Chapter 10

Ethical codes of conduct in journalism

Demands for a digitalising mediascape

Joaquim Fidalgo, Barbara Thomass, Christian Ruggiero,

Mauro Bomba, Simone Sallusti, & Torbjörn von Krogh

Abstract
Codes of ethics are one of the most widespread instruments of (self-)regulation
for journalistic activity, pointing out the best professional practices and ethical
standards to be followed and the need to allow some kind of scrutiny by the
public. Such codes have different names, scope, authorship, range of action, and
enforcement capacity, as can be seen in the various reports of the 18 countries
participating in the 2021 Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research pro-
ject. In this chapter, an historical overview of the evolution of journalistic codes
of ethics in different national media contexts is given, as well as an analysis of
the cornerstones such codes are built upon in various countries. We discuss the
specific virtues and shortcomings of such codes, with a particular emphasis on
the new challenges brought by the digital media environment. The role played by
codes of ethics, compared with the laws that regulate media, is also addressed.
Keywords: journalists, codes of ethics, ethical standards, professional account-
ability, self-regulation

Introduction
Journalistic codes of ethics are traditionally regarded as declarations that
journalists will try to follow the best professional practices and ethical
standards, meet their social responsibility obligations, and accept public
accountability. Their commitment to do so on a self-regulatory basis helps
to protect news media from political interference and, thus, to preserve free-
dom, independence, and pluralism. The country reports of the 2021 Media
for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research project show a vast multiplicity
of such codes, although with different origin or authorship, scope, range of
action, and enforcement capacity, depending on the media context (Trappel
& Tomaz, 2021b, 2021c).

Fidalgo, J., Thomass, B., Ruggiero, C., Bomba, M., Sallusti, S., & von Krogh, T. (2022). Ethical codes of conduct in
journalism: Demands for a digitalising mediascape. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), Success and failure in news media
performance: Comparative analysis in the Media for Democracy Monitor 2021 (pp. 211–230). Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855589-10
211
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

MDM Indicators and related research questions addressed in this chapter:

(E7) Code of ethics at the national level
Does a code of ethics at the national level exist, requiring news media
to provide fair, balanced, and impartial reporting? Is it known and used?
(Trappel & Tomaz, 2021a: 38)

(E8) Level of self-regulation

Does a media self-regulation system exist at leading news media, requir-
ing the provision of fair, balanced, and impartial reporting? Is it effective?
(Trappel & Tomaz, 2021a: 39)

In this chapter, we give an historical overview of the evolution of journalistic

codes of ethics in different media contexts, as well as analyse the cornerstones
such codes are built upon. We then map the existing codes in the 18 countries
participating in the 2021 MDM project and their underlying rationales. Sub-
sequently, we discuss their specific virtues and shortcomings, particularly in
what concerns the digital media environment. We pay special attention to the
challenges deriving from social media in adapting and upholding media eth-
ics. The interviews with editors and journalists conducted for the 2021 MDM
project provide useful insights to enrich the debate, and are helpful in finding
new ways of involving journalists, scholars, and the public in the reflexion of
media ethics issues. Such issues will eventually require some revision of the ex-
isting codes of ethics, because the continuous changes in media and journalism
bring new ethical dilemmas and challenges. This updating process is already
happening in some countries, while still to be materialised in others. Provided
the rapidly changing media context, the development of ethical codes is likely
to accelerate in the near future.

Press freedom and codes of ethics

The starting point for all codes of ethics for journalism is the concept of press
freedom, a guiding principle for all democratic societies. Freedom of the press
is fundamental for democracy, because it condenses a bundle of basic rights:
freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, and freedom to obtain, dissemi-
nate, and receive information (see Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948; United Nations, n.d.). In this function, freedom of
the press includes active advocacy for public forums, defence against state
intervention and censorship of the media, and institutional protection of
these rights. On the other hand, discussions about how to best ensure these
freedoms have been ongoing since the early debates about press freedom
during the Enlightenment.

212
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

A central question within journalistic ethics is the demarcation between the

freedom of journalism and the interests of those affected by it, be it the objects
of reporting or the recipients to whom media content is intended or expected
to reach (Thomaß, 1998). Who defines this balance and according to which
criteria is just as much the result of an understanding of ethics in journalism
and the role the media should play in a society as a question of who controls
this boundary. Essentially, there are two models for attributing this responsibil-
ity: state regulation (through legal provisions) and professional self-regulation
(through codes of ethics).
The press law of a country, valid for all journalistic areas, establishes indis-
pensable prerequisites that are considered necessary in order to guarantee the
functioning of media and to regulate the relationship between individuals, state,
and society and their claims on each other within the communication conveyed
by the media. However, the law is to be seen only as a minimum prerequisite for
ethical standards: The law hinders negative ethics (and codes promote positive
ethics). In other words, “what the law does not forbid, decency forbids” – this
everyday saying expresses the complex relationship between law and ethics,
especially in relation to the media.
On the other hand, there are ethical norms defined by the profession and,
if necessary, laid down in codes. While laws only prevent negative things from
happening, ethical rules can achieve positive results. Codes can correct, sup-
plement, replace, or even contradict the law. Where legislation is insufficient,
inappropriate, or unsuitable, journalistic commitment should take effect. The
development and establishment of professional ethics rules have taken place
in this tension between averting possible legal restrictions on the one hand,
and offering a positive orientation framework for the profession on the other.
Three closely related explanations can be cited for the introduction of profes-
sional codes of ethics (White, 1989). First, a functionalist explanation sees the
introduction of codes of ethics as a protective mechanism for potential clients
or addressees of a profession who are to be protected from the danger of un-
controlled expertise. This interpretation takes on special significance in times
of rapid expansion of new, unfiltered, or uncontrolled knowledge. The rapid
introduction, deployment, and development of new communication technologies
and the resulting concerns may explain the increasing interest in media ethics
in recent decades. Second, a monopolistic or economic explanation argues that
professional codes of conduct are part of a broader mechanism that is designed
to restrict access to the profession so that the relevant professional competence
can be traded as a scarce commodity in the marketplace. Third, a sociological
explanation sees the establishment of professional codes of ethics as an attempt
to secure the social status of a profession within society. This explanation is
particularly valid for the introduction of press codes at the beginning of the
twentieth century in the US. This introduction was based on the considera-

