False Equivalence: What SPJ’s New Ethics Code Says About “Both Sides” Reporting, and What It Means for Journalists, Readers and the People in the Story
Updated: 5 days ago
Picture a local news story built like this. The first paragraph says a city inspector’s report documents a safety violation at a restaurant. The second says the owner insists the report is wrong. The headline reads “Dispute Over Inspection.” Everyone was quoted accurately, yet the reader finishes knowing less than the reporter did, because the story never says which claim the records support. This example is hypothetical.
That pattern has a name: false equivalence. This fall, the Society of Professional Journalists added it, by name, to the Code of Ethics that newsrooms, classrooms and independent creators have used as a reference point for a century.
What False Equivalence Is, and What It Is Not
False equivalence means treating two claims, people or positions as equal in weight when the evidence does not support equal weight. You may also hear it called false balance, and the style of reporting it produces is often called "he said, she said". The reporter collects competing claims, sets them side by side and steps back.
It is not the same as including more than one perspective. Hearing from everyone involved is a core ethical duty, and the revised Code strengthens it. False equivalence begins when a story presents unequal things as equal, usually because symmetry looks fair and is easier than verifying. Fairness asks whether every side was heard. Equivalence asks whether every side was weighted the same. A fair story can still reach a conclusion the evidence supports.
What Changed in the Code
SPJ members approved the revised Code in the 2026 vote held during the national convention in Columbus, Ohio with 93 percent in favor, after the board of directors endorsed it on September 25 (Editor & Publisher 2026). It is the first update since 2014. The four core principles are unchanged: Seek Truth and Report It, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent.
The new language sits under Seek Truth and Report It. It tells journalists to identify misinformation and disinformation, to challenge provable falsehoods rather than repeat them uncritically, and to “avoid false equivalence” (SPJ Ethics Committee 2026).
The committee’s explanatory notes are direct about why. They describe the addition as a deliberate effort to combat "he said, she said" journalism, in which reporters make little attempt to assess clashing truth claims even when the means to find the truth exist. Two points deserve emphasis. False balance can be introduced by the sources making claims and also by the journalist, in how the story is reported and written. And the target is what the committee calls stenographic journalism, which repeats sources’ claims without verification.
Three related changes are described here:
Journalists must give subjects of coverage a fair opportunity to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing, with no exceptions. The committee describes this as an imperative to ensure no surprises journalism.
Journalists should respect the presumption of innocence while a criminal case is being resolved.
Journalists should label opinion journalism and news analysis, and use facts and good-faith arguments to explain issues and ideas.
One important limit: the Code is a voluntary guide. SPJ does not investigate complaints or sanction journalists, and under the First Amendment the Code is not legally enforceable.
Dr. Dan Axelrod chaired SPJ’s Ethics Committee and co-led the revision. He spent a decade as a reporter, including as Gannett’s syndicated New York business reporter, and now teaches media ethics. He recorded his Humanity in Journalism conversation while the revision was still awaiting its vote, and he was direct about why the line exists. Asked to explain false equivalence for a general audience, he said it is “he said, she said journalism. It is not enough to take two sides and juxtapose them. That’s not good journalism. That’s stenographic journalism.” The alternative takes more work: “The journalist needs to go several steps farther and figure out which side is telling the truth. Look at the stats. Do the interviews. Do the legwork. Read the research.”
“He said, she said journalism... It is not enough to take two sides and juxtapose them. That’s not good journalism. That’s stenographic journalism. The journalist needs to go several steps farther and figure out which side is telling the truth. Look at the stats. Do the interviews. Do the legwork. Read the research.” - Dan Axelrod, PhD, Chairman of Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics Committee and Co-Chair of 2026 Code Revision Sub-Committee
He ties the new line to a broader shift. “It used to be that people could have their own opinions but not their own facts,” he said. “And now people have their own facts.” His analogy is deliberately blunt: “If you went to your cancer doctor and said, ‘Well, it’s your truth that I have a tumor.’” His point is that some truths are empirically findable and verifiable, “and that’s our job as journalists.”
He is careful about what that does and does not mean. The Code does not use the word objective, he explained, because “our job is not to be objective. Our job is to have an objective method.” That means gathering all sides, analyzing systematically, compartmentalizing biases as best you can, deciding what looks like the truth, and being “humble enough to say I think I got it wrong or the facts have changed.” He does not count that as flip-flopping. “That’s being a good human.”
If You Are the Person Being Written About
False equivalence can hurt you in two opposite ways. If you are accused of something the record does not support, a story that gives the accusation and your denial equal space can leave the accusation standing as a live question, even though your denial is documented. If you are the one raising a documented complaint, the same structure can flatten it into a dispute and drain it of weight.
Axelrod’s comments show why this matters most when the stakes are personal. On crime coverage, he said it is “not enough just to regurgitate what you see in the criminal complaint. You need to check it. Somebody’s life is on the line.” He warned that “once the lie is out there, it sticks,” and that corrections often fail to undo the damage. Readers may see only the headline, misremember what they read, or wonder whether a correction means there was something to the original claim.
He also said he hears every month from people whose lives are still affected by old stories that were inaccurate or never followed up. SPJ cannot investigate or discipline, he explained, but he would like every newsroom to adopt a formal practice that lets people appeal to have a story updated, corrected or taken down. Today, he said, that “varies widely by news company.”
