Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Thursday, September 21, 2023

Reading For Treasure: ChatGPT Goes To School

I have written about how I think teachers, and especially teachers of the Humanities, might incorporate ChatGPT in the classroom. TLDR: I think teachers must embrace new technology and help students use it ethically and well. Not everyone agrees with me. Some teachers are clinging to dubious ChatGPT detectors, insisting that all writing be handwritten in class, or attempting to forbid its use completely. Good luck with those approaches. 

Instead, here are some articles that go into both the how and the why of confronting and dealing with our new educational environment. Most of these are by teachers who are reporting from the front lines. 

First, here are two great articles by teacher Daniel Herman published in The Atlantic. In the first, Mr. Herman contends (and I agree) that “High-School English Needed a Makeover Before ChatGPT: I used to make my students write essay after essay. There was always a better way.” The second one is even more direct, “The End of High-School English: I’ve been teaching English for 12 years, and I’m astounded by what ChatGPT can produce.”

Wired Magazine reports on how teachers and schools are using AI tools that repackage ChatGPT for both students and their teachers: “Teachers Are Going All In on Generative AI.” 

For those of you who want to detect students’ unauthorized use of AI, I have bad news: the research reported by KQED suggests that it is far from perfect, “How easy is it to fool ChatGPT detectors?”

If you are not reading, “Free Technology for Teachers,” you are doing more work than you should. This blog is outstanding! Richard Byrne provides a cornucopia of online and computer-based ways to make teachers’ lives better and improve student learning. In this piece, he provides,  “Some Thoughts About AI in Education.”

David McGrath in the Chicago Tribune takes a more traditional approach. He rightfully points out some of ChatGPT’s shortcomings and how this tool might be better suited to places other than the classroom. I agree with Mr. McGrath today. I am not sure his point of view will still be valid in a year or two. What do you think? “How teachers can defeat ChatGPT-using students.”

Finally, here is a different kind of “article:” High school English teacher Kelly Gibson makes TikTok videos about her experiences. She talks about far more than ChatGPT, but many of her videos discuss not only how and why she is using it, but gives very specific information about how students respond. What is also fun is that, if you view these short videos in chronological order, you get a wonderful view of a master teacher figuring things out lesson to lesson and challenge to challenge. Click here to see all of her videos and use the titles to select the ones you want to watch. 

 I am currently reading the Hugo nominated short stories, novelettes, and novellas. 


Monday, March 13, 2023

PT in DC

Step right up, folks, and pay close attention! You’ve been fooled, hoodwinked, and beguiled -but it isn’t your fault, no, it’s not! The fault is not in our stars but in our politicians! That’s right! That’s what I said! Those so-called elected officials, they are doing you wrong, yes, they are! They are spewing lies, keeping you from the truth, and then taking it all for themselves! They don’t care about you, not at all. They care about power, riches, and keeping themselves on top! 

But you don’t have to take it! You don’t have to stand idly by and let yourself be abused, misused, and confused. I am here to open your eyes, clean out your ears, and purify your mind! You always suspected these things, am I right? It all didn’t really make sense, did it? You knew that in your secret inner heart! You knew that this country was meant to be another way. I am here to take your hand and lead you to that better way, a righteous way, the way the founders meant it to be! 

I know what you read in the papers. I know what you see on the screens. Those lewd, filthy, and obscene lies should be banned! Yes, they should! How these reporters go home to their families and sleep at night is beyond me! They should be racked with guilt and contempt! They’ve been fooling you – and they know it! 

You can’t trust them, but you can trust me! I’m telling it like it is and you are discerning and wise and can tell the difference between me and those money-hungry purveyors of poppycock! Our country is in danger! Our country is under attack! You knew it, didn’t you! Down in your bones in the pit of your stomach, you knew bad things were happening. Why wasn’t anyone ringing the bell? Where were the people who should stop this? They are the problem, my friends! They made this mess and they love it! 

It is up to us! Yes, you and me! Ordinary, moral, and upstanding citizens to take back our country. Take it back from those who would sell it out to every pauper and lazybones, every criminal and crook, every blasphemer and heretic! They are turning our clean country into a dirty dump of dung! Stand against them, friends! Stand with me! 