213
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

tion that professionalisation was an ideology intended to safeguard the social

status and political influence of the new middle classes in the US at that time.
In this endeavour, many professions introduced codes of ethics between 1900
and 1930. These codes were written to uphold the individual and community
values that were seen as threatened by the introduction of the large bureaucratic,
anonymous, and competitive forms of enterprise.
The introduction of codes of ethics at the beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury soon gained attention from international bodies; in 1936, the Union In-
ternationale des Association de Presse [The International Francophone Press
Union] formulated ethical principles; in 1939, the Fédération Internationale
des Journalistes (International Federation of Journalists) adopted a code of
honour; and in 1950, the UN worked on an international code of conduct for
the press, but never adopted it because professional organisations in various
countries opposed interference from their governments in this way (Bertrand,
1991). Based on this, the International Federation of Journalists adopted the
Declaration of Bordeaux in 1954. In its own terms, this Declaration “is pro-
claimed as a standard of professional conduct for journalists engaged in gather-
ing, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information in
describing events” (Ethicnet, 2021). It is regarded as a kind of “bedrock” of
commitment “in defence of a quality and ethical journalism” (Ethicnet, 2021).

Issues of concern in a new media environment

As Bertrand (2000) pointed out, ethical codes in journalism are the conventional
means by which media organisations establish the values that characterise their
work, social role, and professional norms, and are closely related to the political
and cultural system in which they are involved and the media system in which
the code is written (Limor & Himelboim, 2006, 2008).
Four central aspects have been identified as necessary to include when putting
media-ethical principles in writing (White, 1989): first, a media-specific applica-
tion of general principles of humanistic ethics (e.g., truthfulness, service to the
general public, objectivity, and preservation of the invocation secret); second, the
respect of basic human rights (respect for privacy, freedom of information and
freedom of thought for journalists, the right to fair payment for professionals,
etc.); third, duties for media professionals (integrity of journalists, decency in
obtaining information, solidarity towards colleagues, etc.); and fourth, duties
for media companies (although rarely included in codes).
In a comparative analysis of ethical codes in more than 50 countries three
decades ago, Cooper (1990) discovered that the codes share three basic media-
ethical aspirations, which he claims to be universal. Cooper clusters these
concepts into the following categories, which are given different weight in the

214
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

respective codes (for an overview of press codes of national and international

provenance, see Ethicnet, 2018a; see also Accountable Journalism, n.d.): the
search for truth – that is, objectivity and accuracy; the desire for social re-
sponsibility – that is, professionalism, accountability, justice, equality, loyalty,
priorities (e.g., to the government, the public, one’s own profession or personal
integrity), adherence to social customs (e.g., with regard to the protection of
personality or the protection of informants), and items that refer to underlying
motivations (e.g., conflicts of interest, corruption, and self-privilege); and the
urge for freedom of expression – that is, free flow of information, regulation,
freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. Although the categorisations of
White (1986) and Cooper (1990) were put up independently from each other,
they follow similar logics: The search for truth can be regarded as the core of
duties (for media professionals and media companies); freedom of expression
is at the core of basic human rights; and social responsibility is a core element
of humanistic ethics, transferred to the media.
In principle, these central aspects and key concepts are just as relevant in a
highly mediatised digital information environment, and they can be found in
more recent codes as well. However, the online-based possibilities for informa-
tion gathering, processing, and delivering, and new actors who have entered and
now dominate the scenery, also create new areas of concern: “The emergence of
digital technology and the evolution of the role of journalism – including much
more active participation of the public – has intensified some of the traditional
ethical challenges and created new ones” (Steele, 2014: viii).
McBride and Rosenstiel (2014: 2–3), who write for the influential Poynter
Institute, present the following:
A new set of Guiding Principles for Journalists, which meld the core values
of journalism with the democratic values of the digital era.

1. Seek truth and report it as fully as possible. […]

2. Be transparent. […]

3. Engage community as an end, rather than as a means.

Interestingly, a systematic analysis of 99 ethical codes from around the world

showed that only 9 out of the 99 analysed codes include references to the Internet
or information and commucation technologies (ICTs) (Díaz-Campo & Segado-
Boj, 2015). In the 1990s, the introduction of new information technologies was
one of the main reasons for updating or reformulating existing codes of ethics
in Europe (Laitila, 1995). Hence, Díaz-Campo and Segado-Boj (2015) ask if the
further development of ICTs have had a similar effect. They find that only in
nine countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Hungary, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and the United Kingdom) do ethical
codes refer to the Internet and ICTs, amongst which codes from Canada, the

215
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

United Kingdom, and Norway appear as most aware of Internet issues (Díaz-
Campo & Segado-Boj, 2015). Apart from general principles applicable to the
online environment, the main topics dealt with in the codes considering the new
digital environments are uses of social media, linking, user-generated content,
and journalists’ use of the Internet. However, Díaz-Campo and Segado-Boj
(2015: 15) lament “a widespread lack of interest and a lack of consistency […].
There are no uniform trends as to how aspects specific to digital journalism are
incorporated into the codes of ethics”.
In our analysis of the interviews with media practitioners conducted for the
2021 MDM project, we investigate if the situation since 2015 has changed and
what place digital challenges have in the codes of ethics.

