The Society of Professional Journalists membership has voted to approve revisions to its Code of Ethics after the SPJ board of directors endorsed the changes Sept. 25. SPJ members approved the revisions, with 93% voting in favor in the 2026 election conducted during its national convention. Results were announced during the closing membership meeting at SPJ26 in Columbus, Ohio.
The updated Code provides journalists with guidance for navigating an increasingly complex media environment while preserving the four principles that have long anchored SPJ’s approach to journalism ethics: Seek Truth and Report It; Minimize Harm; Act Independently; and Be Accountable and Transparent.
The revisions address artificial intelligence and machine-generated content, accuracy and verification, misinformation and disinformation, source transparency, fairness in reporting on allegations, the representation of marginalized perspectives, the responsible treatment of potentially harmful or hateful content and the ways journalists’ own experiences and assumptions can influence their work.
“Journalism continues to change, but our responsibility to the public remains,” said SPJ Immediate Past National President Chris R. Vaccaro. “This updated Code gives journalists a framework for applying enduring ethical principles to the challenges they face today and the challenges still to come.”
SPJ began the revision process in October 2025, when Vaccaro appointed Dan Axelrod to chair the Ethics Committee and Axelrod named Chris Roberts vice chair and co-leader of the revision effort. They assembled a committee of 16 journalists, educators, ethics scholars and leaders representing a range of platforms, regions and professional backgrounds, with guidance from special advisers. Members met monthly, while subcommittees worked on specific areas of the Code.
The committee surveyed more than 700 people, held public discussions during Ethics Week, conducted an in-person review in Indianapolis and consulted current and former SPJ leaders, past Ethics Committee members and outside advisers before releasing its proposed revisions report Aug. 10.
“An effective ethics code has to reflect the world in which journalists are actually working,” said Axelrod. “These revisions recognize new challenges without losing sight of the fundamental responsibilities that define ethical journalism.”
The revised Code comes as journalism continues to evolve in response to new technologies, changing news-consumption habits and the growing number of people producing and distributing information to the public.
“Journalists routinely face choices where technology, competing interests and the potential for harm make ethical decision-making more complicated,” Roberts said. “The revised Code provides a clearer foundation for navigating those choices.”
The SPJ Code of Ethics is a voluntary framework for ethical decision-making. It does not establish who qualifies as a journalist or function as a set of enforceable rules. Instead, it provides guidance for journalists and others who gather and share information with the public.
“This is more than an update to a document,” said newly sworn-in SPJ National President Nicole DeCriscio. “As technology and the ways people receive information continue to evolve, journalists will need clear, durable principles to guide their work. The updated Code helps ensure SPJ remains a leader in that conversation.”
Members also voted for a bylaws change, which gives the SPJ board of directors the authority to determine conduct standards for SPJ events and activities. It passed with 86% of the vote.
In other voting, Stacie Overton Johnson earned the most votes in the vice presidential race. Patricia Gallagher Newberry was voted secretary-treasurer. Marty Fischhoff and Jillian Melero were voted directors at-large on the SPJ board of directors. Christine McGrath was voted Region 1 coordinator; Ginny McCabe was elected Region 4 coordinator; Marcus Green was elected Region 5 coordinator; and McKenzie Romero was elected Region 9 coordinator.
Learn more about the updated Code of Ethics and the revision process.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here