Just over ten years ago on the 12th December 2013 I published a blog about journalism and ethics. There is a Journalists Code of Ethics carefully written out by the Society of Professional Journalists (an American Society headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana) which, following a preamble has four main headings:
Seek truth and report it
Minimize harm
Act independently
Be accountable and transparent
The United Kingdom equivalent, the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a membership of approximately 24, 528 as of 2022. The SPJ has a membership of only around 7000.
The preamble of the SPJ’s code of conduct now reads:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.
The preamble as printed in 2013 reads as follows:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behaviour and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
There is a slight change of emphasis in the two paragraphs, the earlier version laying more focus of the behaviour of the individual rather than members generally. It specifies that journalists have a duty of care to the public. That phrase “The duty of the Journalist…” is more imperative that merely “striving to ensure free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough”. Integrity and responsibility are vital to journalism if it is indeed to be seen as ‘the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.’
The section on seeking the truth and reporting it has a few changes as well. One of current criteria, the ninth in the list reads: Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
In 2013 at number 8, it read: Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
You will note the additional admonition in the earlier reading indicating that when using undercover surreptitious methods it must be vital to the public interest and the methods should be explained as part of the story.
I believe that there should be an additional admonition that whatever undercover of surreptitious method is used, it should never fall within the scope of the criminal law. There should also be included a lengthy definition of just what can be classified as being vital to the public interest. A dictionary definition of the word states inter alia: of, relating to, or characteristic of life; necessary to the continuation of life; life sustaining; concerned with or recording data pertinent to lives; necessary to continued existence or effectiveness; extremely important; essential.
The United Kingdom equivalent, the National Union of Journalists (Headquartered in London) has a similar code but stated more simply as a sort of 12 step program.
- At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
- Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
- Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
- Differentiates between fact and opinion.
- Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
- Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
- Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
- Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
- Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
- Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
- A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
- Avoids plagiarism.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 above, are much the equivalent of section’s 8 and 9 of the SJU Code.
The phone hacking case is a perfect example of the colossal breach of a journalist’s code. It descended into criminality and the information obtained was far from being vital to the public interest, let alone the public interest. It may have been of interest to some of the public but one cannot possibly make a claim ‘in the public interest’. There have been other examples. Most gossip and many so called human interest stories are hardly newsworthy, but fill up a lot of column inches. The crux of seeking the truth and reporting it is, or should be, just what is “in the public interest” Some reporters and publications clearly have a very wide and very loose definition of what is in the public interest. I repeat, what some members of the public are interested in, is not necessarily in the public interest.
Dishonesty or violence involving governments, elected officials, civil servants both state and local, armed forces, police forces, legal and judicial bodies, medical and health institutions, influential global corporations and companies affecting large portions of the work force and economy, journalists as well, should be open to scrutiny by the press.
Seeking the truth and reporting it is difficult at the present time. There is so much information floating around the world across every form of communication, on every platform now described as social media, and every type of news outlet on the planet. There may be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of persons describing themselves as journalists or reporters. On viewing the reporting from many different spheres it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion. Distinguishing between news reporting and advocacy in the light of present day events and present day aspirations as to what constitutes a civilised society, is a conundrum. The diversity of cultures, economic and educational levels, and human experience are difficult to accommodate.
What reporting can be like in the Russian Federation under Putin’s State and judicial control is practically impossible. Seeking and telling truths to the population has become a criminal offence. Even though, it would appear that, other voices from outside the country are available, they are not listened to or accepted by the general public, as the citizenry accepts mainly what is being purveyed by Putin fed information. At least that is what I am led to believe.
Should I have any reason to doubt the reporting about Russia? Steve Rosenberg, the BBC correspondent in Russia is extremely plausible and has spent quite a number of years in Russia since 1991 including a spell in Berlin. He is clearly well acquainted with the Eastern European situation. His comments and analysis are delivered with authority, so I have no reason to doubt him; however, that does not mean that the whole of his reporting or analysis is accurate. Indeed, how we accept analytical reporting depends mostly on what we tend to already believe.
Therein lies the problem. In the United States the situation is extreme. The repetitive assault on the validity of the 2020 general election and the behaviour of Donald Trump and his supporters in the Republican Party has been so full of lies and mendacity that the majority of news reporting seems more like editorial rather than factual reporting. There is a barrage of reporting which cries out against the ‘big lie’, and because the reporting, of necessity, characterises the Maga crowd as liars and self-deceivers, the comments appear to be entirely subjective rather than objective reporting, accurate and fair. Indeed almost all of reporting on the political situation in the United States is now editorial and opinion. How can it be anything else? The polarisation of political thinking as developed to such a degree that reasoned, informed and studied argument seems to have been eroded leaving nothing buy rigid entrenched views. The divide between reason and ignorance is almost complete.
The United Kingdom, in light of what is happening with the current government’s desperate, futile and cringeworthy attempts to cling to power, willing to say anything no matter how duplicitous and ridiculous, is going the same way. The distance between the major parties however is not so pronounced as in the USA, nonetheless the cracks are getting wider. The reporting is also becoming more analytical and opinion based that factual. People are in fact turning away. The flag ship ‘Today’ program and Laura Kunessburg’s Sunday slot are losing audiences. It would seem even the BBC is having difficulties with its reporting. It claims to be emphatic about being unbiased, yet most of its reporting is now analysis by ‘political’ or ‘named’ correspondents. Facts tend to blur with analysis.
There is a Declaration of the Duties and Rights of Journalists which was written in Munich. It covers mush the same as the code of ethics stated above. It was adopted by six syndicates of journalists of the six countries of the European community in Munich, 23-24 November 1971.
Preamble
The right to information, to free speech and to criticism is one of the most fundamental freedoms of every human being. The whole complex of duties and rights of journalists derives from this right of the public to know facts and opinions. The responsibility of journalists vis-a-vis the public has precedence over any other responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public power. The mission to inform necessarily includes the limits journalists spontaneously impose on themselves. This is the subject of the present declaration of duties. Yet these duties can be effectively respected in the exercise of the journalist profession only if the concrete conditions of professional independence and dignity are implemented. This is the subject of the declaration of rights quoted here.
Declaration of duties
The essential duties of the journalist in gathering, reporting on and
commenting on events consist in:
1) Respecting the truth no matter what consequences it may bring about to him, and this is because the right of the public is to know the truth.
2) Defending the freedom of information, of commentaries and of criticism.
3) Publishing only such pieces of information the origin of which is known or – in the opposite case – accompanying them with due reservations; not suppressing essential information and not altering texts and documents.
4) Not making use of disloyal methods to get information.
5) Feeling obliged to respect the private life of people.
6) Correcting any published information which has proved to be inaccurate.
7) Observing the professional secrecy and not divulging the source of information obtained confidentially.
8) Abstaining from plagiarism, slander, defamation and unfounded accusations as well as from receiving any advantage owing to the publication or suppression of information.
9) Never confusing the profession of journalist with that of advertiser or propagandist and not accepting any consideration, direct or not, from advertisers.
10) Refusing any pressure and accepting editorial directives only from the leading persons in charge in the editorial office. Every journalist worthy of this name feels honoured to observe the above-mentioned principles; while recognising the law in force in each country, he does accept only the jurisdiction of his colleagues in professional matters, free from governmental or other interventions.
So I continue pondering. I know that objective truth is important. It is vital in the public interest. We can all ask ‘What is truth?’ but never mind the philosophy, we all know the difference between truth and fantasy. Every reporter knows that and should stick to it.
The codes I have included here may seem repetitious and redundant, but I thought it important to include them. There is an International Federation of Journalists which was founded in Paris in 1926. Its Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists was adopted at the 30th IFJ World Congress held in Tunis on the 12th June 2019. It completes the IFJ Declaration of Principles on the conduct of journalists (1954) known as the “Bordeaux Declaration”. Its preamble reads:
The right of everyone to have access to information and ideas, reiterated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the journalist's mission. The journalist's responsibility towards the public takes precedence over any other responsibility, in particular towards their employers and the public authorities. Journalism is a profession, which requires time, resources and the means to practise – all of which are essential to its independence. This international declaration specifies the guidelines of conduct for journalists in the research, editing, transmission, dissemination and commentary of news and information, and in the description of events, in any media whatsoever.
The full charter can be found at: https://www.ifj.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Global_Charter_of_Ethics_EN.pdf
It contains 16 points. The fifteenth paragraph states: Journalists worthy of the name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. They may not be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an opinion that is contrary to his/her professional conviction or conscience.
“Journalists worthy of the name” is a weighty description for any professional ‘hack’. So far as the general public is concerned those worthy of the name are few and far between, but that is a matter of opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment