A Code of Ethics for New Media

The definition of ‘new media’ is transient. It is a nebulous concept, forever growing in all directions, contradicting and affirming its previous conceptions as humanity probes for the furthest corners of the Internet and technology. Conceptually, I define the division between new and old media by shifts in how information is circulated. The diffusion of ideas, ideologies, and news reporting changed irreversibly with the advent of the Internet. As the mediation of content diversifies, audience expectations shift, requiring a reworking of the ethical considerations of journalists and content-makers. Today, the umbrella of ‘media’ can cover everything from video blogs or ‘vlogs’ on YouTube, social networking sites, and personal blogs to the polished investigative pieces one may find on the New Yorker’s website. Mass media means little these days, and while journalistic power itself may not have declined, it has spread itself — perhaps thinly — among the millions of voices on Web 2.0.

An ethical code for a concept in a state of flux must itself be a work in progress. A single ethical code has little chance at covering the scope of new media practice; therefore I will focus on the ethical responsibilities of new media in regard to its effect on society, specifically in its distinction from so-called ‘old media’. This does not consider organizational or operational factors, which can be addressed by individual organizations.

Responsibility to Audience

Transparency

At this point in the development of new media, impartial and unbiased reporting is no longer a mainstay of the news that we consume on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, in a code of ethics designed to blanket news reporting all the way from citizen journalism to the New York Times, impartiality does not rule so much as transparency. Opinions should be stated as such, and the job of distinguishing between hard news and an individual’s beliefs and judgments should not be left to the audience. The ‘think piece’ is a staple of online media publication, and done well, exemplifies the main tenant of this point. Subjective viewpoints are engaging points of reference for news stories as much as cultural or human-interest pieces, but in order to positively contribute to new media content, they must be presented as such.

Conflicts of Interest

In relation to valuing transparency, new media organizations have a responsibility to disclose all conflicts of interest. This applies to a disclosure of personal bias as well as when content is sponsored. In media content that involves a conflict of interest, personal or professional ties between author/creator and subject should be specified, especially when they are not apparent from the tone or context of the content. Media organizations such as Buzzfeed provide a good example of sponsorship disclosure, creating many sponsored quizzes, videos, and articles that are clearly branded with the company that they worked with.

Accuracy

In a perfect media environment, all published information would be held to a high standard of factual accuracy, we would decry conjecture, scorn presumption and double-check all sources. That said, in the fast-paced world of online publications it is inevitable that media will at times veer into assumption and speculation. In the bitter competition for an audience’s attention, news reporting has a tendency to adapt to Web 2.0 by catering to short attention spans and the need for click bait.

Responsibility to Sources

In the course of responsible and ethical new media coverage, it is of utmost importance to respect the rights of sources. While this does not mean valuing source secrecy over the public’s right to know, it means representing a diversity of sources, respecting their rights to privacy, and respecting their rights to fair representation.

Diversity of sources

Diversity of sources is of high importance. In the course of reporting a story, one should strive for the goal of representing the widest diversity of opinions and backgrounds possible. In traditional media of the past, the hierarchies determining which opinions became prevalent were more obvious; new media has a much more democratic appearance. The Internet can obscure and social power structures that are still very much at work, as a truly democratic media alienated from corporate interests and systems of inequality does not yet exist. While new media sources on the internet provide a voice to a much larger and more equal diversity of voices, we should not gloss over the residual effects of historically silenced sects of the population. Equality of representation should not be equated to equity of representation. Given the lasting imbalances of power in today’s society, new media should use its flexibility in the legitimation of the voices of a wide array of cultural, socio-economic, religious, and ethnic groups. While reporting does not and should not carry the complete responsibility of enacting social change, it is important not to understate the role of the media in the perpetuation or disruption of hegemonic belief systems.

Right to privacy

New media content should remain conscious of the rights of sources to privacy and autonomy over the distribution of their information. This becomes a tricky area to navigate in the social media age. When does someone’s private information become a viable source for a story? What if they have broadcast the information themselves, on a social media platform? Ultimately, it is not reasonable to expect news media to avoid using social media as a source, unreliable though it may be. This is clear from the vast encyclopedia of smear campaigns against politicians, in which embarrassing or ethically questionable aspects of an official’s past come to light, often through posts on social media. That said some measure of caution and respect must be awarded to the sources of information. Private or sensitive information that does not have implications for society or impact a significant number of people should not be involved in media without intense scrutiny of its potential repercussions. In this aspect, the social power of individuals involved should play a large role, in addition to the individual morality of reporters and creators.

Right to fair representation

In documentary filmmaking, directors shoulder the great responsibility that comes with having power as an authoritative speaker. Various forms of media have this power to speak opinions as truths, directing the conclusions of audience members in part by the context in which they place their central sources. Interviewees and subjects have the right to fair representation of their voices. This means that media creators must avoid misquoting or asking leading questions to prompt responses that serve the purpose of their story. Quotations or ideas should not be represented out of the context in which they originated.