Journalism Code of Ethics: The SPJ Code in Practice

Dana's story ran on a Tuesday. By Wednesday the school board member she quoted was on the phone, saying he never called the budget "a shell game." Dana's notebook said he did, in hurried handwriting from a hallway. With no recording, it was her notes against his memory, and her editor ran a clarification. (Dana is a composite, not a real person.)

Nothing in that story broke a law. It did run into the oldest rule in the journalism code of ethics: take responsibility for the accuracy of your work before it goes out.

In the United States, the code most newsrooms, journalism schools and freelancers point to is the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics. SPJ members approved a revised version on October 4, 2026, the first rewrite since 2014. This guide explains what the code says now, what changed, and how each principle becomes a habit. You'll get a principle-to-practice table, an anonymous-source note and a 10-point check to run before you publish.

If your interviews still live in a notebook alone, try ParrotNotes free: record the conversation on your phone and check every quote against the tape.

What is the journalism code of ethics?

The journalism code of ethics is a voluntary set of principles that guides how reporters gather, check and publish information. Many outlets write their own, but the SPJ Code is the one most often cited in the US. SPJ borrowed its first code from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926, wrote its own in 1973 and revised it in 1984, 1987, 1996, 2014 and 2026, according to the SPJ Code of Ethics page (checked October 16, 2026).

Three things surprise first-time readers:

• It's not a rulebook. SPJ calls it "not a set of rules, but rather a guide" for anyone who provides news and commentary, "regardless of affiliation or medium."
• It's meant to be read as a whole. SPJ says individual principles "should not be taken out of context." Seeking truth and minimizing harm will sometimes pull apart, and you're expected to weigh them.
• It can't be enforced in court. The code says it "is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable."

So the code doesn't tell you what you must do. It tells you what you'll have to explain if you don't.

What changed in the October 2026 revision

The current code was "Revised October 4, 2026 at SPJ's National Convention in Columbus, Ohio." SPJ's 2026 revision project page (checked October 16, 2026) lists the changes the Ethics Committee proposed before members voted:

• The four principles stay the same. Seek Truth and Report It; Minimize Harm; Act Independently; Be Accountable and Transparent.
• More about character. The preamble now names integrity, curiosity, conscientiousness, humanity and humility.
• Verification and tools. Stronger guidance on verifying where information comes from and on "taking human responsibility for work produced with any tool or technology."
• Misinformation. New language on misinformation, disinformation and the uncritical repetition of provable falsehoods.
• Clearer guidance on power and marginalization, fabricated images, outside content, sponsored content, conflicts of interest, crime coverage, source anonymity and the line between news, analysis and opinion.

SPJ's FAQ is clear that this is not mainly an AI update. The code says "tools and technologies" rather than naming AI. It also doesn't define who counts as a journalist: it covers conduct, not job titles, so it applies to freelancers, students and creators who report.

The four principles in plain terms

Seek truth and report it

Ethical journalism "should be accurate, fair and in context." The code asks you to verify "the provenance and authenticity of the methods, sources and technology used to produce news," to "use original sources whenever possible," to give subjects a fair chance to respond "without exception," and to correct information "throughout the life of a news story." It also covers labeling opinion and the shortest line in the code: "Never plagiarize. Always attribute."

The line worth memorizing: "speed, technology or medium do not excuse inaccuracy or unfairness." A transcript tool that mishears a word doesn't move the responsibility. You do.

Minimize harm

The code accepts that "harm is sometimes inevitable" but asks you to avoid unnecessary harm by balancing "the public's need for information against potential harm," using "heightened sensitivity" with crime victims, juveniles and people "inexperienced or unable to give consent," and remembering that "legal access to information differs from the ethical justification for reporting it." A public record can still be the wrong thing to publish.

Act independently

Avoid conflicts of interest, "real or perceived." Refuse gifts, fees, free travel or special treatment "aimed at unduly influencing coverage." "Do not pay sources in exchange for interviews or information." Keep news and advertising apart and "prominently label sponsored content and partnerships."

Be accountable and transparent

Explain your ethical choices. "Clearly identify the sources and technology that shape the creation of news." "Acknowledge mistakes. Correct them promptly and prominently." And expose unethical conduct in journalism, "including within their organizations."

