Scoff law

Hawaii adores SPJ’s Code of Ethics – for all the wrong reasons.

Last night over dinner, I told my wife that Hawaii state senators want to pass a law requiring journalists to “comply with the code of ethics adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists.”

“Wow,” she said between bites. “That’s great!”

“Not really,” I replied. “It actually sucks.”

For the rest of the meal, we discussed why SPJ isn’t at all flattered.

No to the Aloha State

On Monday, a bill simply called Relating to Journalism passed on its first reading. While it still has a long way to go before it becomes law in Hawaii, SPJ is already mad, sad, and scared.

My wife didn’t understand why.

“Doesn’t SPJ want people to know about your Code of Ethics? Don’t you want journalists to obey it?”

Yes and yes. But not under threat from the government.

Here’s the problem: Hawaii state leaders aren’t asking SPJ to ensure journalists follow its code. They’ll appoint a “journalistic ethics review board” to do that.

The thing about political appointments is that they’re, well, political.

You can easily imagine this sleazy scenario…

A reporter investigates Hawaii’s Senate majority leader for taking bribes. He’s outraged at the accusations and demands the “journalistic ethics review board” punish the reporter. Board members do so because, hey, the Senate appointed them in the first place.

It’s not far-fetched. In 2022, Hawaii’s Senate majority leader J. Kalani English and a state representative were charged with taking bribes to influence legislation. (These included the stereotypical cash-stuffed envelopes, but also casino chips, which is one I hadn’t heard before.)

If the “journalistic ethics review board” was around back then, who knows what could’ve happened to the reporters breaking the story?

Lobbying for less power

Even if Hawaii lawmakers asked SPJ to serve on its review board – or serve as the review board – SPJ would still say no.

“The Hawaii bill might feel good to an observer who has seen an example of poor, or even unethical, journalism,” says former SPJ ethics chair Andy Schotz. “But it tramples over a hard line that’s mandatory in this country: Government doesn’t run press operations or policy or practices or standards. It needs to stop pretending that it does or can or should.”

I’ve been married for 26 years, so I know when my wife is thinking something and not saying it. I know she was thinking, Well, at least you should be flattered.

And I am. I really believe Hawaii senators are trying to do the right thing – because if they wanted to oppress the press, there are more direct and brutal tactics than a “journalistic ethics review board.”

A blank check

Of course, there’s no point in enacting a law if there’s no punishment for breaking it. The Senate bill lists three…

• A public notice of non-compliance; 
• A fine of not less than $           for each separate offence;
• Suspension or revocation of state media privileges, including press credentials for government-sponsored events

That’s not a typo on the dollar figure. It’s blank in the bill.

That’s a sign this concept isn’t fully formed. The other punishments also show a lack of foresight.

What’s “a public notice of non-compliance”? How do you make that public? The best way is through the news media. I doubt they’ll cooperate.

As for revoking reporters’ access to “government-sponsored events,” the First Amendment annoyingly makes that illegal. The government can’t punish you for exercising free speech.

So who can punish you? Your boss.

“Ethical enforcement is the role of employers, and most news industry employers have their own codes of ethics, many of them based on the SPJ code,” says former ethics chair Fred Brown. “Those are enforceable as a condition of employment. But that’s the employer’s job, not the government’s.”

Chew on that.

Read SPJ’s formal statement. SPJ will submit testimony to the Hawaii Senate objecting to the bill.