SPJ: ‘Ethical journalism prevailed’ in reporting of latest WikiLeaks release

Press release

SPJ statement on ethical journalism in response to latest WikiLeaks release

INDIANAPOLIS – The Society of Professional Journalists is weighing in on the diplomatic, national security and journalistic fallout caused by WikiLeaks’ release of U.S. State Department cables. For nearly a week, SPJ leaders have been closely reviewing and intensely discussing the myriad issues raised by the release.

What has become clear is that forming a single opinion about the actions of WikiLeaks, the need for information, and balancing the public’s right to know with protecting national security is exceedingly difficult. SPJ leaders and committees have discussed not only the action of WikiLeaks and its fallout, but even more fundamental issues: Is this journalism, is it responsible and have news organizations responded ethically?

“It’s not about who does the publishing.” SPJ President Hagit Limor said. [Read her full statement.] “It’s about the decision-making that leads to publication. The WikiLeaks release reminds all who disseminate information that we must verify and test for accuracy, provide context via other sources, and weigh the potential harm before deciding whether to publish.”

Whether WikiLeaks acted responsibly, ethically or in the public interest is debatable, as our own internal discussions have shown. People on the outside, including elected members of Congress and Obama administration officials, have sharply criticized the release – even calling WikiLeaks and the suspected person responsible for the leak treasonous. It is not SPJ’s or journalists’ role to defend or denounce such positions.

On the question of “Is WikiLeaks journalism?” there is no single consensus among Society leaders. Arguments exist on both sides. SPJ has historically stayed away from defining what is and is not “journalism,” as not everything fits into a descriptive box. The more important question is: If the information was truthful and accurate, was there a compelling need to reveal it? And, very critically, was it done ethically?

The SPJ Code of Ethics calls on journalists and news outlets to “Seek Truth and Report It.” An important point under that heading says journalists should:

* Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

However, that does not mean all information a government (the U.S. or otherwise) has is open to public inspection. There is certainly a need to protect national security and diplomatic interests.

Another point in the SPJ Code of Ethics balances the pursuit of truth, and that is urging journalists to “Minimize Harm.” Under this point journalists should remember:

* Pursuit of news is not a license for arrogance.

There is no indication that the news organizations that received early access to the cables acted unethically. The New York Times and The Guardian, among others, appear to have done their journalistic purpose: verify the information, act responsibly, minimize harm by redacting certain information, and inform the affected parties of the impending publication.

Whether the information was necessary or essential to release is another issue. If laws were broken in obtaining it, then the legal process will move forward. WikiLeaks’ true intentions are unclear. But in the case of established news outlets receiving the information and providing context and verification, it appears responsible, ethical journalism prevailed.

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    Glad SPJ is busy discussing and issuing statements but here is a real time thing:

    Guardian, which first obtained the Wikileaks State Department Cables is now running on its home front page a piece by Ian Traynor about comments made by Angela Merkel at an E.U. dinner in October saying it was possible Germany would leave the Euro. The piece is written by Ian Traynor and is based on reporting that led him to a source who heard the remarks.

    What is the difference between Guaridan publishing that piece – something WashPo ro NYTImes would have published – and its publishing wikileaks cables? national security? Can you imagine what the markets will do to the Euro on Monday after reading that story? Was Guaridan right to publish? Do I need to ask? There is little to discuss here. Publishing was correct decision … and besides it gave Joe Lieberman an excuse to granstand … it has been so difficult for him to get camera time since health care bill passed.

  • Anonymous

    If investigative journalists and news organizations were doing, or had been doing their jobs well there would have never been a need for Wikileaks. Nature, and honest Americans, loathe a vacuum. Wikileaks was created because there was a need, apparently, for hard facts. When news organizations protect government sources, but not private or public ones, there’s something wrong with the picture.