The Ethics of Online Science Journalism

Bruce Lewenstein

When journalists in the United States discuss «ethics and values», their first reaction is usually to turn to various professional codes of ethics (Day, 1991). These codes deal with issues like freedom of the press, truth and accuracy, fair play, and conflicts of interest. They don't deal with social or cultural values. Yet as soon as you look at similar codes in other countries, you discover that professional ethics and values cannot be separated from the surrounding culture (Amnesty International 1984). Even in England, for example, which has a press system very similar to the United States, the notion of «freedom of the press» is very different, because England has an «Official Secrets Act» that lets the government censor the press in ways that we, in the United States, would find «unethical».

Although scientists, and those who work in related fields, often prefer to consider science a culture unto itself, with values that transcend national boundaries, empirical studies have shown that scientific values also vary across cultures. Thus it seems worthwhile to pursue the question of ethics and values in a field that combines journalism and science: the public communication of science and technology (Valenti and Wilkins, 1995). As we will see, the introduction of a third variable --the Internet-- will offer yet more perspectives.

Ethics, values, and science communication

Throughout the world, many people engage in the public communication of science and technology: science journalists; public information officers for government, university, non-profit, advocacy, and industrial organizations; museum exhibit developers; extension agents; scientists who speak or write to nonprofessional audiences; and others. Each of these professional groups has its own set of values and goals; conflicts among them and between them and the scientists from whom they acquire information are frequently due to differences in values. Some conflicts come from different meanings of what "science» is, while others come from differing national and cultural values, such as commitment to economic development, individual rights, or aesthetic surroundings.

For example, journalists in the United States often describe their activities in terms of commitments to «objectivity» and «accuracy» (Hulteng, 1981; Klaidman & Beauchamp, 1987). Those commitments seem similar to the ideals of «disinterestedness» and «truth» that scientists are taught to venerate (National Academy of Sciences, 1989); indeed, journalists say that «Truth is our ultimate goal». But scientists and journalists interpret these terms differently. For journalists, objectivity means presenting both (or all) sides of a conflict, while for scientists disinterestedness means avoiding personal commitments while evaluating the evidence --but then committing to the «right» answer once the evidence has been evaluated. For journalists, accuracy means getting «the facts» right, on deadline. For scientists, accuracy is equated with truth, with taking the time to test information against misinterpretation before expressing an opinion.

The growing international nature of science communication poses new challenges. As science writers from Africa, India, Asia, Latin America, the United States, and elsewhere have begun to communicate with each other, they are discovering that an apparently common commitment to journalism, for example, takes on different meanings in different national contexts. In 1991, a leading American environmental journalist defended «objectivity» and «balanced reporting» as central to the concept of the press as an independent watchdog on other social institutions. At the same meeting, a Philippine journalist called for science writers to become «missionaries» for the environment, abandoning Western ideals of objectivity --because only then, he said, could the press be independent of other social institutions whose activities were degrading the environment (Cornell, 1991). Thus, like the conflict between scientists and journalists described above, a value commitment expressed in superficially similar terms («independent» journalism as a watchdog on social institutions) can represent almost diametrically opposed positions in different national contexts.

The role of the Internet

Now consider the role of the Internet. As journalists and other practitioners of public communication of science and technology rely more and more on the Internet for gathering information and –sometimes-- for publishing that information, new conflicts will emerge as the different cultural values and different national standards shape how journalists, sources, and readers interact.

We are just at the beginning of learning how to deal with ethical issues on the Internet in any field, and not even at the beginning of learning to deal with ethical issues involving science communication on the Internet. Thus, in the remaining portion of this article, I would like to present a case study. The case is based on a real incident. At the end of the case study, I have suggested a series of questions. I hope these questions can stimulate discussion among journalists, journalism students, and other people concerned about science communication. The first step towards ethical behavior is to discuss and debate the issues.

The case study: ComNet

ComNet is a worldwide commercial online service with a wide range of options available to its subscribers. These include databases, e-mail capabilities, and forums for discussion of many topics. Some of these forums are available to all subscribers, while others require a separate sign-up system and are available only to registered users. In the case of JourForum, a discussion group for journalists, only working journalists may post or read messages to the group. Working journalists are defined as those employed by newspapers, magazines, or other legitimate publications; those whose names appear on the masthead of a regularly published magazine; those who belong to one of several professional organizations (such as the Society of Professional Journalists or the American Society of Newspaper Editors); or those who prove their legitimacy by presenting clips of their published work. ComNet is available both through direct modem connection and through the World Wide Web on the Internet.

Subscribers to ComNet agree to abide by the service's «Rules of Behavior», which include prohibitions against objectionable or lewd language, illegal activity, and abuse of the service. Journalists signing up for JourForum are reminded of these rules, and requested to use only their true names, as well as limiting their discussion to issues directly related to journalism. No specific statements are made about whether JourForum (or other parts of ComNet) are on or off the record. Mark Morceau is the «moderator» of JourForum--its creator and, through contractual arrangements with ComNet, the person responsible for ensuring that users of JourForum abide by ComNet's rules.

In a new message to the JourForum, Miriam Zablonsky identifies herself as the editor of a American newsletter about «alternative» (nontraditional) medical treatments. She presents many details about a new drug treatment for AIDS, including information about the research leading to the treatment. She wonders why the media has failed to cover the story, she says.

In a response, Harry Lee, a reporter for an online magazine about medicine based in Europe, suggests that the media usually cover medical stories only after they appear in medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine.

