Hoosier Enquirer Urges Journalism Ethics Reform, Calls for Adoption of "Doug's Law" Mediation Process

Hoosier Enquirer Urges Journalism Ethics Reform, Calls for Adoption of "Doug's Law" Mediation Process

"Doug's Law" is the Concept Suggested by Doug Bernacchi which interjects a Mediation Process/Gatekeeper in all Ethic Tribunal Proceedings. This was his way to protect all accused persons from being attacked by a stranger as he was.

As the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) undertakes its first major review of its Code of Ethics in more than a decade, the Hoosier Enquirer has submitted public comments calling for significant reforms aimed at restoring trust, increasing transparency, and ensuring fairness in the handling of ethical grievances.

The SPJ's ethics review comes at a time when confidence in American media remains near historic lows. Questions surrounding political bias, anonymous sourcing, social media activism by reporters, artificial intelligence in journalism, and inconsistent enforcement of ethical standards have fueled growing skepticism among readers across the political spectrum.

Among the recommendations submitted by the Hoosier Enquirer is a proposal known as Doug's Law, a gatekeeper mechanism intended to encourage communication and resolution before formal ethics complaints proceed.

Under the proposal, individuals seeking to file ethical grievances would first participate in confidential, nonbinding mediation with an independent neutral party. The purpose would be to determine whether misunderstandings, factual disputes, or communication failures could be resolved before launching potentially career-damaging formal proceedings.

Supporters of the proposal argue that many ethics disputes arise not from intentional misconduct but from incomplete information, differences in interpretation, political disagreements, or failures in communication.

"Justice systems, ethics systems, and professional disciplinary systems should seek truth and resolution, not merely punishment," the Hoosier Enquirer stated in its comments.

The publication noted that modern ethics systems increasingly operate in an environment dominated by social media outrage, partisan divisions, and rapid online dissemination of accusations, often before facts have been fully investigated.

Critics have long argued that ethical grievance procedures in many professions can sometimes be weaponized, allowing complaints to become tools of retaliation or ideological pressure rather than mechanisms for genuine accountability.

The Hoosier Enquirer's comments contend that introducing a mediation requirement could help distinguish legitimate ethical concerns from grievances driven primarily by personal disputes, political motivations, or misunderstandings.

The proposal mirrors alternative dispute resolution methods that have proven successful in courts, employment disputes, commercial litigation, and community conflicts.

The SPJ review is also considering broader issues affecting journalism, including:

• Whether journalists should disclose when artificial intelligence materially assists reporting or content creation;

• Greater transparency concerning anonymous sources;

• More visible and timely corrections policies;

• Clear distinctions between news reporting, analysis, advocacy, and opinion;

• Updated guidance concerning journalists' social media activity and public activism.

  
  

The ethics rewrite represents the first comprehensive review of the SPJ Code since 2014 and coincides with the organization's centennial anniversary.

Media scholars and journalists have increasingly acknowledged that public confidence in journalism has deteriorated significantly in recent years. Gallup polling has repeatedly found trust in mass media near record lows, with many Americans expressing concerns about bias, fairness, and the accuracy of reporting.

The Hoosier Enquirer's submission argues that rebuilding confidence requires more than merely updating language concerning artificial intelligence or digital media.

Instead, the publication contends that ethics systems themselves should embody the principles they seek to enforce: fairness, transparency, accountability, due process, and humility.

Among the recommendations submitted were:

1. Greater transparency in corrections and retractions;

2. Mandatory disclosure when artificial intelligence materially assists reporting;

3. Clearer distinctions between factual reporting and opinion journalism;

4. Enhanced procedural safeguards in ethics investigations; and

5. Adoption of a mediation-based gatekeeper mechanism, known as Doug's Law, before formal ethical grievance proceedings commence.

   
   

Supporters believe such reforms would encourage dialogue, reduce unnecessary disputes, preserve professional reputations, and ensure that ethics procedures focus on truth and accountability rather than becoming instruments of retaliation or ideological conflict.

Whether the Society of Professional Journalists ultimately adopts any of these recommendations remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that the debate over journalism ethics is entering a new era—one in which the public is demanding greater transparency, greater accountability, and renewed confidence that those reporting the news are themselves subject to fair and principled standards.

For the Hoosier Enquirer, meaningful reform should include not only updated rules for artificial intelligence and social media, but also mechanisms that encourage communication, fairness, and resolution before reputations are irreparably harmed.

As the ethics code review proceeds, the publication says it hopes SPJ leaders will consider whether a system designed to seek truth should also provide an opportunity for understanding and reconciliation before formal accusations are made.