Journalism ethics debates reflect their political moment, revealing how power shapes even principled discussions. While core values ostensibly remain constant, it has become clear that the application varies almost wholly based on who occupies the White House. This inconsistency undermines journalism’s credibility.
The news media industry as a whole has worried aloud about trust for decades. It has suffered from a loss of trust. The industry is always talking about what it can do to restore trust. But it has been a strange conversation.
I started thinking specifically about the state of journalism ethics after reading a Columbia Journalism Review story published August 21, of this year, headlined: “Thirteen journalists on how they’re rethinking ethics.” Margaret Sullivan and Julie Gerstein from Columbia’s journalism ethics center built their piece from 13 industry professionals they interviewed about adapting standards.
This assessment is critical, but fair: Aside from Elena Cherney’s thoughts on sourcing and the value of building source relationships, much of what else was shared from the 13 is stuff that you’ve likely heard before. And a lot of it is just as internally puzzling as what you have heard before from people in such roles.
Ethicists and academics have mostly spoken to their peers at institutions they believe are like themselves. They have not demonstrated an ability to widen their circle, which is why there hasn’t been anything meaningful to show for the talk. The conversation exists in what has become, largely, an echo chamber.
These are mostly the same voices that participate in calls to “turn down the rhetoric” whenever their newsrooms begin leaking partisanship. Saying the right things and doing the right things are not the same thing.
But I would offer this: Journalistic trust is a solvable problem.
If a newsroom focuses on the facts; presents them fairly; is consistent with the scope of its work; speaks to a broad range of sources; and is truly curious for the benefit of its readers and viewers, it will earn trust.
Over time.
And if it doesn’t, it’ll continue to lose it—slowly, and then all at once.
Cherney, senior editor for ethics at the Wall Street Journal,who spoke on the challenges of original reporting, was a highlight among the lowlights. Journalism is difficult. It takes significant work to be a good journalist.
Focusing specifically on anonymous sources, which are used today like Q-tips, she offered the following: “Reporters are only as good as their sources. The best sources—well-placed people with direct knowledge of events—often aren’t willing to go on the record precisely because sharing the information could put them, or their jobs, at risk. The fewer people who know, the more risk a source may be taking by talking to journalists—and the more newsworthy the information may be.”
That’s solid advice, whether you are a 19-year-old intern trying to summon the courage to pick up the phone and make a call to someone you don’t know to ask them questions they probably don’t want to answer, or if you have been in the business for 40 years and are still reluctant to pick up that phone and make a call to someone you do know and ask them questions you know they don’t want to answer.
But get past Cherney’s valuable, viable, and actionable thoughts in that compendium of insights from the other 12, and you’ll find what’s plaguing journalism—advocacy-laden insights that suggest these people really do not understand the hole that their approaches have dug.
For journalism to truly rebuild trust, ethics must transcend partisan pandering. We must be, as a friend likes to say: “Upstream from politics, on the moral high ground.”
Much was written when Uri Berliner exposed that the National Public Radio newsroom in Washington, D.C., had 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans on its staff. That was and remains embarrassing.
Among all the talk in the industry about the need for greater diversity, equity, and inclusion—on both the staffing side and the sourcing side—has there been any reflective consideration that ideological diversity is also important? If so, NPR has said nothing about addressing it and has offered no evidence that it considers such diversity important.
This moment will continue to be a rough ride for the entrenched national mainstream publishers and broadcasters, whose trust has suffered the most. They focus on the federal government as core to their reporting, which means focusing on President Donald Trump. There is a fixation — an unhealthy one. He leads the nightly news unless there is a natural disaster or a national tragedy.
The national mainstream media lost its collective mind during the first Trump administration, and then lost its way during the Biden administration.
Now, in the second Trump administration, the national mainstream has become easy to ignore —not only because it demonstrates no discernible range, but also because most Americans simply stopped watching and would rather receive their national news in a local news package, whether delivered in print or via broadcast.
Consider how Rod Hicks, a former Society of Professional Journalists director of ethics and diversity, framed the Trump years: “Traditional journalistic norms and conventions for covering politics and politicians were not created for a president like Donald Trump.”
Translation: We need special rules.
His prescribed solution? Don’t just report what politicians say—immediately counter their statements with “documented evidence that they’re false.”
Where was this urgency during the Biden administration? The same newsrooms that breathlessly fact-checked every Trump utterance discovered measured nuance when covering the Democratic president.
The so-called “big-thinkers” in the industry cannot get out of their own way.
To say that the national mainstream media has done this to itself is not an oversimplification.
Standards for calling out falsehoods, transparency requirements, and accountability mechanisms should apply equally regardless of presidential party or perceived threat level.
The profession must recognize this bias and commit to consistent application of standards — aggressive accountability for all administrations, not just those deemed threatening. Only then can journalism ethics genuinely fulfill its role rather than serve an audience of willing believers.
Here’s what consistent journalism ethics looks like: The same standards for everyone. Period.
If aggressive fact-checking matters, apply it universally. If questioning anonymous sources is important, do it regardless of which party benefits. If democracy needs watchdog journalism, that includes watching the watchdogs’ preferred candidates.
At The Center Square, we’ve built our reputation on this simple principle: Cover every administration, every governor, every mayor with the same skeptical eye. Our readers have come to trust our work over the past six years because they know we’re not adjusting our standards based on election results.
The establishment media—and I am not talking about your local news source, which does its sincere best, but the national players—could learn something from that approach. Until they do, they’ll keep hemorrhaging credibility while wondering why readers seek alternatives.
The answer is simple: Americans want journalism that serves truth, not parties. They want consistency, not convenient ethics that shift with the political winds.
True journalism ethics doesn’t ask which party holds power—it holds all power accountable. Anything less is just politics by other means.
Chris Krug is publisher of The Center Square, a national news organization focused on federal, state and local government accountability. Subscribe to receive updates on how we’re changing the news landscape.
Definitely appreciate your transparency on this matter. My thought is that each journalist has to have a credible fact check on what is printed to expose ethical wrongdoings. In this moment in time it is the utmost importance.,,,, 👍