Different models, similar purposes

An ethical code for journalists (referred to as Code of Practice, Ethical Guide-
lines, Charter of Duties, and so on) exists in all 18 countries participating in
the 2021 MDM research project (Trappel & Tomaz, 2021b, 2021c), although
differing in structure, scope, and degree of detail. The most common pattern
associates the existence of a code with an organisation – a press council – that
supervises the practical implementation of the code and deals with complaints
from the public regarding breeches of the same. Such a complaint mechanism
first appeared in 1916 in Sweden (Nord & von Krogh, 2021), but similar struc-
tures exist in Germany since 1956 (Horz-Ishak & Thomass, 2021) and in Austria
since 1961 (Grünangerl et al., 2021). In 1968, Finland set up a broad Council
for Mass Media (covering press, radio, and television), which is responsible for
an ethics chart – Guidelines for Journalists (Ethicnet, 2018b) – which all leading
news media in Finland have committed to following (Ala-Fossi et al., 2021).
Switzerland also has a national code of ethics (Declaration of a Journalist’s
Duties and Rights), adopted by the journalists’ professional associations and
supervised by a press council (Bonfadelli et al., 2021). The Netherlands has a
similar structure where, alongside the guidelines coming from the press council,
a second national code exists under the responsibility of the Editors-in-Chief
Association (Vandenberghe & d’Haenens, 2021). Rather similar is the case of
Hong Kong, where a code of ethics is elaborated by a press council, but does
not involve all the news media (Lo & Wong, 2021).
The involvement of journalists’ associations in the elaboration of codes of
ethics is common to all 18 countries participating in the 2021 MDM project.
In fact, in a number of them, the direct responsibility for this issue comes from
the journalists’ unions. This is the case of Australia (Dwyer et al., 2021), where
the code was adopted in 1944 and where there is also a press council, as well
as Iceland (Jóhannsdóttir et al., 2021) and Portugal (Fidalgo, 2021), where an

216
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

ethics council exists within the journalists’ union itself, in order to take care
of the code’s observance. Journalists’ associations are also actively involved
in making the codes of ethics in Canada, where no national code exists, but
rather a set of guidelines to help ethical behaviour (Taylor & DeCillia, 2021);
in South Korea, where a Press Arbitration Commission receives and decides
on complaints (Kim & Lee, 2021); and in Italy, where a set of different codes
was assembled into a Charter of Journalists’ Duties, supervised by an unusual
“Ordine dei Giornalisti” [Order of Journalists] (Italy is the only country in the
2021 MDM project where there is an Order of Journalists, a kind of organisation
usually associated with the so-called established professions, such as doctors,
lawyers, or engineers) (Padovani et al., 2021).
Belgium has two codes, one for the French-speaking region and another for
the Dutch-speaking part of the country (Hendrickx et al., 2021). The United
Kingdom has five national codes of ethics addressing journalism in different
media contexts (two of them are for broadcasters, two for editors, and one for
journalists) (Moore & Ramsay, 2021). Greece also has several codes, resulting
from the multitude of journalists’ associations existing in the country (including
an Internet Publishers Association with its own specific Code of Ethics) (Papa-
thanassopoulos et al., 2021). Finally, Chile has one code under the responsibility
of the Journalists College and an Ethics Council associated with a Federation
of Media, and most of the guidelines about journalists’ ethical behaviour are
also inscribed in a separate law (Núñez-Mussa, 2021).

Comparing the scope of codes

Codes vary with regards to both length and level of detail. Some of them (in
Iceland, Greece, Belgium, Australia, and Portugal) are short and synthetic, list-
ing ten to twelve articles where basic ethical principles and duties are presented
in a generic way, with no practical specifications. Other codes (as in Germany,
Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and South Korea) present dozens
of articles evoking the ethical principles but also detailing concrete situations
that may require a specific action by professionals. A large set of “Guidelines
for journalistic work” (Germany; Horz-Ishak & Thomass, 2021) or a long list
of “Standards of practice under the Code of Press Ethics” (South Korea; Kim
& Lee, 2021) are illustrative examples of this extensive model.
In terms of reach, some codes of ethics are directed explicitly at journalists,
and journalists alone: This is the case when codes are developed by journalists’
unions or journalist associations (as in Portugal, Greece, Australia, and Iceland).
In a number of countries, however, the codes are also directed at editors and
publishers (Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Hong Kong). Where this happens,
editor and publisher associations have been involved in the elaboration or

217
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

approval of the texts, or there is an underlying assumption that journalism

ethics also concerns those who are responsible for the working environment in
which journalism is practised. This same assumption is equally present in the
countries where codes are closely linked to the press councils that established
them and which deal with complaints by the public (Austria, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and Switzerland). In some countries, there are specific codes of ethics
for editors, as is the case in the United Kingdom, with the IMPRESS Standards
Code and the IPSO Editor’s Code of Practice (Moore & Ramsay, 2021), or in
Greece, with an innovative code of ethics from the ENED – Internet Publishers
Association (Papathanassopoulos et al., 2021).
In some countries, there are several associations dealing with self-regulation,
not all of which are recognised by media companies. Membership is often vol-
untary, and not all major media are members. In these contexts, self-regulation
mechanisms are weaker, and many ethical guidelines rely primarily on oral
tradition. For example, in Italy, the plurality of codes, charters, and norms has
created a framework that is difficult to harmonise. Moreover, such standards
– according to the Italian interviewees – may be known to professionals but
are seldom considered in practice (Padovani et al., 2021). In Switzerland, on
the other hand, the Swiss Press Council’s code of ethics has little effect, as deci-
sions “can be taken note of – or ignored [and] no sanctions are provided for”,
while corporate and editorial guidelines are contractually binding (Bonfadelli
et al., 2021: 426).
A trend in several of the countries participating in the 2021 MDM project
is the proliferation of specific codes of conduct for a single company or a single
medium. Such codes or internal guidelines exist in Finland, Portugal, Denmark,
Australia, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Belgium, and
Switzerland. Most of them are included in stylebooks that serve as guides for
newsroom work, and they explain in more detail the principles that journalists
(and the medium) are expected to respect.
As for public service media, with their specific status (in terms of ownership,
norms of pluralism, and public accountability), specific codes or guidelines for
ethical conduct also exist in various countries (Austria, Germany, Iceland, and
the United Kingdom, among others).
The scope of most of the existing codes of ethics is strongly marked by the
model of legacy media, with a clear prevalence of the press. Even in terms of
naming, most of the councils that supervise the codes and their enforcement are
named “press council”. Audiovisual areas are not always addressed as explicitly
as the written press, and the same is true for the online media diffused through
the Internet. Only a few countries refer specifically to online media in their codes.
In spite of these traditional marks, some updates are noticeable. For example,
in Finland, the “Guidelines for Journalists” drawn up by the Council for Mass
Media includes an annex specifically referring to “Material generated by the

