Ethics and Journalism

Here is the ethics framework I have written for my journalism, both written and on social media. I believe this could be the first one written for "newsfluencers" like myself.

Dear readers,

Since the summer, I have been considering the next steps of my type of journalism. The work I’m doing skirts the line between opinion based journalism and fact based investigation, and features a large amount of my face and social media.

I decided, alongside Gabrielle Brassard-Lecours in 2024, to start doing this out of a belief that there should be more accountability in journalism, and more active engagement with people. I also believe that there should be new types of media that meet people where they’re at. However there are massive drawbacks to this.

Specifically, I am not protected by an organizational structure, a team who can fact check me, and when I do something that is unethical, is misinformation, or un-journalistic, there are no accountability mechanisms except whatever I choose to enforce on myself. There is one accountability mechanism that can be applied though, but it requires me to make the first step.

Social accountability. Giving you a rulebook by which to call me out. It is a relinquishing of power in order to keep myself accountable by submitting to the democratic voices, and intelligence of good-faith actors. I am making this step in good faith that I believe will be responded to in good faith, and I believe that it will influence other indies like me to do the same. It could be dangerous. I believe it will work.

Ironically, this week I made a mistake by saying that I was “99 per cent sure” that an image on CBC was AI. It turned out it wasn’t, and it’s this type of jumpiness and brashness that needs to be held in check. Ironically, this isn’t the reason I’m releasing this ethical framework now, although it’s a perfect example of why I’ve been considering this. However, my mistake on socials sure gave me a perfect excuse to release this.

For the past several months, I’ve been slowly developing an ethical framework that is intended as a guideline to how I will conduct myself online, and as a journalist. I believe it will add credibility and accountability to my work. This is permission to call me out on mistakes or bullshit.

I will never be perfect. I can guarantee that in the future I will make more mistakes; I’m a one man factory. These mistakes will need to be addressed. Not only that, but because of the nature of online journalism, there is a need for innovations that address people’s trust in me, that allow people & institutions to push back against misinformation need to be established. People like me need to separate ourselves from “political influencers” who spread misinformation or pseudo facts, and we need to give ethical credibility to our work. I have modeled much of this on Pivot’s framework, but have added sections pertaining to social media, AI, and my specific brand. If there is more you believe needs to be added, I am open to suggestions.

Thank you. Let’s change journalism.

Isaac Peltz

---

Basic Structures

I explicitly adopt a socialist, or ‘leftist’ editorial line. This does not imply that I am doing lower quality work than companies which are centrist. To the contrary; political bias is in every institution. It is my belief, and the belief of many in the industry, that quality of work is not beholden to taking a “balanced” editorial line. The work I do will attempt to meet the highest standards of journalistic standards. It is also my belief that by being up front with my angle and political biases, people can better assess my work.

To act responsibly and to be accountable

I have a strangely notable amount of power. Influence and power mean that there is an ethical responsibility to not abuse this power, or do harm. When a valid mistake is made, I will not hesitate to correct it. When there needs to be a follow up to a story, I will do so. I will never plagiarize, and this includes using generative AI to create images or stories.

To define what a “valid” mistake is, please note the difference between information journalism and opinion journalism in the next section. Although I may express an opinion based on what I believe are the facts, that is not a factual statement, but a statement of opinion– whether someone believes I am correct or incorrect is a difference of opinion and not misinformation.

Just because someone says I made a mistake, or accuses me of making a mistake does not mean that it is a mistake. Nonetheless, I will act in good faith by looking into accusations, weighing them against facts and research as well as the context of the subject at hand, so long as the accusation is delivered in good faith.

For example, if someone says I made a mistake when expressing an opinion there may be space to change my views, but it is not a factual error, and therefore would not warrant a correction. On the Conseil de presse in Quebec, it delineates opinion and facts clearly, and someone demanding corrections of opinion is not a valid complaint.

In regards to accountability and mistakes, there also should be an established timeline for corrections. In this I will follow the Conseil de presse and say that any complaints about factual errors must occur within a month of an article or video coming out.

Explicitly on the side of victims

The role of journalism is to think about victims and tell the story of victims. Media that doesn’t do that has fundamentally forgotten their role in society.

A journalist from Radio-Canada, Gil Courtemanche, said in a 2001 interview, “Objectivity is nonsense. It’s complicity. You have to choose your side. You have to choose the side of the victim.”

25 years ago, these journalists existed in the mainstream. Today, more and more, they are leaving the mainstream. I adopt this approach explicitly and unapologetically.