They’ll say you have to change the way you speak and use different words so not to hurt anyone’s feelings. They’ll tell you we should teach our kids history that is best forgotten. Well, it is not okay! I can say what I want to say the way I want to say it and so can you! I can teach my kids history the way I want it! 


When you pull back the curtain, friends, what you see in the dark is frightening and disgusting. It is cosmically horrible! The men behind the curtain, the people who are pulling the strings, are quietly and quickly turning us into their chumps and dupes, yes they are! You suspected there was a secret group making all this happen – and you’re right! I am here to reveal that secret! I am here to put light on the people running the show! 

They think you’re stupid! They think you will believe what any powerful person tells you because it comes from them! We know they have it wrong! They think if they give you some sexy candy, you’ll melt in their hands, but you are tougher than that! They think if they drum up some scary story of sickness, you’ll cower in the corner and put your head in a bag, but they have it all wrong! They can’t get you to shoot yourself full of their lies! No way! You’ll shoot yourself and everyone else before you’ll ever fall for such two-cent stage foolery! 

No, they can’t make a fool of you! They may make all sorts of claims! They may say they are Jewish; they may say they are rich; they may say they helped puppies and vets and orphans and royalty, but you know it for what it is: a pack of lies! Don’t say hooray! Don’t back away! Just say no to their evil ways! 

I stand with you, my friends! You won’t have to worry in the bathroom, bedroom, or boardroom! They want to tax the rich to feed the poor, but I say every man for himself! Fair is fair and right is right and I won’t pay for others’ problems! Hell (sorry for the strong language), you shouldn’t even have to pay for your own problems, should you? No, you shouldn’t because you didn’t make those problems. You aren’t to blame, no way, no how. You are blameless and pure as the driven snow and no one has a right to say otherwise! 

I’m a humble man, yes, I am. I didn’t have much schooling, but I didn’t need it and neither do you! I may not know much, but I am wise enough to see the way things are going and know they are moving in the wrong direction! You are right to be alarmed and angry! 

Every minute, my friends, every second, we are sinking deeper into muck and mayhem.  As the hands of the clock fly around, we are dragged down, my friends, further and farther. There is only one way back! There is only one way back to our glory, our grandeur, our God-given greatness that we will not let them destroy! 

So stand with me, my friends! Give me your money! Give me your minds! Give me your votes! Give me everything you have! Because, every minute, I’ll give you what you deserve!  

Thursday, February 23, 2023

Reading for Treasure: Articles I Can't Stop Thinking About

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

My theme this month is articles that have taken up residence in my head, that I cannot stop thinking about. I strongly recommend you read them. Many of them will probably end up being the seeds of my own writing on this blog. 

Lifehacker contrasts two thinkers who have confronted evil: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Donald Ewen Cameron. The piece asks what is the difference between being evil and stupid: “Why Stupidity Is More Dangerous Than Evil.

When I was first hired as a teacher, I told my department chairman that I wasn’t going to give grades. He said I had to, so I said I would give everyone A’s. He said that wasn’t going to work either. So, I tried to make the idea of grades fit with real student-centered education. These two pieces about how institutions of learning are rethinking grades are excellent discussions of this issue: KQED’s “Some colleges mull the idea of 'Ungrading' for freshman students” and Wired’s “The End of Grading.”

Similarly, I struggled with kids’ use of their smartphones in the classroom. I ended up hanging a shoe tree near the door and requiring my students to relinquish their phones during class. This also made taking attendance quick and easy. This wonderful article in The Atlantic looks at “The Schools That Ban Smartphones.” 

This quick article from The Daily Herald addresses a question I have been asking since I moved next door to the school at which I taught and my children attended: “It’s Good For Kids and the Environment. So Why Aren’t More Students Walking to School

As a follow-up to several sets of articles about gun violence, The Chicago Tribune addressed a part of this issue that does not receive enough attention. While we hear about people killed and injured by shootings, we don’t hear about how those who are shot cope afterward: “Doctors: A firearm-related injury is a chronic and expensive condition, but many victims are forgotten.” 