218
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

public on a media website” – material that “should not be regarded as editorial

material” and is therefore treated in an annex (Ethicnet, 2018b: Annex para.
2). This addendum was made in view of the fact that “the online environment
is changing and developing extremely quickly”, as said by its authors (Ethicnet,
2018b: Annex para. 4). Another example is the Belgium code of ethics of the
French-speaking region (Code de Déontologie Journalistique). This code deals
with ethical challenges such as the presence of journalists on blogs, personal
websites, and social media, and ways to inform about foreigners and refugees
(CDJ, 2020). In Canada, the guidelines from the Journalists’ Association clearly
state that “ethical practice does not change with the medium” and that journal-
ists must “consider all online content carefully, including blogging, and content
posted to social media” (CAJ, 2020: 6) There are even particular “guidelines
for re-tweeting or re-posting information found in social media” (CAJ, 2010).

The role of self-regulation

Media self-regulation refers to a process of setting, implementing, and sanc-
tioning rules produced by media professionals applying to themselves (Puppis,
2009). Self-regulation has an important role to play in ethical codes, which are
meant to protect both the integrity and the identity of the journalistic profession
from external and internal pressures (Laitila, 1995).
In most countries of the 2021 MDM sample, the leading media can rely on
self-regulation mechanisms and organisations for the implementation of jour-
nalistic ethics both at the national and local level – although the rules developed
within individual media outlets at all levels tend to have an informal basis,
linked to the oral culture of individual newsrooms. As Limor and Himelboim
(2006, 2008) argue, codes of ethics differ in terms of authorship, sanctioning
capacity and control bodies. Very often, self-regulatory organisations – such as
press councils, associations, or trade unions that include publishers, journalists,
and other stakeholders – both draw up the standards and codes of ethics and
act as guarantors and judges for the resolution of disputes. The role and weight
attributed to these bodies in the daily work of editors and professionals often
indicate differences in journalistic culture, which sometimes translate into a
formal written code of ethics and sometimes into an informal, oral tradition.
Analysing the MDM data reveals a sort of coexistence between the politi-
cal or legal and the ethical approaches, with different spheres of influence. The
former refers to the macro-level regulation of the journalist profession, specifi-
cally to the government laws and self-regulatory organisational practices that
characterise journalism. The latter invests the profession in the micro-level of
the media company or newsroom, with a difference between written codes and
oral tradition – both rooted in journalistic professionalism. Finally, these two

219
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

approaches are not in any formal conflict, but they do depend on the journalistic
culture of each country.
Investigating how journalists consider the impact of codes of ethics and
self-regulation in their day-to-day work is related to the issue of media ac-
countability. As Fengler and colleagues (2015) state in their comparative study
of journalists from 14 European countries, this kind of recognition involves
analysing the impact of different media accountability instruments. This can
be done by referring to the “classic” influence model developed by Shoemaker
and Reese (1996) and distinguishing – as suggested by Russ-Mohl (1994),
Nordenstreng (1999), and Hafez (2002) – actors involved at the individual,
professional, organisational, or extra-media level. The results that emerge from
the MDM interviews refer, in the model outlined above, to the professional
and the organisational levels: The former is in fact the ideal context in which
to consider the impact of national codes of ethics, while the latter – which
represents a very important point in Fengler and colleagues’ (2015) research,
refers to the level of self-regulation.
As is inevitable when dealing with a subject of such complexity, both from
the point of view of its definition and its effectiveness in journalistic work, in-
terviews conducted with journalists and representatives of journalists’ unions
paint a complex picture with respect to the consideration of codes of ethics and
their relevance in everyday news reporting.

Relevance and effectiveness of codes of ethics

In almost all of the countries participating in the 2021 MDM project, there is
a widespread awareness of the existence of codes of ethics, but in many cases,
one debates their relevance and their actual normative capacity. Self-regulation
mechanisms, far from being a counterbalance to the system of rules codified
at the national level, are more often an extension of it. This is in line with the
results reported by Fengler and colleagues (2015), who already pointed out
that the unanimous recognition of the importance of journalistic accountability
(which coincides with the provisions of national codes of ethics) was matched
by a much more lukewarm recognition of the effectiveness of self-regulatory
mechanisms.
The most virtuous example of self-regulation mechanisms complementing
strong national codes seems to come from Finland: Editors-in-chief, journalists,
as well as both publishers’ and journalists’ associations uniformly attested that
the code of ethics is well-known and followed within the profession. Not only
that, but the rules issued by The Council for Mass Media in Finland have grown
in importance, the director of The Finnish Media Federation states. Furthermore,
media-house–specific rules, in some cases even more rigid than national ones,

