Yesterday I spoke about seeking the truth with limited resources; highlighting the fact that attempting to verify accuracy of information when crunched for time or lacking in support (fact checkers, editors, etc). Today I wanted to cover another guideline which is also difficult to follow when lacking in resources, also from the SPJ Code of Ethics: “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”

It seems like common sense. If one person says something about someone else, you want to get both sides of the story. But this is assuming that the other person is accessible. How do you do this when you don’t even have contact information, or the information you have isn’t likely to reach the person you’re trying to get ahold of? And what do you do when you are pressed for time? How much time is enough time? I was once awoken in the wee morning hours by a very angry PR person who said I should not have written in my story that her client did not respond to request for comment, since it had not been 24 hours. Hardly anybody gives 24 hours, even for print newspapers, but it was a valid point. (I now write “did not immediately respond to request for comment” since it could very well be a timing issue.) Perhaps merely making an attempt to reach a source for comment is enough to give the illusion of diligently seeking out subjects for response to allegations, but is it? When do you hold a story? Again, this is part of the balancing act writers (especially in the blogosphere world of breaking news) face. Finding a balance between high standards of integrity and being on the cutting edge, breaking news… is not easy. Where do you draw the line?

I’ve mentioned ethics in journalism in previous posts, and wanted to touch on some of the grey areas in the ethics code presented by the Society of Professional Journalists. This isn’t intended to discount the code, by any means, but because I thought it’d be useful to have a dialogue about some of these issues in the changing world of media–and give my own thoughts on why some media outlets have a more stringent policy than others. I’d also like to open the dialogue up and hear opinions from others.

One of the facets of SPJ’s ethics code is seeking the truth and reporting it. “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information,” it reads. And one of the guidelines that stuck out for me was the very first one: “Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.”

Obviously, deliberate distortion can increase web traffic or create a more interesting story than the one which is real. And this is a clear violation, in my mind, of the trust readers put into a media outlet. However, there are so many reasons why inadvertent errors are common. One is resources and the second is time.

When certain media outlets pay writers a mere pittance (if that), writing for a living becomes a matter of pumping out articles as quickly as possible. If the same outlets also do not have fact-checkers or editors on staff (and, ideally, you’d want at least 2 eyes to scan a piece before it goes live), it’s next to impossible to test the accuracy of information from all sources. This is one reason why I prefer writing for magazines than for the internet. Painstaking fact-checking and expert revision may not eliminate inadvertent errors, but they certainly reduce them.

Aside from limited resources (fact-checkers, editors, writers getting paid a living wage who therefore have a higher skillset, etc.) a big issue is time. New media involves breaking news as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, verifying the accuracy of information (or whether it’s okay to release it) means you are often giving up being the first to post a headline. This is a concession I personally am willing to make, but I can see how it might be more difficult if one were, for example, being pressured by an editor. It really is a matter of juggling accuracy and speed for a demanding public that wants both.

What other gray areas exist in testing the accuracy of information?