Bianca Pollard

Comp II
05 December 2011
Ethics of Online Publishing
With the advent of the Internet, getting information to people has never been quicker, nor
riskier. The way news spreads has changed from word of mouth to print to television, and most
importantly, to web. However, each of these transitions requires a different standard of reviewing and
editing before the public has access to the information. Though the use of online publishing in media
has made news more readily available, one of publishing companies' biggest mistakes is the lack of
preparation moving from print to web. In order to guarantee accuracy and honesty, editors and
journalists need to relearn their code of ethics as applied to the digital word.
There is an unmistakable gray area when dealing with a journalist's rights and an editor's role in
online media, but neither should affect accuracy. Steve Smith quotes in his own article that, we are in
a period of incredibly rapid change where the quality rules still apply, but how we get to that quality
has changed (24). Reliable media is still the expectation. Yet self-publishing has made it all too simple
for independent bloggers and fraudulent reporters to write articles that completely skip the editing
process, and that can cause misreporting. Journalists often use whatever information they find to write
articles to keep up with the demand for better and faster news. Without second guessing their resources,
many journalists end up plagiarizing, and thus tarnishing not only their, but also the company's
reliability. Why does this happen so often? According to Jerry Ceppos, vice president for news for
Knight Ridder Inc., the case may be as simple as staff members who aren't aware of what plagiarism is
(Greenwald 23). In addition to that, the small staff of editors that do review articles often aren't
approaching them ethically, nor are they doing so thoroughly with how quickly the news is expected to
be published. Issues like these make it seem impossible to police the media.

Pollard 2
In fact, policing is one of the approaches that needs to change. Jill Rosen recounts one of USA
Today's most frustrating incidents with so-called star reporter Bart Ripp who not only felt the need to
make war scenes even more bloody and graphic than they already were, but also make up people who
didn't even exist, just because the ones that did somehow weren't to his liking (24). Reporters like him
are not uncommon, but often the transgressions are less out of hand. Sometimes instead of faulty
information in a news article, it's recycled words in a review. Upon discussing an issue where many
companies allowed reviewers to simply republish an old review, Ushma Neill warns, if there
is nothing new to say, then dont agree to write the review (2368). It is even trickier business because
many of these reporters have free reign to fabricate information or copy and paste information easily
with a few keystrokes. In both instances, editors and companies weren't looking at the articles
skeptically. They let these writers continue until a reader pointed out a discrepancy, and only then do
they notice a pattern of unethical behavior.
Ironically, readers are the key to how online publishers should rectify the issues with
fraudulence and plagiarism. Recently, with how common reporters will misrepresent things, people are
taking what they read with a grain of salt. Kelly MicBride offers her advice to editors by telling them,
When you see something that seems unusual, check it out.Always assume the reader is asking,
How do you know that? and [make sure the author has] answer[ed] the question in the copy (4).
Newspapers tend to spend a little extra time checking the information, so plagiarism is not as much of
an issue as it is online. Unfortunately, the demand and competition for faster news reports means there
is little time to be spent checking every piece of information. However, what editors should focus on
are hyperlinks and direct quotes. Readers will likely use those links and be suspicious of quotes and
people exalted as reliable sources, especially when they've never heard of them before. Journalists, too,
should learn to only use sources that they can verify. If it's questionable, don't use it. The chance of
having a reader who looks at articles critically and could report suspicious activity that they notice is

Pollard 3
not a risk that any reporter should take.
Some would say that trying to implement new rules would be infringing on a journalists
freedom of speech. If everything required proof just to be considered reliable enough to publish, the
news would be much slower and journalists would struggle with what they could and couldnt quote,
based on which would be easiest to verify. Though the First Amendment emphasizes freedom of the
press, Eugene Volokh reminds us that it implies that what he quotes as fair information practices are
being protected. The reality is the government is kept from controlling any form of communication,
regardless of its fairness (1051). Thus, it is up to the companies to create a standard for its writers. As
infringing as it sounds, the results would likely be better. Articles would have dependable resources,
and self-publishing journalists especially would be considered with a lot more scrutiny, seeing as how
contracted ones would have the advantage of being reviewed and held to a higher standard. Fewer
misreporting and even fewer small mistakes like those related to grammar and spellingwhat media
wouldnt benefit from that, and what reader wouldnt appreciate that kind of reliability? It would
certainly do wonders to someones reputation.
Even as this discussion goes on, media is changing. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter
are increasingly being relied upon to inform readers of local, national, and even international events. Is
there ever going to be a way to monitor what media says? I think it all depends on how the standard is
approached for editors and journalists. At the bare minimum, plagiarism and reporting ethically should
be talked aboutby creating a set standard, everyone can be aware of what their company considers
plagiarism and when and how they should report events. Editors, too, need to focus on the links and
references used in articles. Just because the way news is being spread is changing doesnt mean readers
expect any less from the sources they read from. With a new, yet updatable, method of review, there is a
way to have online publishing and ethics coexist.
Works Cited

Pollard 4
"The Ethics of Editing Online." Copyediting (2011): 4. Business Source Complete. Web. 11 Nov.
2011.
Greenwald, Marilyn. "Beware of 'techo-journalism'." Quill 92.6 (2004): 22-25. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
Neill, Ushma S. "Publish or Perish, but at What Cost?" Journal of Clinical Invesigation118.7 (2008):
2368. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
Rosen, Jill. "We Mean Business." American Journalism Review 26.3 (2004): 22-29.Academic
Search Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
Smith, Steve. "Policing the Journalistic Frontier." EContent 32.2 (2009): 20-24. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.
Volokh, Eugene. "Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right
to Stop People From Speaking About You." Stanford Law Review 52 (2000): 1050-052. Print.