220
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

exist and are implemented in the newsrooms of leading media, according to

the president of The Union of Journalists in Finland (Ala-Fossi et al., 2021).
Another interesting case is that of Germany. All of the German journalists
interviewed link respect for ethical codes to what seems to be a deep wound
in their recent history (an example from which to draw inspiration so as not
to make the same mistakes again): the case of the reporting about mass sexual
offences that took place on New Year’s Eve 2015–2016. Following ethical
guidelines, journalists did not report the provenance of the offenders due to a
lack of information from the police, but this led to public backlash and accu-
sations of a cover-up. The journalists thus learned to consult more frequently
the clause in the press code about the naming of ethnic or national provenance
(Hora-Ishak & Thomass, 2021).
There is a significant shift regarding the perceived effectiveness of the different
levels of accountability of journalistic activity when it comes to the southern
European countries in the MDM sample. The very topic that has become a case
study in Germany produces, in Italy, an opposite case, which leads the president
of the Union of Journalists to doubt the effectiveness of existing ethical codes.
On 13 November 2015, after terrorist attacks in Paris, the newspaper Libero
used the front-page headline, “Islamic bastards”: “When a director [uses the
title] ‘Islamic Bastards’ and is not accompanied to the door, all the Codes and
Cards collapse”, bitterly concludes the president of the Union of Journalists.
On the other hand, the Charter of Rome (established in 2008), a deontologi-
cal protocol for providing correct information on immigration in a respectful
way (for example, avoiding “dissemination of inaccurate, sketchy, or distorted
information”), could be considered a sign of the vitality of the debate on jour-
nalistic ethics in Italy (Padovani et al., 2021: 355).
Even more critical voices are heard in Chile and Greece, specifically concern-
ing two related topics. On the one side, they mention a general trend toward
compliance, as one of the representatives of the College of Journalists [Colegio
de Periodistas] in Chile (Núñez-Mussa, 2021) stated: “I would like to believe
that the document is used in newsrooms. However, honestly, I know that it is
not”. On the other side, a representative from the Journalists’ Union of Athens
Daily Newspapers in Greece (Papathanassopoulos et al., 2021) mentions that
specific abuses of codes of ethics are particularly widespread: “Often both
media and journalists disregard the Ethics Code’s provisions, either in order to
serve their personal interests or to serve their medium policy, or even to achieve
higher […] circulation, readership, viewership, etc.”.
In sum, the work to give ethical codes an active role in journalistic practice
is far from finished. Two elements continue to deserve particular attention:
On the one hand, the mechanisms of self-regulation – which are linked to the
newsroom as the environment where journalists’ professionalism and identity
are formed – can have greater effectiveness in their daily work. On the other

221
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

hand, attention should be paid to what Fengler and colleagues (2015) name the
“extramedia level”: The transition of journalistic work, and of the ethical norms
intended to guide it, in the digital age, remains extremely topical. The journal-
ists interviewed for the MDM project maintain a position (well-summarised by
García-Avilés’s 2014 study) according to which journalistic ethics as such should
not have an offline and an online ethic. However, the scarcity of tools provided
by the media outlets of reference to enact a code of ethics truly applicable to
online environments calls into question, again, the need for a more convinced
investment in the tools of self-regulation, whether it is the ethical codes or the
practices of self-regulation developed by trade unions and professional bodies
and by the newsrooms themselves.

Material and moral sanctions for breeches

One of the most frequent debates about journalists’ ethical codes is the actual
strength for deterrence of the codes, as they are not mandatory and nobody
has the enforcement capacity to guarantee they are respected.
These codes are usually the result of a voluntary, self-regulatory commit-
ment of the journalists towards ethical – not legal – requirements. Their norms
are not legally binding (although the demand for a journalists’ code of ethics
may be, in some countries, required by the media laws, e.g., in Denmark and
Portugal), suggesting that the way is paved for impunity. However, that is not
necessarily the case. If the codes are to function at a moral level, there is some
consensus pointing to the fact that possible sanctions should also be moral,
not material. The usual sanction when a journalist (and the medium they work
for) disrespects an ethical norm or principle of the code is an obligation of the
medium in question to publish the critical judgement made by the entity who
receives and rules in complaints of code breeches. Some argue that this obliga-
tion has little or no effect at all, because it does not really hurt the offender
(as would be the case of a cash fine, a disciplinary process, or a suspension
at work). Others argue that material sanctions point to a legal context, and
the so-called judiciarisation of moral norms is not acceptable in a rule-of-law
society (Fidalgo, 2009). According to this perspective, the legal framework and
the ethical framework should not be mixed together.
As Villanueva (2000) points out, there are crucial differences between legal
and ethical norms: The former are “heteronomous”, “imperative-attributive”,
“coercive”, and “general”, while the latter are “autonomous” (created by those
who will follow them), “imperative” (appointing duties, not rights), “volun-
tary”, and “specific” (applied to a particular group of persons). Consequently,
the disrespect of legal norms carries legal, material sanctions, while the disre-
spect of ethical norms should carry only moral sanctions. Public criticism of

222
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

a journalist’s behaviour – made by their peers or a media council where peers

are present – is the most common sanction for journalistic misconduct. This is
actually a strong sanction, keeping in mind that a journalist’s professional repu-
tation is a most valuable asset. This makes self-regulation a difficult challenge:
As written by Mañero (2000: 173–174), the success of self-regulation “demands
a professional and social climate that adequately values ​​the importance of moral
judgments and that does not act only in the face of the imposition of what is
endowed with coercion and external force”.
The effectiveness of a journalistic code of ethics is relevant in order to make
it respected and valued both by those to whom it is directed and by those who
believe in its value to produce quality news. However, turning the code into a
legal set of rules would potentially compete with established laws (which also
exist and have a particular role in regulating media behaviour), while the field
of ethics and of voluntary self-regulation would be left aside as something
without any real importance.

Meeting the ethical challenges of online journalism

Online journalism and digital media undoubtedly imply ethical challenges for
newsrooms. This section analyses how the codes of ethics of media organisa-
tions in the participating countries deal with these challenges.
One way to approach the question is to focus on ethical dilemmas of situations
that only occur in a digital environment, like robot journalism. The example of
robot journalism or news automation, which means that computer algorithms
are fed with facts and construct charts and articles based on those facts, is not
recounted as an ethical concern in the MDM interviews with reporters and ed-
itors. News automation has, however, been studied in a joint project between
six press councils in Europe called “Media Councils in the Digital Age” (2019).
The project’s advice for press councils is to be prepared to handle complaints
about robot-generated content (Haapaanen, 2020). The press council in Finland
proactively issued a recommendation for transparency when publishing robot
material in 2019. Inspiration for future codes can also be found in the Online
News Association’s project for ethical journalism online, which since 2013 has
collected building-blocks for a code of digital journalism ethics (ONA, 2021).
A second approach is to note digital characteristics that amplify already well-
known ethical dilemmas related to personal integrity, such as the wide reach
and lasting nature of online (sensitive) information. In some MDM participating
countries, like Sweden, the attitude so far has been that existing ethical guide-
lines already cover new digital grounds, hence no amendment is needed. But
ethical in-house training for a wider group of journalists than before is necessary
for live online reporting (Nord & von Krogh, 2021). In other countries, for

