I'm only asking this because I don't know the answer. Maybe I should have paid more attention to this aspect when we were presented with this amendment a while back. If organizations have to adhere to their own code that they have developed based on some guiding principles, as we've just heard, could they technically avoid certain things?
I know this might sound crazy, but what stops them from spreading hate and saying that's part of the journalistic code that they've established, versus through an association? I know that it becomes debatable.
I want to know how you approach that. It would come down to interpretation and what people feel if it's left to themselves to actually find what they think that code of ethics sounds like. It seems very loose in the sense that they have to have their own code of ethics. If there's no absolute standard out there, then it's really just an opinion.