Journalistic Standards and Journalistic Genres

I practice two distinct genres of journalistic work: information journalism and opinion journalism. I often do both simultaneously, especially in my videos. Often I will relegate end sections of articles I have written to an opinion after having established fact.

Information journalism pertains to reporting on facts that relate to issues of public interest. It explains it, puts it in context, and reports on interpretations, comments, and judgements of various perspectives. All information journalism is informed by the values and views of the journalist. It leads to how they treat their subject, and how they choose their quotes. However, it removes the pronouncement of opinion. Most journals do this without ever saying “I”, however this platform is entirely me, and thus sometimes I do not remove myself from the story.

Opinion journalism proposes interpretations, comments and judgements explicitly. Many modern opinion writers do not use facts to back their opinions. Good opinion writers look at facts, and then express opinions based on factual evidence. Proper opinion journalism is presented by showing facts, and then allowing facts to inform opinions.

These facts must be relevant and complete, and contextually applicable. To directly quote Pivot, “We use Quality of Information and Factual and Critical Journalism rather than “objective” and “neutral” journalism.”

There is no such thing as ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’ so instead I propose to follow a model of factual and critical journalism with an emphasis on quality of information instead.

It is my belief that “objectivity” and “neutrality” is a mask for the unconscious, or often conscious biases that inform the writer. Every bias they hold consciously or unconsciously will inform whom they talk to as well as the stories they report on. I will continuously try to find the truth without ever claiming ‘neutrality’, ‘balance’ or ‘objectivity’.

It is through rejecting these faux principles that I approach all of my work regardless of it being opinion based or factually based.

Journalistic Regulations

Reporting should follow these principles:

Veracity: Using accurate and proven information.

Consistency: Arguments create a logical whole.

Contextual understanding: Facts should not be removed from the context.

Fairness: I won’t quote, criticise, or stand against something in an unjust manner, but with the same fairness that I would hope to be judged.

Critical view: I examine the truthfulness of things, including and especially official sources of power who claim something to be true.

I will sometimes prevent viewpoints that are not “true.” These viewpoints are often being presented to have a clearer understanding of something I am being critical of. In order to understand an opposing viewpoint, sometimes I have to discuss it and look into it. Sharing a viewpoint in an article is not an endorsement of it.

These viewpoints often need to be considered in their whole context as well, and allowed to have their space. Considering these viewpoints does not mean they are correct, but instead that I am treating them in good faith, and fairly, as I hope people will treat me.

Viewpoints that will be prioritized within my work are those who are socially marginalized, topics that are not oft discussed, and movements that are not getting mainstream coverage. I have been asked to discuss things before that do not need my voice.

Still, sometimes there is a widely reported subject that needs a voice on the left to speak about it. I will then try to talk about these subjects. A good example would be the Air Canada strike, the doctors in Quebec, or the mass union protest in Montreal.

Partisanship and Public Interest

Serving the public interest is important to me. There is no particular group whom I ally myself with. I reject any partisanship towards any political parties. I will not ally myself with any political party, nor endorse any political party. Any media who endorses a political party shows their lack of critical journalism skills, and demonstrates their abject partisanship. No journalist or media endorsing a political party has ever done anything for society, except erode the public’s trust in them. When expressing my opinions, I will say what I think is good or what is bad regardless of the party, and I will not be pressured by politicians to be kinder to them, or less critical, simply because we might be ideologically aligned.

I do not serve the interests of specific actors, whether that range from community organizations to unions, however I will likely express when I am on their side seeing as movements of the left often align themselves with certain groups. A good example of this is FRAPRU, who I am not associated with, and will treat them with similar scrutiny that I treat everyone else with. Nonetheless, I am often aligned with them and inclined to agree with them publicly.

I will never endorse or stand with a political party, although I may sometimes agree with a position they take.

I will not allow any financial interests to influence my decision making or beliefs at any point. I was once hired as a consultant for Greenpeace. I demanded in the contract that I be allowed to do my own research and criticize theirs openly, as well as correct them on their wrongs. They paid me for my work. I made videos that were in partnership with them, however I wrote and created these videos of my own will, and in the contract they explicitly acknowledged that I was allowed to say what I want.

I will not do paid work with groups that I am covering as a journalist, or vice versa. I cannot cover people that have paid me. This is a severe conflict of interest. This means that I will never be able to report on Greenpeace or Ground News, positively or negatively, as I have done paid work with both.

