Civic Media News Ethics and Standards

Est. Dec. 2025

Introduction

Journalism runs on integrity and public trust. Our work only functions when our audience believes we tell the truth, act with care, and hold ourselves to professional and industry standards.

So we better do that. This code applies to Civic Media’s news reporters and news freelancers. It sets the standards that guide and protect our reporting. It reflects our values, explains our operating principles, and outlines the expectations we hold for ourselves and each other. These principles do not shield us from scrutiny—nor should they!—but they do help bulletproof the work we do.

This code is not exhaustive. When faced with a difficult decision, it is helpful to consider how a credible newsroom you trust would handle the same situation. Which choices would strengthen your trust in their reporting? Which choices would erode it? Let those questions guide your judgment.

And, seek help. When confronted with a situation that causes hesitation or uncertainty, consult your news colleagues: your editor, or the News Director. They may seek additional input from leadership, outside advisors, or legal counsel when necessary.

This code was developed with reference to multiple ethics codes and standards, including the RTDNA Code of Ethics, the ONA Ethics “Build Your Own Ethics Code” tool, the New York Times Ethical Journalism Handbook, and the Associated Press’s Values and Principles. We drew particular inspiration from the clarity and structure of the Voice of San Diego’s Ethics and Standards Code along with help from Madison365 leadership.

This code will be updated as our newsroom grows and as the world changes. Use your best judgment, ask for help, and above all, uphold the key principles outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics: seek truth and report it; minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent.

News writing & gathering

We write for the ear. Our sentences are clear, crisp, and alive. Every word earns its place.

We avoid passive voice. We use active voice. We avoid euphemisms, jargon, and vague language that obscures meaning or accountability.

We answer the “so what” question. We say what happened, and explain what it means. If a grant is given, a dashboard is launched, or a policy is announced, we demonstrate who benefits, who’s affected, and what changes.

We prioritize local reporting. We focus on issues where our audience can take action or engage: local government, community building, and policies that affect day-to-day lives. We help listeners understand their civic environment.

We treat press releases as the start, not the story. We may incorporate them, but do not rely on press releases alone. We research, verify, and add context.

We tell the whole story. We seek responses from all players in a news report. We make a real effort to obtain a response from anyone portrayed in a negative light. We do not leave out perspectives due to deadlines.

We use numbers sparingly. We avoid making listeners do mental math. When we use numbers, we use them minimally and aim to describe meaningful changes as much as possible.

We don’t report on rumor. We avoid amplifying gossip, speculation, or unverified claims. Our facts are sourced from people, documents, or data that we have confirmed.

Not all news is politics. Some politics is news. While some political events matter to the public, we do not consider every political development to be news.

We respect privacy. We avoid publishing personal information about private individuals unless there is a clear journalistic need.

We don’t resort to illegal practices. We do not break into private spaces, trespass, tap telephones, hack computers, or otherwise illegally gather information.

We avoid gratuitous language or shocking imagery. When disturbing language or graphic imagery is essential, we use them with care, clear justification, and appropriate warnings.

We abide by FCC standards. We follow all rules on indecency, profanity and obscenity. We never air the seven dirty words. When unavoidable, we may bleep obscenities with manager approval.

When we get it wrong

We investigate errors. We treat listener feedback with respect, regardless of how it is delivered. We always flag concerns to an editor.

We correct errors quickly. Mistakes are inevitable, but corrections show accountability. Covering up mistakes damages trust far more than the mistake itself. Once we verify an error, we correct it immediately.

We correct significant errors on air and online. Significant errors are those that jeopardize the framing or substance of a story. Corrections to these errors include:

A broadcast correction in the next available slot
A written correction at the top of the web story
A revised audio file posted in the web story
A correction on social media, when applicable

Corrections can advance the story. On air, we remain conversational and, when possible, advance the story while issuing the correction. If it can’t advance the story, it is a brief mention at the end of a newscast that “we regret the error.”