223
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

example, Austria (Grünangerl et al., 2021) and Australia (Dwyer et al., 2021),
interviewees express wishes for new codes for online and digital media. In a
third group of countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, an earlier
survey showed some clarification of codes stating that existing principles also
apply online, regarding, for instance, respect for privacy and a high threshold
for undercover activities in social media (Díaz-Campo & Segado-Boj, 2015).
A third approach is to be observant of whether the potential power of online
practices might influence journalistic standards of verification before publication.
In the Nordic countries, perhaps especially in Sweden, a culture of restraint has
developed over the last hundred years regarding naming suspected criminals or
wrongdoers before conviction. Then came the #metoo movement in late 2017,
with a surge of previously suppressed statements of sexual harassments and
assaults, primarily in social media. In Sweden, leading national news media
reacted in two ways: The first was to publish petitions with signatures from at
least 70,000 women in 40–50 different occupations with anonymised examples
of abuse that illustrated the structural dimension of sexual harassment and
abuse. The second was to name and shame alleged offenders. The Swedish Press
Council reproached a record number of publications for bringing forth serious
allegations without sufficient verification. Swedish editors have defended their
editorial decisions, referencing the strong pressure from social media, the special
atmosphere that prevailed, and the wish to contribute to a good cause. These
arguments have not yet satisfied critics (von Krogh, 2020; see also Askanius
& Møller Hartley, 2019).
A fourth approach is to acknowledge the existence of a new power structure
regarding the dissemination of news, since the traditional monopoly journalists
once had is long gone due to the expansion of social media. Established news
media try to confront misinformation and earn public trust by transparent
quality reporting, equally representing different perspectives, illuminating
existing control mechanisms applied in newsrooms, and publishing columns
explaining why specific news are chosen. Such measures are complemented by
efforts to increase media and information literacy offered by media regulators
(e.g., Ofcom in the United Kingdom), schools, educational programmes in
public service media, and resources in public libraries.
One example from the 2021 MDM research sample is a media campaign
developed by the Media Council of Finland in March 2018. The goal was to
bring the general audience’s attention to the differences between news organi-
sations committed to following professional ethical guidelines and news from
other sources. Editorial content in print, audio, video, and online were labelled
with a logo for “Responsible Journalism” (see Figure 10.1). A majority of
surveyed editors in Finland stated that they intend to continue using the label
(Communication with the Media Council of Finland).
A fifth approach is philosophical in nature and suggests that since everyone

224
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

Figure 10.1 “Responsible journalism” label

VA S T U U L L I S TA

JOURNALISMIA
Comments: This label has been used in Finland since 2018.

with a mobile device can now be a publisher, “ethics is no longer just the concern
of professionals” (McBride & Rosenstiel, 2014: 217). This approach argues
that media ethics cannot be based mainly on ideals of professionalism, but on
“the precepts of common morality” (Elliott & Spence, 2018: 35). It might be
time to talk more about ethical communication for many than about media
ethics for a few (Fourie, 2017).
The fifth approach poses a question of what media ethics or communication
ethics entail. Veteran ethics scholar Clifford G. Christians (2019) calls not only
for media literacy, but for moral literacy. The technological changes from print
and broadcast to digital “anytime-anywhere communication” have such vast
implications that media ethics need not only be “updated, but re-theorized”
(Christians, 2019: 32). It must be considered beyond journalism and in a global
perspective, based on principles of truth, human dignity, and nonviolence,
where the central view of technology emphasises “the common good rather
than machine-like efficiency” (Christians, 2019: 29).
Press ethics evolved during hundreds of years into written codes of ethics
and press councils. It remains to be seen how long the process of developing
communications ethics for professional and social media will take.

Conclusion
We cannot conclude that codes of ethics for journalism play an important role
in strengthening journalism’s ideal role in democracy. We have found among
the interviewed editors and journalists widespread support for ethical codes
per se, but we do not know how much of this is an expression of rhetoric and
how much of this support is transformed into practice. We have heard examples
from reporters that indicate the real weight of codes in newsroom discussions

225
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

and in contacts with sources. But we have also heard comments that denounce
the importance of codes completely.
What we can elaborate upon is what these codes represent and under what
conditions they may be important. Many codes of ethics originate from times
of media change that inspired strong media criticism and created a need for
journalists and media organisations to respond to this critique. Examples of
such periods are the 1920s in the US, the 1950s in the United Kingdom, and
the 1960s in Northern Europe. Journalists and media organisations strived to
strengthen their positions vis-à-vis lawmakers and the public, while at the same
time formulating guidelines for quality journalism (Laitila, 1995). Codes were
significant in both content and aspirations. The processes behind their elabora-
tion can be analysed from a functional, economical, or sociological perspective.
The content of codes is of course of interest. Codes that are explicit and prac-
tical seem to be more useful as accountability instruments than lofty platitudes:
“Hortatory codes insisting that journalists tell the truth, promote justice, act
honourably, and keep faith with their readers are vacuous rhetoric”, accord-
ing to Clifford G. Christians (2003: 61). Media accountability scholar Denis
McQuail (2003: 284) has also raised a warning finger: “The existence of high-
minded codes does not guarantee deep commitment, never mind enforcement”.
One cannot seek redress for journalistic shortcomings and lack of integrity in
a piece of paper; a dialogue with individuals or organisations is needed to achieve
that. Codes that do not stand alone in splendid isolation but are surrounded by
some kind of institutional infrastructure – such as a media council or a leading
publishing house on the national level and, for instance, a complaints department,
editor’s blog, or union section on the company or local level – have potential to
effectively enforce accountability. This is more likely to happen if the code was
shaped through a transparent process by journalists and editors with input from
sources and users, and not created from above (Christians, 2003; Smith, 2008).
These aspects of a functioning code are fruitful to consider when it comes to
formulating a meaningful and forward-looking code of ethics for digital media
and communication. Learning from the past and looking to the future – today.

