The Society of Professional Journalists is revising its Code of Ethics for the first time since 2014, a process driven by the rapid emergence of AI tools and a fundamental shift in who counts as a journalist. The draft update, released after months of virtual and in-person meetings, will be voted on by the broader organization in October.
The 967-word draft is 73 words longer than the current code. It does not mention AI by name, instead referring broadly to "tools and technologies" to keep the document relevant as technology changes. The core message is clear: the journalist bears final responsibility for accuracy, no matter the tool used.
"We don't want people using the excuse of a technology to say that they couldn't produce things ethically and transparently," said Chris Roberts, vice chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee and a journalism professor at the University of Alabama.
Why the code needed an update
The committee identified several pressures that made this revision urgent. The first is artificial intelligence and its potential for misuse in newsrooms. Roberts said the technology "saves them money, but also causes a lot of trouble if it's not used effectively and ethically."
A second pressure is the rise of independent "creator journalists." A Pew study cited in the committee's report found that fully one-third of journalists were freelance or self-employed in 2023. The SPJ wants the code to guide them too, even though compliance remains voluntary and unenforceable.
The third factor is an existential crisis of public trust. "We're talking about a world that does not trust us as much as they did," Roberts said. "We're talking about politicians and others who go out of their way to smack journalism around because it dares point out their shortcomings."
New language on power and accountability
One of the most debated additions replaces a familiar phrase. The original code said: "Give voice to the voiceless." The draft now reads: "Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Counter the unfair marginalization of those with less power."
Committee member Eric Deggans, NPR's critic-at-large, said the old phrasing assumed some groups lack a voice. "It's not that they don't have a voice. It's that too often mainstream news outlets don't pay attention to it or don't even know that it exists," he said. The new language directs journalists to seek out perspectives that are marginalized from coverage, particularly when doing so strengthens a story's accuracy.
The draft also addresses verification, misinformation, crime reporting, and fabricated images. A new line states: "Remember that speed, technology or medium do not excuse inaccuracy or unfairness. Journalists are ethically responsible for their work, regardless of tools and technologies used."
Four principles remain intact
The SPJ, founded in 1909, adopted its first code in 1926 and has revised it only five times since. The four bedrock principles stay unchanged: "Seek Truth and Report It," "Minimize Harm," "Act Independently," and "Be Accountable and Transparent."
Dan Axelrod, chairman of the SPJ Ethics Committee, framed the stakes bluntly. "I'm going to just say it. This is the way to protect democracy. This is to protect society. There but for the grace of God goes a society without journalists."
The committee also noted the shrinking presence of watchdog news outlets and the entry of owners without journalism backgrounds who push personal agendas through news properties. The code aims to set a standard that applies regardless of platform or employment model.
Deggans said he wishes more working journalists would review the code regularly. He also had a message for newsroom owners: "I wish some people who owned journalism outlets would read the code, because too often they're pressuring their employees to do things that are unethical, and the employee has to figure out a way to preserve their journalism ethics and also give the employer what they want."
Why this matters for writers
The SPJ's update draws a hard line on a question every working writer now faces: who owns the ethical responsibility when AI is part of the workflow? The answer, according to the draft code, is you. The tools do not excuse inaccuracy, and the byline carries the accountability. For freelance writers and content creators navigating contracts that increasingly involve AI-assisted production, the code offers a clear professional standard to cite when pushing back against pressure to cut corners. Writers who want to build skills around ethical AI use can find focused training through AI for Writers Courses and AI for Creatives Courses.
Your membership also unlocks:
