Journalism Ethics and the Goldwater Rule in a “Post-Truth” Media World

This article strongly supports the Goldwater Rule, a position arrived at through an exploration of journalism ethics and practice norms for reporting on public figures, and justified by three claims. First, there is a seldom-acknowledged contradiction in ethics when it comes to journalistic reporting on public figures, one that is increasingly difficult to navigate in the current media climate. Second, the goal of informing and educating the public through offering a professional opinion about the mental health of public figures is often misaligned with the realities of journalistic storytelling. Third, there are ways to inform and educate the public about mental health and public figures that do not violate the Goldwater Rule.

On January 4, 2017, at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, David Axelrod, the Institute's Director and a former Senior Advisor to President Obama, conducted an on-stage interview with incoming White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer. Part of the exchange went as follows: Spicer: If you're a responsible journalist your job is to get it right, to understand the facts.Axelrod: Isn't that the job of the President of the United States, too?Spicer: It is, but [Trump] has a right to express himself … to tell you what his opinion is.¹

This exchange exposes an inherent tension between two principles at the core of journalism practice: truth-telling and enabling the free exchange of ideas and information. Truth and free expression cannot always coexist, and nowhere is this more evident in the United States than in reporting on public figures. Many journalism codes and practice guidelines identify truth-telling as journalism's prima facie duty, yet according to the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal decision on reporting on public figures, free expression can trump truth-telling, as long as the dissemination of false or inaccurate information is done without malice.²

Psychiatry’s “Goldwater Rule” has never met a test like Donald Trump

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/5/25/15680354/psychiatry-goldwater-rule-trump 

Reflections on the Goldwater Rule

http://jaapl.org/content/45/2/228 

The Goldwater rule:

The Goldwater rule is the informal name given to Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics[1] that states it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined[further explanation needed] in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.[2] It is named after presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.[3][4]
The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater".[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[6][7] The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) in damages.[3]
Section 7, which appeared in the first edition of the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973 and is still in effect as of 2017,[8] says:
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.[1]
The APA Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, a different organization than the American Psychiatric Association, also supports a similar rule. In 2016, in response to the New York Times article "Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?", American Psychological Association President Susan H. McDaniel published a letter in The New York Times in which she stated:
Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates.
When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions." In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.