I adopt a roll of observation, and not participation in events I cover. When I am covering protests for example, I do not participate in chants, or in militant actions. I am documenting.

Corrections will be made when they are brought to my attention, and depending on the error, will immediately require the removal of a video that can be shared or spread misinformation. I will openly acknowledge mistakes, and accept failings on my part in the spirit of authenticity and humility. I will make mistakes. I will acknowledge them and learn from these mistakes. We should nonetheless define small errors and large errors.

Large errors are pieces of misinformation that might hurt someone’s reputation, information that has a profound effect on the story I am telling, or what I am reporting on. A large error does not entail having forgotten to mention a statistic, or not telling the entire vast context of a scenario. I am limited to 3 minutes on instagram, sometimes there is not enough time for all of the context.

Small errors are failures to put in context that might help the story, that might clarify pieces of information. Small errors can be messing up on a percentage by a couple points, or not being as precise as I should be. Did I say “it’s about ten” when I should have said “there are thirteen” ?

Major corrections will be quickly sent out via substack emails, and applied to comments and descriptions on socials. The distinction between large and small errors is challenging, and will require context to understand. The choice of how to address these mistakes will be made depending on the severity of the consequences of making these mistakes.

Protests and acts of vandalism: I will not participate in the protest, however, I will record and cover the protest. If I see vandalism or actions like that, I will not be sharing footage with anyone else, including police.

I will never take part in vandalism, and I do not endorse actions like that. I retain the right as a member of the press to witness, document, and do as I will with my work. Despite acknowledging the illegality of acts of vandalism, my work will not help power structures such as the police attack the citizens that they are meant to protect.

Clandestine methods of reporting: I will not use clandestine recording methods. I will not record a phone call without informing the individual I am recording them. I will not film something without informing them, or at the least being quite obvious that I am filming something (I’m in the middle of the road with my camera).

If someone walks into a shot that I’m filming on the street though, and they are not the subject, I will not be asking their permission to use my footage. Public recordings sometimes capture people in it.

In sensitive scenarios, I will blur faces. If someone contacts me and has concerns about their faces being in a recording, I will do my best to correct the issue.

Conflicts of interest: My allegiance is to the public. Also, the indie journalist world is small. Sometimes conflicts of interest happen in regards to friendships and relationships, sometimes a tip is from a friend. I will do my best to avoid conflicts of interest nonetheless.

Interviews and debates: I try my best to push back. Often interviews are opinion based, or story based, and are not rooted entirely in fact. When there are facts to be addressed, I will try to correct them. That being said, if an interviewee says something, and I fail to catch that it’s untrue, the interviewee is responsible for their statement.

I will speak to people whom I profoundly disagree with. I believe it is partly my responsibility to address problematic views, challenge people, and talk to people I don’t agree with. I do not believe that debate can solve problems though, and will not engage in debates with people online in comment forums, DMs, or debates that I believe have no merit for anyone. I will not be goaded into debating someone, and I will not debate when I don’t want to debate. It is not my responsibility to debate every bad opinion.

When I first started working in journalism, I was criticised for having spoken to people on the far right. I was not in agreement with these people. I was trying to engage in good faith. I am still learning.

Now, one year later I have learned a lot. I did not at the time know that you should not engage in debate with fascists, extremists, or the rules of engagement around subjects such as trans identity (although I don’t think I’ve ever publicly discussed with someone who is against trans rights) or abortion rights.

Now that I have a better understanding of how this world works, I will not debate fascists, or extremist right wingers who do not believe in democracy or the freedom of expression.

I will not debate people publicly on certain subjects: Trans rights, women’s rights, abortion, democracy, human rights, and many other subjects. Some subjects are not debatable. Sometimes there is validity in debating the extent or limits around certain things, but it’s a slippery slope. For example, I’m inclined to believe that it’s better to ignore someone who doesn’t believe in abortion rights than to debate them on the limits of abortion. As a general rule, these debates are useless and don’t benefit anyone, and are usually there to make people feel good about publicly expressing their opinions and getting one up on their opponents.

Sources: Sometimes I have to talk to people off the record. If people are off the record, they are either the best source in the world, or there are a minimum of five verifiable people who can attest to whatever they’re being interviewed about. I will try as often as possible to have everyone on the record. Sometimes it is impossible.

Social Media

Social media is not perceived as a legitimate source of news by most news companies. Many mainstream journalists follow me, and like my work, but on an institutional scale, most media might disagree with my approach. I hope to change that.

All of the previous ethical framework applies to my social media work as well. However, there are also certain frameworks I would like to add as an addendum to continue accountability, and acknowledge that there are goals I aspire to achieve. I believe it’s even important to address certain aspects of internet culture that are taboo subjects which are rarely openly acknowledged by people.

Corrections: Corrections on social media are really challenging to fix. If the entire premise of a video or post is wrong, no problem. Take it down, post an apology and a correction.

But what about when a minor detail in the video is not quite right? A mainstream journal would add an asterix at the bottom or top of an article saying that “an earlier version of the article said this”. Two approaches will be taken in the case of a minor error on social media: Issue a correction in the comments and pin it, or/and write the correction in the description. Both of these methods can lead to the details being corrected. However, it’s better that I simply don’t make mistakes.

Distinguishing fact from opinion: I think I can improve here. About fifty percent of people in America struggle to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Although we don’t have studies on the subject in Canada, I suspect it’s similar. I will therefore clearly delineate between fact and opinion in videos, and explicitly call attention to facts vs. opinions within the video.

Using names: I will not generally use names of other individuals in a negative way on social media when addressing something, unless the individual I am addressing is already a public figure, but even then there are exceptions.

For example, if I’m discussing a politician who has done something wrong, I will name them. However, if I am addressing an article I think is problematic, or an event I think is wrong, it is unlikely I will name the author, or perpetrator of an event. This is because of people showing, over and over that they are unable to be normal and peaceful, and because of the internet’s tendency to harass others. I will not name names of people I am disagreeing with unless they are public figures– and even then, maybe not. This is participating in cancel culture, which I explicitly reject.

I will deal with sensitive content frankly, and directly. I discuss genocide frequently. I talk about war, death, and health concerns, and much else. I will continue to do so. It will hurt my videos because the algorithm suppresses things like that. However, I believe minimizing terrible things is dangerous to our capacity as society to fully discuss societal woes.

Cancel culture: Cancel culture is alive and well in 2025. I have already had several people attack me online using some wild sentences– one person said that I was participating in “receipt culture” and that it is only westerners who do that. I did not respond to that person. Many others try to start drama with me. I will never engage in superfluous drama online. Instead, if I say or do something harmful, I will try my best to acknowledge it. It is probable that I will say things that are dumb, insensitive, or wrong. I will do my best to not be like that, although I will not respond to public drama in a sensational way. If someone posts a video attacking me, I am going to talk to them directly and confrontationally. I am a journalist, I am not an influencer.

Replying to comments: I will likely reply to comments. I will not however reply with “one liners” or “gotchas”. I have done that in the past. I regret doing that. It is easy to fall prey to that. I will be professional in my online comments, or playful, but never mean, regardless of someone else being antagonistic.

I reserve the right to curate my followers and moderate my platforms. Although most comments on instagram and tik tok have been in good faith, many are not. In particular, I have noticed a lack of good faith during elections. I am under the impression that most of these bad faith comments are bots.

Still, I can, and will, block you and delete your comments if I want, it’s my platform. Generally I will not do so unless it is bad faith, or if it is causing useless disruption. When I see a comment thread with thirty comments and it’s just two strangers calling each other names, I’m going to delete it. This is not beneficial to anyone, and makes all of us collectively stupider.

AI Policy

AI is a useful tool, but is extremely bad at a lot of things. It invents quotes, it makes up info, it is sycophantic and infringes on intellectual property. Nonetheless, I am not anti-AI. I use AI sometimes. Here is what I use it for:

I use it for translation in a pinch. That being said, it’s sorta mediocre at it. I will always, without exception, check everything translated by AI. It always makes mistakes, and anyone using AI translations without checking is not doing their job. Hand translation is better.

I use it to find articles. It is good at finding obscure articles from 2004. I use it all the time to find weird information. I then read the article.

I say to it “Find an article about this from 2018” or “can you find me articles about the time that Justin Trudeau said ____?”. If you’re going to use AI, use it to help you find stuff to read, don’t use it to read for you.

I use it for transcripts. I use a platform called notta.ai The platform has made my life better. It has an AI built in. I ask, “where’s the timecode for this quote.” and it tells me. When taking a quote however, I listen and write it myself.

Here is what i do not use it for:

I do not use it to create images.

I do not use it to write.

I do not use it to edit.

I do not use it to correct my mistakes.

I do not use it for any creative purpose or anything that would be a potential infringement on IP.

If I think of more things, I will add them. That’s it for now.