagreed with their views.
Although questioning prominent public figures and elected officials about their political and financial activities is a hallmark of responsible journalism because it contributes to the public’s understanding of those in power, it is not common for journalists to identify or seek comments from everyday citizens about their small donations to political or social causes.
Like many protest movements, due to broad variations in participants’ backgrounds and ideologies, coverage should be nuanced. And privacy standards for ordinary citizens should hold fast for any journalist reporting on any protest movement. (Even if you personally believe a particular protest movement is wrong, two wrongs have never made anything right.)
This point is further supported by the Federal Court of Canada’s January 23, 2024, ruling that the Canadian government’s extraordinary use of emergency powers to quell the protests, which included identifying protestors and temporarily freezing their bank accounts, violated the protestors’ constitutional rights.
That said, I wanted to share a reminder about the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics as an important reference for reporting. While every news outlet has its own policies, this code is widely accepted as a gold standard for guiding the ethical reporting process of journalists in the U.S.
The second principle of the SPJ Code of Ethics calls on journalists and editors to “minimize harm” in reporting, especially for private citizens.
From the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
NPR has a similar policy.
Beyond running counter to standard journalistic ethics, I worry that these kinds of situations could also have a chilling effect on democracy in the future, should they become normalized on both sides of our increasingly politicized media.
Wikipedia is a secondary information source and should not be used as a primary source of information; however, the Wikipedia article cites numerous credible sources that can be helpful for learning more about the situation. I chose to link to Wikipedia here specifically because of the rapidly developing nature of the events in question, and because this particular Wikipedia article contains more comprehensive information than any single news article I was able to find online, making it a valuable resource for further reading.