Zablonsky goes ballistic. In a long, biting, bitter message, she complains about a major medical journal that, she says, refuses to publish information about the new treatment. She calls the editor of the journal, Katherine Kelly, «a fat, sexist, lying slob.» Kelly is a well-known commentator on the excesses of tabloid journalism (especially its coverage of medical topics); her columns are often accompanied by her photo, showing a slim, stylish beautiful woman of 42.

A flood of messages appears, condemning Zablonsky's comments. To each one, Zablonsky responds with long, rambling diatribes that suggest a conspiratorial approach to the world, a deep suspicion of any major institution, and a general unwillingness to change or even compromise her positions, no matter what information is presented to her.

At this point (less than a day after the original message from Zablonsky), Mark Morceau posts a message reminding Zablonsky of ComNet and JourForum's rules about objectionable language and abuse of the service (including posting long messages on topics that aren't germane to journalism). In addition, he asks her to apologize to Kelly and to avoid libelous statements in the future.

Zablonsky refuses, citing (among other arguments in another long, rambling message) her rights (in the United States) to free speech and freedom of the press.

Morceau tells Zablonsky that JourForum is not a publication, and so is not subject to rules of free press. It is, he says, more akin to a private club, which can enforce rules on its members. He points to the requirement that contributors belong to professional journalism organizations as one of the ways that JourForum maintains its limited membership. (Zablonsky, it turns out, used to work for a daily paper, and she maintains her membership in SPJ.)

If JourForum is a private club, responds Zablonsky, what she said isn't libelous, because the club isn't a public place or publication. (All of these messages, as with all JourForum messages, are publicly posted so any subscriber to JourForum can view them.) The next day, Katherine Kelly joins the online discussion. She threatens to sue Zablonsky, claiming that she has been libeled in a public forum. The international community of journalists with access to JourForum is so large that it cannot be considered a «private» club, she argues. Any one of those subscribers can read this forum, she reminds Zablonsky, making it equivalent to a trade paper or magazine. It is as public as any traditional publication. Moreover, in a landmark decision in June 1996, a US Federal appeals court described online forums as one of the most important contributions to free exchange of ideas since the development of the printing press. Clearly, Kelly says, the American canons of a free press--including the responsibility of avoiding libel --apply to online forums.

Cynthia Smith has been following the online discussion. She finds the issues of potential censorship, free press, and free speech fascinating. She writes an article about the fracas for her own British newspaper's weekly «News from Cyberspace» page. That page appears on Thursdays in the business section of the paper; it is also available in the newspaper's online edition. In her story, Smith includes quotes from Marceau, Zablonsky, Kelly, and other members of the forum; the quotes are not taken from interviews, but from the messages those people had posted online.

When Smith's story appears, she is accused (in another round of postings in JourForum) of violating the expectation that many journalists had that their words in the online forum were «off the record», and so would not be quoted.

Discussion questions

· Can Zablonsky be sued for libel? In which country or countries?

· Should Smith have asked for permission to quote?

· Does Morceau have the right to control what material appears in JourForum?

· Does it matter if Smith's article appeared only in the traditional paper

format distributed in one country, only in an online supplement to the

newspaper, or in a separate online magazine that does not have ties to a

traditional format publication?

· Is there a difference between Zablonsky's potentially libelous statements

and Smith's potential violation of the standards of on- and off-the-record?

· Is JourForum a public or private place? What difference would it make if

any ComNet subscriber could read messages in JourForum, though only

registered members could post messages there? [Compare JourForum to the

floor of a convention, where members of the press are often identified with

badges so that speakers know they are talking to a reporter.]

· Under what circumstances does a reporter need to identify himself or

herself? At what point do «private» conversations become open to reporting

by others?

· Are online publications subject to different rules than traditional

publications? If so, how do you distinguish between the rules that apply to

publications that appear only online and those that appear in both online

and offline versions? Does it matter if the online and offline versions are

different or edited differently?

· How do different national standards of journalistic behavior shape your

answers to any of the above questions?

Acknowledgments

Many of the issues in the above paper have been developed for workshops offered in Barcelona, Spain; Singapore; Punta del Este, Uruguay; Sydney, Australia; and Ithaca, NY, USA. I thank the many students in these workshops for useful insights. Portions of this article will appear in Bruce Lewenstein, International Perspectives on Science Communication Ethics, Frontiers, The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, June 1997 (in press), and in «Media Ethics Online», in Philip Patterson and Lee Wilkins (eds.), Media Ethics, 3th ed. (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1997) (in press).

References

Amnesty International, Codes of Professional Ethics, Londres, Amnesty International, 1994.

Cornell, J. (ed.), Advocacy Journalism: Reporting on Sustainable Development. Cambridge (Mass.), International Science Writers Association, 1991.

Day, L. A., Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies, Belmont (Ca.), Wadsworth, 1991.

Hulteng, J. L., Playing It Straight: A Practical Discussion of the Ethical Principles of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Chester (Conn.), Globe Pequot Press, 1981.

Klaidman, S. and T. L. Beauchamp, The Virtuous Journalist, New York, Oxford University Press, 1987.

National Academy of Sciences, On Being a Scientist, Washington D.C., National Academy Press, 1989.

Valenti, J. and L. Wilkins, «An Ethical Risk Communication Protocol for Science and Mass Communication», Public Understanding of Science, 4 (2) (1995), 177-194.