We don’t issue broadcast corrections for minor errors or typos. Small issues, like a mispronunciation of Eau Claire or the Governor’s name, will not be corrected on air (but will be fixed for future broadcasts, and online).

Attributing fairly

We follow the SPJ Code of Ethics: Never plagiarize. Always attribute.

We do not pass off another individual’s or another outlet’s work as our own. We do not plagiarize. Plagiarism is both a professional failure and an ethical violation. It’s dishonest, and collapses our core principle of trust. It disrespects other journalists and disregards their labor.

We seek original sources. When none are available, we attribute. We attribute information that we did not ourselves gather. Attribution bulletproofs our reporting and gives credit where credit is due.

We attribute specific facts, not whole stories. We use media outlets to find additional primary documents, reports, legislation, etc. which may fuel our own reporting. When facts were specifically obtained by another outlet’s investigation, we attribute and characterize the nature of the documents. Example: “The city’s snow plows broke down four times last winter, according to records obtained by the Wisconsin Aura.”

We attribute the original outlet when possible. Facts do not become “public domain” because multiple outlets repeat them. If the origin of a fact is unclear, it may be a sign that it is too broad or unverified.

We attribute in our radio copy. When attributing, we will include the reporting outlet by name, followed by the specific fact. Example: “Cows in Wisconsin are turning purple. That’s according to new reporting from the Wisconsin Aura.”

We attribute in our digital copy. In our digital copy, we cite information reported by other news outlets and provide the link back to that reporting.

We link to primary sources, too. When making specific claims, we describe where we obtained information. We regularly link to the primary sources that informed our reporting (bills, agendas, local government recordings, etc).

We credit our staff. Bylines ensure accountability. Our bylines reflect all individual(s) who produced or contributed to a story. “Civic Media Staff” should be reserved for team efforts or when the number of bylines becomes unwieldy.

We credit multimedia contributors. We credit staff and contributors who gather audio or images. Image credits are run directly beneath an image.

Dealing with sources

We identify ourselves. We identify ourselves as journalists when approaching sources or gathering audio. We wear press passes when acting in a newsgathering capacity. We do not use false names or identities to obtain information.

We seek out good sources. Sources are the essence of our storytelling. Good sources bring nuance, expertise, and clarity. We proactively seek out good sources.

We explain how information will be used. We tell sources the format and nature of our newsgathering. We explain the implications of speaking to the press. We explain that stories may end up online, and their names could end up in a Google search.

We explain how audio will be used. We tell sources when they are live on the air or prerecorded. When prerecorded, we may ask sources to phrase information more succinctly.

We don’t share questions in advance. This protects our editorial independence, the authenticity of an interview, and allows us to ask clarifying or followup questions in the moment. We may send an outline of topics to be discussed to allow a source or guest to prepare adequately, but an outline does not preclude additional questions or topics.

We don’t share stories before publication. We do not send full stories for a source’s approval. At our discretion, we may ask a source to fact-check specific technical or sensitive details to ensure accuracy. When we share an excerpt, we make our intent clear: we are checking for factual accuracy, not style or tone.

We don’t agree to conditional interviews. We do not agree to interviews on the condition of a source’s approval after the fact.

We don’t pay sources. We do not pay for interviews or otherwise compensate sources.

Approaching anonymity

We are on the record. We assume by default that conversations are on the record. We only speak on background or off the record if the reporter and source agree beforehand. We explain these concepts proactively if we suspect that a source might not be familiar with them.

We use full names. When quoting a source, we use their full first and last name. We do not grant anonymity, or we do not omit someone’s last name, for the mere fact that someone doesn’t want their name made public.

We use anonymity sparingly. We reserve anonymity for sources who have a clear and convincing threat of personal or professional harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Before granting anonymity, we ask whether the story can be told without it.

We approach anonymity carefully. When a source has a credible reason to remain anonymous, we will explain the potential risks. We are thoughtful and intentional on how to protect the source digitally and physically.