Acknowledgements
This chapter is the result of a shared reflection process among the authors as
part of the 2021 MDM research group. The sections “Press freedom and codes
of ethics” and “Issues of concern in a new media environment” were written
by Barbara Thomass; “Different models, similar purposes”, “Comparing the
scope of codes”, and “Material and moral sanctions for breeches” were writ-
ten by Joaquim Fidalgo; “The role of self-regulation” was written by Mauro
Bomba and Simone Sallusti; “ Relevance and effectiveness of codes of ethics”

226
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

was written by Christian Ruggiero; “Meeting the ethical challenges of online

journalism” and “Conclusion” were written by Torbjörn von Krogh.

References
Accountable Journalism. (n.d.). Codes of ethics. University of Missouri. https://accountablejour-
nalism.org/ethics-codes
Ala-Fossi, M., Grönvall, J., Karppinen, K., & Nieminen, H. (2021). Finland: Sustaining professional
norms with fewer journalists and declining resources. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media
for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1)
(pp. 153–196). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-4
Askanius, T., & Møller Hartley, J. (2019). Framing gender justice: A comparative analysis of
the media coverage of #metoo in Denmark and Sweden. Nordicom Review, 40(2), 19–36.
https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0022
Bertrand, C.-J. (1991). Télévision et déontologie: Lois, règlements et codes de déontologie [Television
and ethics: Laws, rules and codes of ethics]. In Les Nouveaux Dossiers de l’Audiovisuel Nr.
36 (pp. 23–35). Institut National de l’Audiovisuel.
Bertrand, C.-J. (2000). Media ethics & accountability systems. Transaction Publishers.
Bonfadelli, H., Meier, W. A., & Schanne, M. (2021). Switzerland: Highly concentrated leading news
media in austerity and downsizing mode. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for
Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp.
381–454). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-9
CAJ (Canadian Association of Journalists). (2020). Ethics guidelines. https://caj.ca/images/down-
loads/Ethics/ethics_guidelines.pdf
CAJ (Canadian Association of Journalists). (2010). Guidelines for re-tweeting or re-posting
information found in social media [Blog]. https://caj.ca/blog/guidelines-retweeting-repost-
ing-social-media
CDJ [Conseil de Déontologie Journalistique]. (2020). Code de déontologie journalistique [Code
of journalism ethics]. https://www.lecdj.be/wp-content/uploads/Code-deonto-MAJ-2017.pdf
Christians, C. (2003). Social responsibility, corporate morality, and codes of ethics. In C.-J. Bertrand
(Ed.), An arsenal for democracy: Media accountability systems (pp. 49–62). Hampton Press.
Christians, C. (2019). Media ethics and global justice in the digital age. Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316585382
Cooper, T. (1990). Comparative international media ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 5(1),
3–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327728jmme0501_1
Díaz-Campo, J., & Segado-Boj, F. (2015). Journalism ethics in a digital environment: How jour-
nalistic codes of ethics have been adapted to the internet and ICTs in countries around the
world. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.03.004
Dwyer, T., Wilding, D., & Koskie, T. (2021). Australia: Media concentration and deteriorating
conditions for investigative journalism. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for De-
mocracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp.
59–94). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-2
Elliott, D., & Spence, E. (2018). Ethics for a digital era. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118968888
Ethicnet. (2018a). Collection of codes of journalism ethics in Europe. Tampere University. https://
research.tuni.fi/ethicnet/
Ethicnet. (2018b). Guidelines for journalists: Country: Finland. https://research.tuni.fi/ethicnet/
country/finland/guidelines-for-journalists/
Ethicnet. (2021). Journalism ethics. IFJ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists.
https://research.tuni.fi/ethicnet/country/ifj-declaration-of-principles-on-the-conduct-of-journalists/
Fengler, S., Eberwein, T., Alsius, S., Baisnée, O., Bichler, K., Dobek-Ostrowska6, B., Evers, H.,
Glowacki, M., Groenhart, H., Harro-Loit, H., Heikki Heikkilä, H., Jempson, M., Karma-
sin, M., Lauk, E., Lönnendonker, J., Mauri, M., Mazzoleni, G., Pies, J., Porlezza, C., …

227
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

Zambrano, S. (2015). How effective is media self-regulation? Results from a comparative

survey of European journalists. European Journal of Communication, 30(3), 249–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114561009
Fidalgo, J. (2009). O lugar da ética e da auto-regulação na identidade profissional dos jornalistas
[The role of ethics and self-regulation in journalists’ professional identity]. Fundação Calouste
Gulbenkian/FCT.
Fidalgo, J. (2021). Portugal: Impoverished media struggling for survival. In J. Trappel, & T.
Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media sur-
vive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 297–352). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-7
Fourie, P. (2017). Normative media theory in the digital media landscape: From media ethics to
ethical communication. Communication, 43(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/0250016
7.2017.1331927
García-Avilés, J. (2014). Online newsrooms as communities of practice: Exploring dig-
ital journalists’ applied ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(4), 258–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2014.946600
Grünangerl, M., Trappel, J., & Tomaz, T. (2021). Austria: Confirmed democratic performance while
slowly digitalising. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021:
How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 95–152). Nordicom,
University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-3
Haapanen, L. (2020). Media councils and self-regulation in the emerging era of news automation.
Council for Mass Media in Finland.
Hafez, K. (2002). Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe, North
Africa in the Middle East and Muslim Asia. Political Communication, 19(2), 225–250.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600252907461
Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867
Hendrickx, J., Truyens, P., Donders, K., & Picone, I. (2021). Belgium (Flanders): News diversity
put under pressure. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor
2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 7–42). Nordicom,
University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-1
Horz-Ishak, C., & Thomass, B. (2021). Germany: Solid journalistic professionalism and
strong public service media. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy
Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 197–256).
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-5
Jóhannsdóttir, V., Ólafsson, J. G., & Guðmundsson, F. Þ. (2021). Iceland: A small media system
facing increasing challenges. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy
Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 275–314).
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-7
Kim, E., & Lee, J. (2021). South Korea: Relatively healthy, still trying hard to adapt to digitalisation.
In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading
news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 387–424). Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-9
Laitila, T. (1995). Journalistic codes of ethics in Europe. European Journal of Communication,
10(4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323195010004007
Limor, Y., & Himelboim, I. (2006). Journalism and moonlighting: An international comparison of
242 codes of ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(4), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327728jmme2104_4
Limor, Y., & Himelboim, I. (2008). Media perception of freedom of the press: A com-
parative international analysis of 242 codes of ethics. Journalism, 9(3), 235–265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884907089007
Lo, W. H., & Wong, T. C. (2021). Hong Kong: Free press under existential threat. In J. Trappel,
& T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media
survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 231–274). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-6