Two very political articles from The Atlantic fascinated me. As a former debate teacher, the “Gish Gallop” technique that the former president uses is both effective and highly problematic. “How To Beat Trump in a Debate” is a great analysis of more than Trump’s rhetorical style, but the philosophy behind it. Similarly, “Why Fox News Lied to Its Viewers” looks at how ratings and pandering to the desires of an audience were more important than journalistic ethics on the Fox News Channel. Is there a connection here? 

Finally, two more articles from The Atlantic (can you tell that I am a huge fan of that magazine?) about reading. First, “The People Who Don’t Read Books” looks at some high-profile people who are proud that they don’t read. Second, “A New Way to Read ‘Gatsby’” was fascinating to me as I finished Nghi Vo’s magical spin on Fitzgerald’s classic, The Chosen and the Beautiful. Read them both and you will see why this book has staying power. 

Besides The Atlantic, I am reading Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand by Samuel Delany. 

Saturday, October 22, 2022

Reading for Treasure: Consider These Articles and VOTE!

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

Your vote is critically important. The polls are probably wrong. Here are some articles to think about as we move toward the November elections. I present them without introduction or commentary: 

Mother Jones (Video): “If Republicans Retake Congress in November, Here's What Their Agenda Will Look Like” 

NewsOne: “2022 Midterm Elections: Filibuster, Senate Control And The Importance Of Black Voters” 

Reuters: “Pro-Trump conspiracy theorists hound election officials out of office”

Financial Times: “Ukrainian officials ‘shocked’ as Republicans threaten tougher line on aid” 

The Guardian: “Republicans aim to pass national ‘don’t say gay’ law”

The Bulwark: “Attack Ads Are Darkening the Skin Tone of Black Candidates”

Atlantic:  “We need to take away children” 

New York Times: “Voters See Democracy at Risk, but Saving It Isn’t Priority” 

Wired: “The US Needs to Recognize Intimate Privacy as a Civil Right” 

The Washington Post: “Trump charged Secret Service ‘exorbitant’ rates at his hotels, records show”

CNN: “What could happen if an election denier is running elections” 

NBC: “Johnson's campaign is paying the law firm of a Trump attorney allegedly connected to Jan. 6 fake elector plot”

NPR: “Borrowers who were cut out of student loan relief describe 'a gut punch'”

CNN: “'I'm my own man': Colorado Republican Senate nominee fires back at Trump” 

Scientific American: “U.S. Lost 26 Years Worth of Progress on Life Expectancy” 


I am currently reading Gods, Monsters, and the Lucky Peach by Kelly Robson

Friday, August 5, 2022

Impossible Doublethink Before Breakfast

In Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, the Red Queen believed at least six impossible things before breakfast. George Orwell’s 1984 gave us the concept of doublethink: being able to believe two completely contradictory ideas, acknowledge that they are incompatible with each other, yet fully endorse both of them. Doublethink was the critical component in maintaining 1984’s totalitarian state. Although there are more literary examples, recent events move these concepts from fiction to frightening reality. 

I don’t understand how someone can fervently support the police, believe that “blue lives matter” and yet want unlimited and open access to guns. Likewise, if one wants to be “tough on crime,” how does one accomplish this if guns are more accessible than cigarettes or allergy medication? And the police in Uvalde? 

How can one condemn violence after Black people are killed by police, but then condone violence against our own elected lawmakers who are certifying an election? How can people threaten and intimidate local election officials when they disagree with the results of an election? If violence is bad, shouldn’t it be bad no matter who commits it? 

How can someone claim that the 2020 election was riddled with fraud when it comes to the election of the president, but make no objections to all the Republican candidates who won on the very same “rigged” ballots? If there were issues with one race on the ballot, wouldn’t there be problems with the other races, too? And where is the evidence of all these irregularities? If there were so many, wouldn’t some have led to criminal charges, successful lawsuits, or altered election results? The only verified instances of election fraud I could find were people voting for the former president! 

Some people say they want to honor the past and thus preserve confederate statues, monuments, or symbols, but when discussing historical aspects of the civil war that deal with enslaved people and systemic racism, their discomfort trumps honoring and remembering other shameful aspects of the past. Could this perhaps maybe possibly be about race? 

