简体中文
English
Website review
This review may include AI-generated content and is not individually verified. Domain, certificate and other facts come from the observed data on this page.
What is the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists?
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists is a service that lets journalists submit ethics questions for guidance, or call a phone line—866-DILEMMA (866-345-3662)—to talk through a dilemma. Its published material covers practical newsroom ethics topics, including minimizing harm and weighing benefits against harms, with case studies such as "Interviewing AI."
Who it is for and how to use it
It suits reporters, editors and freelancers facing a live decision: whether to name a source, how to handle sensitive images, when a conflict of interest needs disclosing, or how much weight to give a company's preferred framing. A useful first step is to write down the facts, the competing obligations (to sources, audiences, employers, the public interest) and the options you are considering before you submit or call. That turns a broad worry into a specific question the advisers can address.
What it is not
It is advice, not a ruling: it does not enforce industry codes or resolve legal exposure. For legal risk, consult a media lawyer; for a formal judgment on a professional standards breach, a newsroom's own standards editor or an industry council is the relevant route. The value here is a second opinion on the ethical reasoning, especially when deadline pressure pushes a decision toward what is merely convenient.
Decision criterion
Use it when the harm is hard to undo and reasonable colleagues disagree—publishing a leaked document, identifying a vulnerable person, or accepting a source's conditions. If the issue is mainly legal, contractual or technical, start elsewhere and use this line for the ethics dimension.
How do I submit an ethics question to the AdviceLine?
Submit your question through the AdviceLine's website form or by phone at 866-DILEMMA (866-345-3662). The site presents both routes as equally valid: the form suits a detailed, written scenario you can lay out in full, while the phone line suits a situation where you want to talk it through with someone before you decide what to do.
What to have ready
The more concrete your account, the more useful the response. Before you write or call, gather:
- The decision you are actually facing, stated in one or two sentences.
- The facts a reader would need: what you know, what you only suspect, and what you have not confirmed.
- The competing pressures — deadline, a source's safety, an editor's instruction, a legal threat, a subject's privacy.
- What you have already considered doing, and why you are uneasy about it.
Which route fits
| Situation | Better fit |
|---|---|
| Complex backstory, documents to quote, several parties involved | Written submission |
| Fast-breaking decision, or you think best out loud | Phone line |
| You want a record of your question and the guidance | Written submission |
| You are unsure whether it is even an ethics problem | Either; a short call can clarify quickly |
A practical example
A reporter has a source who will confirm a story only if kept completely anonymous, but the source's identity would be obvious to anyone who knows the organisation. The reporter can write out the anonymity arrangement, what identifying details appear in the piece, and what alternatives were rejected — then ask whether the promise is defensible. On the phone, the same reporter could describe the pressure and get a faster read on whether the deal is standard practice or a trap.
How to judge the answer you get
Treat the guidance as a second opinion, not a ruling. Ask yourself whether the reasoning addresses your specific facts rather than ethics in the abstract, and whether it names the harm you would be accepting, not just the principle you would be upholding. If the advice assumes facts you have not established, say so and ask again.
If your question involves AI tools in reporting, the site's own case study on interviewing AI shows the kind of territory it covers — weighing harm against benefit when technology changes how material is gathered.
What happens after I call 866-DILEMMA with a journalism ethics dilemma?
Calling 866-DILEMMA connects you to the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists, a service that takes questions from journalists facing ethical decisions. The line's own framing is simple: submit your question or phone in. In practice, that means you describe the situation and get advice from people experienced in journalism ethics, rather than a scripted customer-service response.
What the call is for
The AdviceLine is built around real dilemmas, not general curiosity. Typical situations include:
- Whether to publish a name, image or detail that could harm a private person.
- How to handle a source who wants anonymity or who changes the terms of an interview.
- Conflicts of interest, such as a reporter's personal connection to a story.
- Pressure from editors, owners or advertisers that conflicts with accuracy or fairness.
The page's own case material shows the range: a recent case study examined interviewing AI, weighing harms and benefits, and technology coverage. That is a useful signal that the line takes questions about new and unfamiliar territory, not just classic print-newsroom problems.
What to expect
The AdviceLine offers guidance, not a ruling. You remain responsible for the decision. A useful way to prepare is to write down four things before you call:
- The facts, in one paragraph.
- The specific decision you face.
- The options you see, including the one you are leaning toward.
- Who could be harmed or helped by each option.
That structure lets the person on the line get to the heart of the matter quickly and give you reasoning you can apply to similar cases later.
A practical next step
If your deadline is tight, call rather than write, and say up front how much time you have. If you are not sure whether the issue is serious enough to warrant a call, ask yourself whether you would be comfortable explaining your choice to the public. If not, it is worth the call. For written guidance and case discussions in the meantime, see Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists. The Society of Professional Journalists' code at Society of Professional Journalists is also a common reference point for weighing harm and benefit, and the Poynter Institute at Poynter publishes ethics casework that can help you frame the question before you dial.