The revised Code gives you a vocabulary and a standard. It will not give you control over a story, but it can make your requests clearer and harder to wave away:
Respond when asked, and respond in writing. The Code now tells reporters to give you a fair chance to respond. Silence leaves the other side’s claim as the only claim in the story. If there is legal exposure, talk with a lawyer before you answer.
Bring documents. A response that points to records, dates and filings gives the reporter something to verify. Verification is what moves a story from symmetry to substance.
Ask what has been checked. It is reasonable to ask the reporter or editor which claims were independently verified and whether the story will say so.
If the published story flattens the record, write to the outlet. Quote the specific passage, point to the evidence and ask for context or a clarification. Be realistic: the Code is voluntary, so you are making a request, not invoking a rule. Some outlets will add context. Some will not.
Keep your own record. Save the original version, the date and any response you receive.
If You Are a Reader: How to Spot It
Not every disagreement has a factual answer. Debates about values, priorities and policy choices legitimately involve more than one view, and good coverage presents them. The question to ask is whether the disputed claim can be checked. If it can, the story should check it.
Warning signs:
Equal space for unequal evidence, such as one side citing records while the other offers an assertion.
“Critics say” and “supporters say” with no sentence in the reporter’s own voice about what the evidence shows.
A headline that frames a checkable question as a dispute when records exist.
A single outlier presented as the counterweight to a broad body of evidence.
No sign the reporter checked anything: no documents, no data, no independent source.
A quick test: after reading, can you say what the verifiable record shows, apart from what each side claims? If not, the story may have handed the sorting to you.
Axelrod says readers are not bystanders. He asks them to point out areas for improvement “politely, patiently, persistently, positively,” to help report by bringing a reporter facts and a clear case (“ideas are the great equalizer”), and to consume journalism, since audiences now supply more of the money that advertising once did.
For Journalists: What the Line Asks of You
Consider the following when crafting your article:
Sort claims into checkable and not. Whether a report exists, a number is right or an event happened is checkable. Whether a policy is wise is not.
Check what can be checked, and say so. A sentence in the reporter’s voice stating what the records or data show does more than another quote.
Weight by evidence, not volume. The loudest voice or the latest statement is not automatically the most reliable.
Keep the fair chance to respond. Offering someone the chance to answer is an obligation. Giving their answer equal weight regardless of evidence is not.
Watch the packaging. Headlines, ledes and social captions are where symmetry often returns, even when the body of the story did the work.
Label opinion, and report it too. Axelrod notes that opinion writing is not the easy path. An opinion journalist must meet the same verification standards as a news reporter, and then persuade on top of it.
The Questions This Raises
The obvious objection is who decides what counts as provable. Journalists will make that call, and judgment calls can be wrong or applied unevenly. The committee’s materials answer that the Code deals in first-order principles and is meant to help journalists recognize that an issue carries ethical weight, not to solve every case. The Code also keeps its call to support the open and civil exchange of views, including ideas journalists find objectionable.
Axelrod’s answer is to anchor the line in method and humility rather than in any political side. “Facts, the truth, don’t know a political party,” he said. People can frame facts differently and reach different conclusions, but whether you are an expert giving a quote or an opinion writer, “you got to voraciously verify.” Regardless of politics, he said, the commitment is to investigate and build the case on facts.
SPJ says it will build an expanded online user’s guide with explanations and examples over the next year, which is where hard cases are likely to be worked through. Expect the line to be interpreted differently across newsrooms, and judge outlets by whether they show their work.
Why This Matters
The committee’s report puts media credibility at a record low of 28 percent, down from above 70 percent in the 1970s (SPJ Ethics Committee 2026). Symmetry that looks fair but tells readers nothing is one way trust erodes, because readers sense that nobody is doing the sorting. For people who are written about, the question is whether the record or a rumor carries the weight. For journalists, one short line in a one-page code is a reminder that fairness and verification work together.
Listen to the full episode with Dan Axelrod on the Humanity in Journalism podcast at humanityinjournalism.com, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. If you spot an error in our reporting or social posts, contact corrections@themediaintegrityproject.com. Our analysis methodology is at reporterlens.app/methodology.
The Media Integrity Project is an independent initiative dedicated to advancing transparency, accountability, and humanity in journalism. To analyze any article’s accountability and transparency score, visit reporterlens.app.
ReporterLens™ looks at sourcing, evidence and framing in any article you run through it, and its methodology is public at reporterlens.app/methodology.
Bibliography
Axelrod, Dan. 2026. Interview by Jessica Wiederhorn. Humanity in Journalism, podcast audio. [[ADD: episode title, release date and URL]].
Editor & Publisher. 2026. “SPJ Overwhelmingly Approves Revisions to Its Code of Ethics.” October 5, 2026. https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/spj-overwhelmingly-approves-revisions-to-its-code-of-ethics,263835.
ReporterLens™. n.d. “Methodology.” The Media Integrity Project. https://reporterlens.app/methodology.
Society of Professional Journalists. 2014. SPJ Code of Ethics. https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/.
Society of Professional Journalists. 2026. “Proposed Revisions to SPJ’s Code of Ethics: Preserving Principles, Responding to Change.” https://www.spj.org/spj-ethics-code-revision-project-2026/.
SPJ Ethics Committee. 2026. “Proposed Revisions to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics: An SPJ Ethics Committee Report.” September to October 2026. https://www.spj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/SPJ-Code-of-Ethics-Committee-Report-9-20-26-final3.pdf.
Comments