We approach anonymity as a negotiation. We aim to be as descriptive as possible. When considering other details that could be identifying, we will weigh the public’s right to understand a story against the risk of disclosure.

For example, if a teacher blowing the whistle on a school wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, we would ask — can we identify you as a teacher at Aura Elementary? As a math teacher at Aura Elementary? As a third-grade math teacher at Aura Elementary? Each narrows the scope.

When anonymity is granted, we disclose it. When using an anonymous source, we explain the specific reason why anonymity was granted.

Gathering audio

We make gathering tape a habit. Whether it’s over the phone, in the studio, or using a field recorder. We may also use soundbytes from interviews across the Civic Media Radio Network.

We use audio directly from government sources and websites. That includes sound posted by city councils, school boards, public offices, police and fire departments, etc — any domain ending in .gov.

For example: You may use audio of a meeting posted by the City of Madison. You may not use audio from Channel3000, which used audio from that same governmental recording.

We use audio directly obtained from elected officials or public figures, with attribution.

For example: If a public official launches a campaign, and posts a campaign ad on Twitter, you may use a portion of the ad in your reporting.

We use audio from outlets with whom we have audio-sharing partnerships or existing contracts allowing our use. Potential audio-sharing partnerships should be brought to the News Director.

We may not use audio from other news outlets. You may not use audio without written permission. In rare cases, with manager approval in advance, short soundbites may be used with attribution.

Editing ethics

We don’t alter or disguise voices. If a source must remain anonymous, we may re-record their words with an external voice. We disclose this clearly.

We present interviews as they were recorded. We do not present edited interviews as unedited.

We may make minor edits. We may make use of normalization or noise reduction, or trim quotes, but we are thoughtful and judicious about preserving meaning and intent. Even the absence of sound — a long pause — can convey meaning.

We don’t manipulate the content or meaning of quotes. We write between soundbytes as they exist. We don’t stitch together separate soundbytes and present them to the listener as one unified quote.

We don’t manipulate natural or ambient sound. Ambient or natural sound is integral to storytelling, and must reflect reality. We capture audio where it actually happened. We don’t misrepresent its location or context. We do not use “canned” sound effects.

Image integrity

We show the world as it is. Images, videos, and graphics used in newsgathering must reflect the events or situations they depict. We do not add, remove, or distort elements in a scene.

We make minimal adjustments. We may adjust color, brightness, contrast and exposure, but only to make images clearer. We do not add filters or manipulate images to mislead, exaggerate, or dramatize.

We avoid stock images when we can. Generic stock images compress reality and remove authenticity. We use them only as a last resort, when no local image is available.

We clearly label third-party images. We verify that images we use are within our legal rights to use. Photos given to us by a source are labeled “provided photo.” All other images are attributed properly, with appropriate credit or Creative Commons usage.

Covering crime

We approach crime coverage with caution, context, and deliberate purpose. We are not a crime blotter, and we do not report on isolated incidents of violence, arrests, or sentencing unless there is clear public interest.

We never publish mugshots or crime galleries. These images show people on one of their worst days, without context, follow-up, or conviction. They undermine the presumption of innocence and the right to be forgotten.

We explain, not sensationalize. We do not cover crime stories that simply recount stabbings, shootings, arrests, etc. We do cover crime when they illuminate power dynamics, policy, accountability, public safety, or matters of significant community concern. We focus on causes and consequences, not just events.

We do not cover single instances of the following without an external compelling reason to do so:

Routine OWIs, DUIs, or reckless driving arrests.
Single incident assaults, stabbings, or shootings
Single incidences of fatal crashes or traffic accidents
Single incidences of vandalism, property damage, or theft
Single incidences of sex crimes

We could cover the following:

Patterns, policies, or systemic issues (e.g., police pursuit policies, use-of-force, prosecutorial trends, sentencing disparities)
Public accountability questions about institutions or officials
Significant community impact, such as sustained protest, policy debate, or reform efforts
Connections to broader issues like race, health, housing, addiction, or justice reform
Official misconduct, public corruption, or government failures

When we cover crime, we proactively seek voices beyond law enforcement. We confirm information independently and outside of press releases, and make our best effort to speak with defense attorneys, family members, advocates, experts, and/or community members.