Many of these same people are eager to protect the unborn, but do not give any protection to already-born children sitting in schools. Some of these folks also refused to protect anyone by wearing a mask or getting the COVID vaccine. Is life only worth protecting when it is not yet here? Do children have to protect themselves – from guns and illness? Is it only embryos who deserve protection? Why? 

If people don’t want teachers discussing the racism of our past and present, the diversity of gender identities, or any subject that might make some (white) kids (and/or their parents) uncomfortable, who decides what is or isn’t included? Wouldn’t the exclusion of this content make other students uncomfortable? Wouldn’t its inclusion eventually create understanding and thus bring more comfort? How are people evaluating this harm? How is repressing some people’s ideas and history not just another form of bullying and bigotry? 

Some of these folks claim to be religious people acting on precepts from scripture. However, they worship people who are adulterers and bullies whose behavior is the opposite of the religious figures they claim to revere. They take minor biblical passages out of context and hold them as more important than the Ten Commandments and key statements from Jesus, Moses, and other key figures. Whatever happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “thou shalt not murder?” 

The slogans of the state in 1984 were: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Today, many people are holding a complementary set of commandments: 

Morality is Indecency

Honesty is Deception

Bigotry is Equality

Freedom is Selfishness

Cruelty is Compassion

Rage is Virtue

Hypocrisy is Integrity

I don’t see how we can move beyond our current political impasse without civil discourse, common ground, a shared sense of right and wrong, and a moral commitment to improving the conditions for everyone (not just a few).  Instead, so many are practicing deadly doublethink before, during, and after breakfast – and it is not only unhealthy for them, as Orwell predicted, it is poisoning all of us. 

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Time Enough for Heinlein

There are books that we treasure. There are books that live in our minds. There are books that shape our identities. For me, the writing of Robert A. Heinlein, but especially Time Enough for Love and Stranger in a Strange Land were formative reads. I read them as a high school student and, time and again, I keep coming back to them. 

I have reread Stranger several times since high school, but recently, I reread Time Enough for Love for the first time in decades. I had forgotten about the novel’s almost uncomfortable exploration of love taboos. What I remembered strongly were two other aspects of the novel: The character and wisdom of the main character, Lazarus Long, and his wonderful list of aphorisms in his “notebooks.” 

I have quoted these aphorisms from memory ever since. I have posted them on my dorm room door in college and used them as sample belief statements in my Sunday school class. One, in particular, formed the basis of final exam essay question, and another has justified adjourning congregational committee meetings for more than two decades! I will list some of these wonderful, wise, and clever statements a little later. 

Time Enough For Love argues that, “The more you love, the more you can love — and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”

That majority includes everyone – and this book explores that in-depth. Everyone means that you could love, passionately and sexually, the people our society says you can only love in a platonic non-physical way: your family! I had forgotten how this novel took the idea that long-lived people might eventually fall in “Eros” love with their children, siblings, and parents. In fact, Heinlein’s lengthy and obsessive exploration of our main character’s affair with his own mother was at times both excruciating and cringe-worthy. It made the point – and then kept making it. 

What stuck with me as a teenager was not the incestual nature of the book, but the wisdom the oldest man alive shared. His thoughts about love, for sure, but also about religion, politics, and plain old not-so-common sense. 

So here are only a few of the wonderful aphorisms from “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.” 

Heinlein was clearly a religious skeptic, another point that would have made this book a winner for teenaged (and later) me: 


“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.”

“God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent-it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.”

“The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.”

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid.)”


Several of Lazarus Long’s statements might be commentary on today’s political issues: 

“What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”

“Does history record any case in which the majority was right?”

“A generation which ignores history has no past—and no future.”

“The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of “loyalty” and “duty.” Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute--get out of there fast. You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed.”

“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!”

Most of the wonderful aphorisms are just plain good advice:

“Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.”

“Yield to temptation, it may not pass your way again.”

“If you don’t like yourself, you can’t like other people.”

“A motion to adjourn is always in order.”

“Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.”

“Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity.”

“Another ingredient for a happy marriage: Budget the luxuries first!”

