“Some journalists would rather go to prison than be found guilty of violating the code,” says OsloMet journalism professor Kristin Orgeret.
It’s a self-imposed code that journalists in Norway take very seriously. They work within the code and are judged by it. Orgeret studies these rules.
The code governs how journalists and publishers behave, but Orgeret is more interested in how the rules interact.
“There are tensions between the rules and discussions about whether the one rule is more important than another. That's where the fascinating and complex work starts.”
Creating a code
Norway’s Code of Ethics for the National Press (Vær Varsom in Norwegian, literally “Be Careful”) was first written out in 1936. As tabloids became popular, there was a growing awareness of the power of the written word and a need to professionalize journalism.
It contains four major sections covering the role of the press in democracy, integrity and credibility, journalist behavior, and publication rules.
In a world where propaganda and misinformation are rampant, this code of ethics helps guide journalists and maintain public trust in the institution.
One distinctive feature of the Norwegian code is that it is self-imposed.
Orgeret explains, “in Norway, being a journalist is not a protected title, anybody can call themselves a journalist, so integrity and credibility are very, very important for trust.”
Whether or not to publish
That trust between the public and journalism is the core of the code of ethics. The code is public and transparent; people who feel that journalistic standards have been violated can file complaints that get reviewed by a professional committee.
This process is open to the public and, since the COVID pandemic, available streamed. Transparency is a crucial part of assuring the public that journalists are responsible and accountable for their actions.
This is especially true in covering major events like wars.
“Traditional sources publish fewer images of war and people start to ask whether the traditional media filters the truth, whether they're hiding something,” observes Orgeret.
The truth is, this is often simply because responsible journalism takes time. Platforms like TikTok can immediately share images without stopping to consider their validity or value. In contrast, journalists must carefully vet images before publication to avoid spreading misinformation or traumatizing audiences.
Orgeret asserts that showing these tensions and discussions inside journalism helps build trust.
“It's not always very easy and you have to balance these different parts of the ethical framework. It's important that the readers, listeners, and viewers know about these processes.”
She feels this is critical in a time when demagogues are happy to demonize the press to spread lies and achieve their goals.
The code of ethics may help journalists in different newsrooms find the truth in very difficult situations, be it COVID or a war.– Kristin Orgeret
A code that evolves with the times
The code of ethics has undergone several changes and reevaluations in the almost century since it was written. A major shakeup came in 2002.
Journalists were quick to report on alleged financial crimes committed by former health minister Tore Tønne. Amidst the coverage and swirling accusations, Tønne took his own life
Orgeret describes this as a turning point for Norwegian journalists.
The Norwegian Press Association determined that the news media was following the ethical code, “but journalists are responsible for the consequences when everyone runs after the same target”. Tønne was later cleared of wrongdoing.
#MeToo shakes up journalism
20 years later, with the pressure that everyone faces from social media every day, Orgeret thinks Tønne’s story might seem quaint. Journalism has evolved to better handle its responsibilities.
But the press struggled again in 2017 when the #MeToo movement raised the question of how to balance the public’s right to know with protecting individuals. How can journalists protect both the whistleblowers and people who were accused of sexual harassment?
Orgeret says it’s not always clear where journalists should draw the line.
“Journalism is complex. I think some of the most interesting examples linked to the #MeToo coverage are related to whether you should give the name of somebody.”
Norwegian journalists faced difficult decisions about whether to name individuals accused of misconduct. Should the media prioritize their anonymity – especially when “everybody knows” – and when is it in the public interest to disclose the accused's identity?
To what degree should anonymous victims be used as sources? These are difficult decisions with far-reaching consequences.
Building public trust
“I think most people would be surprised if they knew how many discussions there were internally in newsrooms about where to draw the line during this period.”
The #MeToo experiences led to some changes and clarifications in the code of ethics, particularly about the use of inexperienced sources.
In one instance, journalists filmed a young woman dancing with a politician who was accused of sexual harassment. The newspaper VG interviewed the woman and exploited her inexperience interacting with the media for sensationalism.
She brought a complaint against VG and the ethics board found them guilty of violating five ethical standards, the most severe judgement in history. This led to the introduction of a new guideline: “Do not exploit others’ emotions, lack of media experience, ignorance, or lapses in judgment.”
The goal of these discussions and rule changes is public trust. What do journalists need to do to make sure their work is taken seriously and is in line with societal needs?
“Sometimes you have to keep a source anonymous for safety,” says Orgeret. But in these cases, she stresses that the public should understand that journalists and editors know who the person is and that they have done the extra work to ensure the story is accurate.
Lasting changes
Orgeret says #MeToo signaled a bigger shift in journalism too.
“All the musicians, actors, and nurses that came together showing that they had been sexually harassed at work collectively showed that this is a structural problem, not only an individual problem.”
This shift wasn’t just felt at the time. Orgerets sees the repercussions in her students. “My journalism students, who were teenagers then, say they see a clear before and after.”
Orgeret clarified that the shift wasn’t in the language of the code, but in the awareness of how it should be applied.
“We need to pay more attention to those voices who have never been heard and to those stories ‘everybody knew were happening’ but nobody explicitly addressed.”
Things that were acceptable ten years ago are not today. Now, media houses take extra responsibility for training new journalists on both the code of ethics, in-house guidelines against harassment, and how to interact with them.
Today’s threats to journalism
Journalists face new challenges like the propagation of fake news and propaganda.
“The code of ethics may help journalists in different newsrooms find the truth in very difficult situations, be it COVID or a war.”
Recently, cooperation between newsrooms has resulted in the independent, non-profit fact-checking organization Faktisk.no which has a mission to fact check the public discourse in the country.
Orgeret sums up her views on the code with its last lines, the only part that is in bold:
Words and images are powerful weapons, don’t abuse them.