Can the AdviceLine help with AI-related ethical decisions in journalism?
Yes. The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists is built for exactly the kind of question AI now raises in newsrooms, and its published case material shows it treating AI as an editorial ethics problem rather than a technology story. The line takes questions by submission or by phone at 866-DILEMMA (866-345-3662), and its case studies cover media ethics, minimizing harm, and weighing benefits against harm.
What it is suited to
The AdviceLine is a confidential-sounding place to think through a decision before publication, not a technical help desk. Its AI-related case study, "Interviewing AI," is framed around philosophy, technology, and harm — the questions an editor or reporter faces when a tool is part of the reporting process itself. Typical questions it can help with:
- Whether to disclose AI use to sources, subjects or audiences.
- How to weigh a genuinely useful AI-assisted finding against the risk of error or unfairness to someone named in the story.
- Whether a novel technique — interviewing a chatbot, using generated imagery, scraping a model's output — meets the same standards as conventional reporting.
- How to frame coverage of AI companies when the same firms are sources, advertisers or platforms.
Where it stops
It offers advice, not rulings, and it will not supply technical validation of a model's output, legal review, or a newsroom's disclosure policy. For the underlying research on AI risk and governance, general reporting is more useful; the site's own material cites appearances by OpenAI and Anthropic leaders before the UN Security Council and a White House commitment to self-policing. Those are context for why the ethical questions are live, not answers to your specific case.
A practical next step
Write down the decision in one sentence, then list who is helped and who could be harmed, and what you would tell the audience if you had to explain the choice on air. If the harm column is not clearly smaller, that is the question to put to the AdviceLine before you publish.
For comparison, a newsroom facing an AI disclosure question might also consult the standards work of the Society of Professional Journalists or the ethics guidance at Press Council-style bodies, but the AdviceLine is the one built for a single, confidential judgment call from a working journalist.
Is the Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists free to use?
Yes. The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists is free to use. The site presents itself as a service where journalists can submit an ethics question or call a hotline (866-DILEMMA / 866-345-3662), and the page evidence shows no pricing, subscription tiers, or payment platforms. It reads as a public service rather than a paid consultation product.
What that means in practice
- A freelance reporter facing a dilemma — say, whether to name a minor in a story about a local arrest — can send the question in or call without budgeting for it.
- A newsroom editor weighing a sensitive decision can use it as an outside second opinion at no cost.
- It is an advice line, not a legal service. Free access does not make the guidance a substitute for a lawyer, and it does not guarantee a particular outcome for your story.
Next step
If you want to use it, have the key facts ready before you reach out: your deadline, what you know and don't know, who could be harmed, and what options you're considering. That framing speeds up any ethics consultation and helps you compare the advice against your own newsroom's standards.
For broader written guidance alongside a hotline, the Society of Professional Journalists publishes its own ethics code at Society of Professional Journalists, and the Poynter Institute offers ethics training and articles at Poynter Institute.
Who answers the questions submitted to the Ethics AdviceLine?
The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists does not answer submitted questions with an automated system or a general-purpose chatbot. Its model is expert, human guidance: journalists submit a question, and the response comes from people with journalism-ethics expertise rather than from a script. The site presents itself as a place to send a question or call a hotline, which signals a consultation service rather than a self-serve FAQ. The published material also shows the AdviceLine producing its own case-study commentary, such as a piece on interviewing AI, so the guidance is written by identifiable contributors rather than generated anonymously.
For a working journalist, the practical value is a second opinion on a live decision: whether to name a source, how to handle graphic material, when a conflict of interest needs disclosure, or how to frame an AI-assisted story. A reporter on deadline can describe the situation and get a judgment call from someone who has weighed similar trade-offs.
How to use it well
- Submit a specific question. State the decision you face, the deadline, and the competing obligations (accuracy, harm minimization, promises to sources).
- Include what you have already considered. That lets the adviser respond to your reasoning rather than start from scratch.
- Expect judgment, not a rulebook. Ethics advice usually lays out options and their consequences; it rarely produces a single mandatory answer.
- Use the phone line when time is short. A live conversation suits urgent calls better than written back-and-forth.
Decision criterion
Choose this service when the question is genuinely about ethics—competing values, not just legality or style—and when you want an experienced human perspective you can cite in a newsroom discussion. If you need a formal ruling from a professional body, or legal advice about defamation or privacy law, this is not the right channel.
A useful next step: before submitting, write your question in two sentences—one naming the decision, one naming the harm you are trying to avoid. That framing tends to produce a more direct and usable answer.
GoDaddy
User reviews (0)