“To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods.”

“Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash.”

“Anything free is worth what you pay for it.”

“Pessimist by policy, optimist by temperament--it is possible to be both. How? By never taking an unnecessary chance and by minimizing risks you can’t avoid. This permits you to play the game happily, untroubled by the certainty of the outcome.”


There is no doubt that some of Heinlein’s writing has not aged well. Many of his ideas were chauvinistic and sexist. His portrayal of women is deeply problematic. Yet, unlike some of the other important writers of the golden age of science fiction, his work is still engagingly readable and shockingly relevant. 

That may be why, once I finish reading the Hugo nominees, I am going to read The Cat Who Walks Through Walls


Friday, June 10, 2022

Where are the Guardian Angels?

The shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas is overwhelming. Each time I think about the horrible events of May 24, I find it is so painful that I need to deflect to something else, anything else. The thought of that kind of loss is nearly too difficult to imagine.  

I was teaching the day that Laurie Dann walked into Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka and began shooting. My school moved to “red alert,” which was designed to prevent senior pranks, when it was reported that the shooter was headed northwest. My school is only a few miles northwest of Hubbard Woods. This was more than thirty years ago. 

There are no words to console a grieving parent or partner. There is no pain I can imagine worse than the death of a child. It is so hideous and powerful and painful. Why must parents keep experiencing loss because of school shootings? 

What is wrong with us that we refuse to protect our children sitting in their classrooms? What is wrong with us that we argue about the rights of children not yet born, but we refuse to protect fourth graders? How can people rush to protect gun rights at the cost of children’s lives?  Anyone who has worked in education knows that putting more guns in school will not address this problem. It is a false fantasy solution that ignores everything we know about these situations. 

Even the National Rifle Association prohibits guns at its convention! Arming teachers will work, but having a convention full of gun owners won’t? I don’t understand. 

Let’s start a new organization: No Retro Abortions. This organization would advocate that we ban abortions beyond the 15-week or 3-month or the latest of late-term timelines and argue that even abortions that take place after birth should be forbidden. The organization could be called by its initials: N.R.A. 

Recently, I read a short story called, “Mr. Death” by Alix Harrow. The story is nominated for the prestigious Hugo award, and.I read the nominees every year so I vote for the winners. 

This fantasy story follows a relatively new “reaper” who ferries souls across the river of death. He is given assignments and then sits with the person as they die and accompanies them to the other side. However, as the story opens, he is given a horrible assignment: a child of only 30 month: a two year old. 

Our focal character has deep misgivings and does his best to rationalize and justify the child’s death. But he can’t. He lost his own child and has experienced this kind of pain first hand. As the story proceeds, he moves from giving the child a little extra time to being unable to complete his assignment. He refuses to complete the assignment even though it will mean much more than losing his job, it will probably mean he will be consigned to oblivion. 

If you are going to read the story, this is the place to stop reading. I am about to spoil it. Read the story and come back or skip to the paragraph beginning, “Lovers of life…” 

Here is the connection: when our reaper refuses to take the child and is willing to sacrifice everything, he is surprised to find that he is transformed. He is no longer a reaper and instead, he is a guardian. He stands beside the child as a  protector. 

Lovers of life, pro-choice, pro-life, we need guardians now. Our children need us all to become angels who protect them: in their classrooms, churches, synagogues, movie theaters, and homes. Not with more instruments of death, but with thoughtful and rational laws and rules. Other countries do this; we can do this. 

Can we transform from partners of death to protectors of life? The Supreme Court will soon rule about how the unborn should be protected. What about the newly born? What about the fourth graders? What about our children and grandchildren? 

Thou shall not murder. Put down your weapon and accept your wings. Protect the children. Please. 

Friday, February 4, 2022

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

  • Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
  • Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
  • Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
  • Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
  • Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
  • Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
  • Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
  • Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
  • Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
  • Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
  • Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
  • Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
  • Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
  • Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
  • Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
  • Label advocacy and commentary.
  • Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
  • Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
  • 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.
  • Act Independently
  • Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
  • Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
  • Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
  • Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
  • Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
  • Be Accountable and Transparent
  • Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
  • Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
  • Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
  • Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
  • Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry.