Audit Them/George Anthony Kenneth Lopez.

 

Society of Professional Journalists/National Press Photographers Association Codes of Ethics

 The National Press Photographers Associationhttps://nppa.org/nppa-code-ethics

Society of Professional Journalistshttps://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

National Press Photographers' Association Code of Ethics: 

Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.   

Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.  

Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. 

Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. 

Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.  

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. 

Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. 

Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.  

While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. 

Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.  

Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.  

Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.  

Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists. 

Do not engage in harassing behavior of colleagues, subordinates or subjects and maintain the highest standards of behavior in all professional interactions.

 

 Society of Professional Journalists

 Seek Truth and
Report It

Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
  
  
• Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
  
  
• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
  
  
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
  
  
• Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
  
  
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
  
  
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
  
  
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
  
  
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
  
  
• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
  
  
• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
  
  
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
  
  
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
  
  
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
  
  
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
  
  
• Label advocacy and commentary.
  
  
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
  
  
• Never plagiarize. Always attribute.

---

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
  
  
• Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
  
  
• Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
  
  
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
  
  
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
  
  
• Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
  
  
• Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.

---

Act Independently

The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

Journalists should:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
  
  
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
  
  
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
  
  
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
  
  
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.

---

Be Accountable and Transparent

Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

Journalists should:

• Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
  
  
• Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
  
  
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
  
  
• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
  
  
• Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.

Ragomonkey/Rafeal Gomez August 25th 1989

 

Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)

235 US 610 (1915)

…a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers… This is but an exercise of the Police Power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens…

United States Supreme Court

HENDRICK v. STATE OF MARYLAND(1915)

No. 77

Argued: Decided: January 05, 1915

[235 U.S. 610, 611]   Messrs. Osborne I. Yellott, Jackson H. Balston, Clement L. Bouv e, and William E. Richardson for plaintiff in error.

[235 U.S. 610, 613]   Mr. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney General of Maryland, and Mr. Enos S. Stockbridge for defendant in error.

[235 U.S. 610, 618]  

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error was tried before a justice of the peace, Prince George's county, Maryland, upon a charge of violating the motor vehicle law. A written motion to quash the warrant because of conflict between the statute and the Constitution of the United States was denied; he was found quilty and fined. Thereupon an appeal was taken to the circuit court,-the highest in the state having jurisdiction,-where the cause stood for trial de novo upon the original papers. It was there submitted for determination by the court upon an agreed statement of facts grievously verbose, but in substance as follows:

The cause was originally brought July 27, 1910, before a justice of the peace for Prince George's county by the state against John T. Hendrick for violating 133 of the motor vehicle law effective July 1, 1910. He is and then was a citizen of the United States, resident and commorant [235 U.S. 610, 619]   in the District of Columbia. On that day he left his office in Washington in his own automobile and drove it into Prince George's county, and while temporarily there was arrested on the charge of operating it upon the highways without having procured the certificate of registration required by 133 of the motor vehicle law. He was brought before a justice of the peace and fined $15 after having been found guilty of the charge set out in a warrant duly issued,-a motion to quash having been denied. Whereupon he filed his appeal. At the time and place aforesaid he had not procured the certificate of registration for his automobile required by 133. Upon the foregoing the court shall determine the questions and differences between the parties and render judgment according as their rights in law may appear in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proven upon the trial. Either party may appeal.

The Maryland legislature, by an act effective July 1, 1910 (chap. 207, Laws 1910, p. 177), prescribed a comprehensive scheme for licensing and regulating motor vehicles. The following summary sufficiently indicates its provisions:

The governor shall appoint a commissioner of motor vehicles, with power to designate assistants, who shall secure enforcement of the statute. Before any motor vehicle is operated upon the highways the owner shall make a statement to the commissioner and procure a certificate of registration; thereafter it shall bear a numbered plate. This certificate and plate shall be evidence of authority for operating the machine during the current year ( 133). Registration fees are fixed according to horsepower-$6 when 20 or less; $12 when from 20 to 40; and $18 when in excess of 40 ( 136). No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon the highway until he has obtained at a cost of $2 an operator's license, subject to revocation for cause [235 U.S. 610, 620]   ( 137). Any owner or operator of an automobile, nonresident of Maryland, who has complied with the laws of the state in which he resides requiring the registration of motor vehicles, or licensing of operators thereof, etc ., may, under specified conditions, obtain a distinguishing tag and permission to operate such machine over the highways for not exceeding two periods of seven consecutive days in a calendar year without paying the ordinary fees for registration and operator's license ( 140a); but residents of the District of Columbia are not included amongst those to whom this privilege is granted ( 132). Other sections relate to speed, rules of the road, accidents, signals, penalties, arrests, trials, fines, etc. All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself. Section 140a is copied in the margin. 1   [235 U.S. 610, 621]   Plaintiff in error maintains that the act is void because-it discriminates against residents of the District of Columbia; attempts to regulate interstate commerce; violates the rights of citizens of the United States to pass into and through the state; exacts a tax for revenue- not mere compensation for the use of facilities-according to arbitrary classifications, and thereby deprives citizens of the United States of the equal protection of the laws.

If the statute is otherwise valid, the alleged discrimination against residents of the District of Columbia is not adequate ground for us now to declare it altogether bad. At most they are entitled to equality of treatment, and in the absence of some definite and authoritative ruling by the courts of the state we will not assume that, upon a proper showing, this will be denied, The record fails to disclose that Hendrick had complied with the laws in force within the District of Columbia in respect of registering motor vehicles and licensing operators, or that he applied to the Maryland commissioner for an identifying tag or marker,- prerequisites to a limited use of the highways without cost by residents of other states under the plain terms of 140a. He cannot therefore set up a claim of discrimination in this particular. Only those whose rights are directly affected can properly question the constitutionality of a state statute, and invoke our jurisdiction in respect thereto. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152, 161 , 51 S. L. ed. 415, 422, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Williams v. Walsh, 222 U.S. 415, 423 , 56 S. L. ed. 253, 256, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 137; Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 295 , 296 S., 56 L. ed. 439, 443, 444 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; Missouri, [235 U.S. 610, 622]   K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 648 , 58 S. L. ed. 1135, 1137, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 678, and cases cited.

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves. Their success depends on good roads, the construction and maintenance of which are exceedingly expensive; and in recent years insistent demands have been made upon the states for better facilities, especially by the ever-increasing number of those who own such vehicles. As is well known, in order to meet this demand and accommodate the growing traffic the state of Maryland has built and is maintaining a system of improved roadways. Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the state put into effect the above described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential, and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious.

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens; and it does not constitute a direct and material burden on interstate commerce. The reasonableness of the state's action is always subject to [235 U.S. 610, 623]   inquiry in so far as it affects interstate commerce, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30 , 31 S., 28 L. ed. 923-925, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 136 , 38 S. L. ed. 385, 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U.S. 628, 631 , 41 S. L. ed. 853, 854, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 392 , 42 S. L. ed. 780, 791, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 298 , 43 S. L. ed. 702, 707, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 568 , 55 S. L. ed. 328, 338, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.S. 280, 291 , 58 S. L. ed. 1312, 1317, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 829.

In Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 480 , 31 S. L. ed. 508, 513, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, consideration was given to the validity of an Alabama statute forbidding any engineer to operate a railroad train, without first undergoing an examination touching his fitness, and obtaining a license, for which a fee was charged. The language of the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, in reply to the suggestion that the statute unduly burdened interstate commerce and was therefore void, aptly declares the doctrine which is applicable here. He said:

'But the provisions on the subject contained in the statute of Alabama under consideration are not regulations of interstate commerce. It is a misnomer to call them such. Considered in themselves, they are parts of that body of the local law which, as we have already seen, properly governs the relation between carriers of passengers and merchandise and the public who employ them, which are not displaced until they come in conflict with express enactments of Congress in the exercise of its power over commerce, and which, until so displaced, according to the evident intention of Congress, remain as the law governing carriers in the discharge of their obligations, whether engaged in the purely internal commerce of the state or in commerce among the states.'

The prescribed regulations upon their face do not appear to be either unnecessary or unreasonable.

In view of the many decisions of this court there can be [235 U.S. 610, 624]   no serious doubt that where a state at its own expense furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in commerce, interstate as well as domestic, it may exact compensation therefor. The amount of the charges and the method of collection are primarily for determination by the state itself; and so long as they are reasonable and are fixed according to some uniform, fair, and practical standard, they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. Parkersburg & O. River Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691, 699 , 27 S. L. ed. 584, 587, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 732; Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 548 , 549 S., 30 L. ed. 487, 490, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 313; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 329 , 330 S., 37 L. ed. 463, 469, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 622; Minnesota Rate Cases (Simpson v. Shepard) 230 U.S. 352, 405 , 57 S. L. ed. 1511, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1151, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729, and authorities cited. The action of the state must be treated as correct unless the contrary is made to appear. In the instant case there is no evidence concerning the value of the facilities supplied by the state, the cost of maintaining them, or the fairness of the methods adopted for collecting the charges imposed; and we cannot say from a mere inspection of the statute that its provisions are arbitrary or unreasonable.

There is no solid foundation for the claim that the statute directly interferes with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass through the state, and is consequently bad according to the doctrine announced in Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. ed. 745. In that case a direct tax was laid upon the passenger for the privilege of leaving the state; while here the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways, and to charge for the use of valuable facilities.

As the capacity of the machine owned by plaintiff in error does not appear, he cannot complain of discrimination because fees are imposed according to engine power. Distinctions amongst motor machines and between them and other vehicles may be proper,-essential, indeed,-and those now challenged are not obviously arbitrary or oppressive. The statute is not a mere revenue measure, [235 U.S. 610, 625]   and a discussion of the classifications permissible under such an act would not be pertinent.

There is no error in the judgment complained of, and it is accordingly affirmed.

SLO County Observer/Gabriel Rojas

 

Celine Dio My Sacred Heart Will Go On