228
 ETHICAL CODES OF CONDUCT IN JOURNALISM

Mañero, C. (2000). Los mecanismos de autorregulación en los medios de comunicación españoles

[Self-regulation mechanisms in Spanish media]. In H. Aznar, & E. Villanueva (Eds.), Deon-
tología y autorregulación informativa – Ensayos desde una perspectiva comparada [Ethics
and journalistic self-regulation – Essays from a comparative perspective] (pp. 169–204).
Universidad Iberoamericana.
McBride, K., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The new ethics of journalism: Principles for the 21st century. Sage.
McQuail, D. (2003). Media accountability and freedom of publication. Oxford University Press.
M e d i a C o u n c i l s i n t h e D i g i t a l A g e . ( 2 0 1 9 ) . P r o j e c t p r e s e n t a t i o n f r o m A I P C E.
https://www.presscouncils.eu/about
Moore, M., & Ramsay, G. (2021). United Kingdom: Economic challenges, market consolidation
and increasing professional insecurity. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for
Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp.
455–520). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-10
Nord, L., & von Krogh, T. (2021). Sweden: Continuity and change in a more fragmented media
landscape. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021:
How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 353–380). Nordicom,
University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-8
Nordenstreng, K. (1999). European landscape of media self-regulation. In OSCE (Ed.), Freedom
and responsibility yearbook 1998/99 (pp. 169–185). OSCE.
Núñez-Mussa, E. (2021). Chile: Crisis of trust and a precarious industry. In J. Trappel, & T.
Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media sur-
vive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 85–146). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-3
ONA. (2021). Build your own ethics code. Online News Association. Retrieved March 6, 2021,
from https://ethics.journalists.org
Padovani, C., Bobba, G., Baroni, A., Belluati, M., Biancalana, C., Bomba, M., Fubini, A., Mar-
razzo, F., Rega, R., Ruggiero, C., Sallusti, S., Splendore, S., & Valente, M. (2021). Italy: A
highly regulated system in search of equality. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for
Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transforma-
tion (Vol. 2) (pp. 315–386). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.
org/10.48335/9789188855428-8
Papathanassopoulos, S., Karadimitriou, A., Kostopoulos, C., & Archontaki, I. (2021). Greece:
Media concentration and independent journalism between austerity and digital disruption.
In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading
news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 177–230). Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-5
Puppis, M. (2009). Organisationen der Medienselbstregulierung: Europäische Presseräte im
Vergleich [Organisations of media self-regulation: European press councils in comparison].
Herbert von Halem Verlag.
Russ-Mohl, S. (1994). Der I-Faktor: Qualitätssicherung im amerikanischen Journalismus: Modell
für Europa? [The I-factor: Safeguard of quality in American journalism: Model for Europe?].
Edition Interfrom.
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media
content (2nd ed.). Longman.
Smith, S. A. (2008). “And the walls come tumbling down”: From fortress newsroom to transparent
newsroom. In T. von Krogh (Ed.), Media accountability today… and tomorrow: Updating
the concept in theory and practice (pp. 49–58). Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-10026
Steele, B. (2014). Journalism ethics then and now. In K. McBride, & T. Rosenstiel (Eds.), The new
ethics of journalism: Principles for the 21st century (pp. vii–ix). Sage.
Taylor, G., & DeCillia, B. (2021). Canada: A strong foundation with an uncertain future. In
J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading
news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2) (pp. 43–84). Nordicom, University of
Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-2

229
 JOAQUIM FIDALGO, BARBARA THOMASS, CHRISTIAN RUGGIERO, MAURO BOMBA,
SIMONE SALLUSTI, & TORBJÖRN VON KROGH

Thomaß, B. (1998). Journalistische Ethik: Ein Vergleich der Diskurse in in Frankreich, Großbri-
tannien und Deutschland [Journalism ethics: A comparison of discourses in France, United
Kingdom and Germany]. Westdeutscher Verlag.
Trappel, J., & Tomaz, T. (2021a). Democratic performance of news media: Dimensions and indi-
cators for comparative studies. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy
Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 11–58).
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-1
Trappel, J., & Tomaz, T. (Eds.). (2021b). The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading
news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1). Nordicom., University of Gothenburg.
https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404
Trappel, J., & Tomaz, T. (Eds.). (2021c). The Media for Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading
news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2). Nordicom., University of Gothenburg.
https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428
United Nations. (n.d.). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/
universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Vandenberghe, H., & d’Haenens, L. (2021). The Netherlands: On media concentration and
resilient freelance journalists. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), The Media for Democracy
Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 1) (pp. 257–296).
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855404-6
Villanueva, E. (2000). Deontología informativa: Para qué? [Journalism ethics: What for?]. In H.
Aznar, & E. Villanueva (Eds.), Deontología y autorregulación informativa – Ensayos desde una
perspectiva comparada [Ethics and journalistic self-regulation – Essays from a comparative
perspective] (pp. 15–32). Universidad Iberoamericana.
von Krogh, T. (2020). Metoo och hanteringen av mediernas ansvar: Norge har det verktyg Sverige
saknar’ [Metoo and the responsibility of the media: Norway has the tool that Sweden lacks].
In L. Truedson (Ed.), Uthängd – inte bara #metoo [Exposed – not only #metoo] (pp. 32–90).
Institutet för mediestudier.
White, R. (1989). Social and political factors in the development of communication ethics. In T.
Cooper, with C. Christians, F. Plude, & R. White (Eds.), Communication ethics and global
change (pp. 40–65). Longman.

© 2022 Respective authors. This is an Open Access work licensed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Public licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of the licence, visit https://crea-
tivecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

230