The SPJ code in practice: from principle to habit

This table turns each principle into habits at three points in a story, built from the code text as revised October 4, 2026.

For quote checking in detail, see how to quote an interview; for planning the hard question, our step-by-step interview guide.

Recording, tape and notes: where ethics meets your phone

The code doesn't name recording consent, but one line covers it: "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless open methods will not yield information vital to the public." Secret recording is surreptitious, so the default is to say you're recording and ask.

The law is a separate question. US states differ on whether one person or everyone in the conversation must agree, and our guide to one-party consent states lists each state's rule. The ethical habit is simpler: announce it, ask, and get the answer on tape.

The recording is the closest thing to an original source an interview produces. File it with the story, so a challenge like Dana's is settled in minutes.

Marcus covers city hall for a small online outlet. He records every interview on his phone, pulls lines from the transcript the same afternoon and plays back each quote before filing. Twice in one month the transcript had a word wrong, and both times the audio settled it. (Marcus is a composite, not a real person.)

A transcript or AI summary helps you find the line. It doesn't verify it. Listening does. Our guide to AI for journalists covers the checks you still own.

The code also asks you to "clearly identify the sources and technology that shape the creation of news." If you use ParrotNotes, name it plainly: transcription runs on Deepgram, and AI features run on OpenAI.

How ParrotNotes fits the code's habits:

• Record openly, in person, on the phone you already carry. No bot joins anything. You hold the phone, so the source sees you recording.
• Find the quote fast. The transcript is searchable, and an AI summary lands on every recording, even on the Free plan.
• Check it against the audio. Play back the exact moment in the recording before you publish.
• Interviews in other languages. Pro transcribes 99+ languages and translates, and speaker identification separates your questions from the answers.

The Free plan includes 100 minutes of recording a month and 5 AI-powered recordings. Pro is $19.99 a month, or $14.99 a month billed annually, with 3,000 minutes a month and recordings up to 3 hours. Already have a recording on file? The free audio to text tool turns it into a transcript. When a pen alone is the better call, our reporter notebook vs voice notes comparison covers it. Download ParrotNotes free and keep the tape behind every quote.

Anonymous sources: a decision note

The code says to "reserve anonymity or confidentiality as a last resort for sources with information of substantial public interest who may face danger, retribution or other harm," to "consider motives," and to "explain decisions to audiences." Three tests, easier to pass if you write the answers down before you agree.

Fill in these five fields in your notes before you grant anonymity:

1. What the source knows that is of substantial public interest, in one sentence.
2. The harm they face if named: danger, retribution or something else, and how you know.
3. Their motive for talking, as best you can judge it.
4. How you'll verify what they said without relying on them alone.
5. What readers will be told about why the source isn't named.

Leila, a freelancer, got a tip from an administrator who asked not to be named. The note showed her gap: she could explain the harm but not the motive. She found a second source with the same documents. (Leila is a composite, not a real person.)

Corrections: the part of the code that builds trust

"Acknowledge mistakes. Correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly." A correction that says what was wrong and what's right does more for credibility than a quiet edit. Keep a short log: date, error, fix and cause. If mishearings keep showing up, change how you check quotes.

A 10-point ethics check before you file

Run this before every story goes to your editor.

1. Every direct quote has been checked against the recording or your notes.
2. Every claim has a source you could name to your editor.
3. Anyone criticized or accused has had a fair chance to respond.
4. Opinion and analysis are labeled.
5. Any illustration or reenactment is labeled.
6. Nothing is copied without attribution.
7. Anonymous sources pass the five-field note, and the story says why they aren't named.
8. Personal details that aren't needed for the story are cut, with extra care for minors and victims.
9. Any conflict of interest is disclosed to your editor.
10. You know which tools shaped the story and could name them to a reader who asks.

The journalism code of ethics is a habit, not a document

The journalism code of ethics fits on one page, and the October 2026 revision kept its four principles intact. What it adds is a sharper point about tools: whatever helped you gather, transcribe or summarize the story, responsibility for every word stays with you.

The habits that carry that responsibility are small: record openly, keep the tape, check the quote, write down why you granted anonymity and correct out loud. Get ParrotNotes free and make the recording part of every story's record.