When we cover crime, we punch up. We reject coverage that offers gratuitous detail, could cause unnecessary harm to individuals or communities, or is driven by curiosity, novelty, fear, or rumor.

When we cover crime, we subject it to additional fact-checks. All crime stories require additional review by the News Director before broadcast or publication.

Reporting with care

We give all sources appropriate care. We verify spellings and pronunciations of names. We thank sources for their time, and follow up with the finished product of the work.

We approach reporting with attention to impact. We give vulnerable populations heightened patience, clear explanation, and appropriate safeguards.

We pay attention to how people describe themselves. Around issues of identity (race, gender, disability, etc), we ask sources how they want to be described (for example: African-American vs. Black; American Indian vs. an enrolled member of the Ho-Chunk Nation, etc).

We report responsibly across difference. When covering communities we are not part of — especially those traditionally misrepresented or marginalized by mass media— we check our language, framing, and assumptions. We consult best practices for inclusive and accurate reporting on underrepresented groups, using resources such as:

The National Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists stylebook,
The National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) style guide,
The Indigenous Journalists Association (IJA) reporting guide,

We treat minors as a vulnerable population. We give those under 18 heightened attention, patience, and context. We avoid exploitation or long-term consequences. We explain in plain language what the interview is for, where it will appear, and that others will hear it. We seek permission from a parent, guardian, or responsible adult before proceeding. We limit personal details like full names, age, school, or neighborhoods.

When reporting on suicide, we handle with care. We report on suicides only when they involve public figures, occur in public settings, or reveal a matter of clear community importance. We use neutral, non-sensational language and avoid dramatic framing or spectacle. We say “died by suicide,” not “committed suicide.” We avoid explicit details about method or location. We include resources for prevention and support.

We bring dignity to immigration reporting. We focus on policy, enforcement, or systemic factors. We avoid the use of “illegal immigrant,” opting to describe their specific status or circumstance, when pertinent.

Advertisers and editorial independence

We do not produce sponsored content. Our news department does not produce sponsored content. Sponsored segments don’t involve newsroom staff. We do not conduct paid interviews or “advertiser conversations” under the guise of journalism.

We report regardless of sponsorship status. Sponsorship status does not influence which stories we pursue, how we frame them, or the tone of our reporting.

We disclose sponsor relationships, when we know. The wall between news and sales is deliberate, but when we become aware that a source or the subject of a news report is a sponsor, we disclose that sponsor relationship clearly and simply. A brief parenthetical is sufficient.

Life outside work

We refuse special favors. We do not seek personal favor or advantage for ourselves or our loved ones. We respectfully decline gifts, perks or favors that could create real or perceived perception of sway.

We avoid conflicts of interest. We steer clear of situations that could compromise our ability to report fairly and accurately. If a conflict of interest is unavoidable, we reassign the story or step away.

We do not give our opinion. We do not express anything that undermines our credibility or independenceobjectivity — on air, online, or in person. We avoid all possible perceptions of bias, and anything that may undermine our credibility to fairly report.

We avoid political expression. We do not give political endorsements, donate to campaigns, or otherwise signal support for political candidates or public policy causes. This includes clothing, signs, or messaging on company property, or on personal property if affiliation with Civic Media could be visible or inferred.

We do our homework. We remain committed to professional development. We regularly consult guidance on complex topics like drug abuse, crime, storms, and stay informed from industry groups like Transom, Poynter Institute, and Nieman Lab.

Enforcement

Civic Media will regularly review this policy to ensure it remains current with legal standards and best practices. Additionally, Civic Media reserves the right to modify this policy at any time without notice.

Employees found to be in violation of this policy can be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Mitigating circumstances will be considered.