Oh, THOSE ethics!

Posted on Posted in Ethical Standards, Government Policy and Regulation, Profession

With the report of the Leveson inquiry into UK press ethics due within days and decisions from the Australian government on its own twin media inquiries now well overdue, get set for a coordinated rendering of garments and gnashing of teeth against the coming assault on our sacred freedoms.

In fact, the hysteria-meter has already been activated by brave defenders of freedom – the lone voices speaking up for ordinary folk against the intrusions of unelected busybodies and out-of-touch elites in judiciary, academia and the so-called ‘public’ service.

In the UK, The Daily Mail has indulged itself with a 12-page dummy spit, alleging that the entire Leveson inquiry has been a conspiracy by leftist snobs (“the people who know best”) to suppress and control Britain’s “raucous” popular press.

Here in Australia, Rupert’s broadsheet pitched in with a piece cleverly implying that Leveson’s upcoming “expenses-paid” trip to Australia is some kind of summer holiday lurk. Even our own communications minister Stephen Conroy has got the fish head in the mail, with The Australian telling its readers that he intends to “muscle in” on the media.

Nowhere in any of this hyperventilation by media dressing up its own commercial interest as the public interest is there any recognition of the low esteem they are held in by the public. Nowhere is there any reflection about why they rank alongside real estate salesmen in terms of trustworthiness.

Nowhere do the “defenders of freedom” seek to address how freedom might encompass hacking phones, lying to readers about climate change, wilfully misrepresenting public policy to suit the ideological and commercial imperatives of their proprietors or whipping up populist fear campaigns that scapegoat the poor, the vulnerable and the different for ratings points.

But you can be absolutely sure that warnings of the coming freedom apocalypse will foul the air faster than a flatulent fig eater once there is a hint of a decision being made about media regulation.

In the meantime, The Failed Estate has unearthed a possible non-intrusive blueprint for improving journalistic standards. This would require no special design or legislation or implementation plan.  Indeed, it already exists. It’s called, rather quaintly, the journalist’s code of ethics. You can find it on the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance website.

It’s worth quoting in full (italics my emphasis):

The Journalist’s Code of Ethics

“Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to:

  •     Honesty
  •     Fairness
  •     Independence
  •     Respect for the rights of others
  1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.
  2.  Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
  3. Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances.
  4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
  5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.  Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.
  6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
  7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
  8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
  9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate.  Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
  10. Do not plagiarise.
  11.  Respect private grief and personal privacy.  Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
  12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.”

Call me naive, but I suspect if journalists actually paid attention to, and lived by, that code of ethics, we wouldn’t be contemplating additional regulation. But there you go.

And here we are.

7 thoughts on “Oh, THOSE ethics!

  1. It will surely be difficult for Sen. Conroy to choose between metaphors. Leave no stone unturned or let them stew in their own juices. Maybe it should be the latter because the business model is failing. Unfortunately its likely that the death throes will increase the 'shrillness and silliness in the short term.

    I don't buy newspapers or magazines any more – and feel no worse informed for the decision. I do occasionally read the increasingly available copies for free.

    One thing that strikes me is that I haven't recently seen the disclaimer 'the author owns shares in BHP' when reading an article about BHP etc. Has that ethic gone by the wayside lately?

  2. The converstation website has has an interesting statement of disclosure that should be a model for the ABC.

    ” …………. does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funds from any company or organization that would benefit from this article and has no relevant affiliations.”
    John C

  3. A bit of an aside
    Peripherally picked up a TV ad (not sure for what) with the voiceover starting along the lines of “I'm a journalist, I'm paid to scrutinise so when I recommend this product you can be sure…)
    Don't think that'll do much for sales.

  4. Thanks Mr D. The 1st part of the code which you italicised says it all…

    “Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities.”

    Wilful abuse of power & a refusal to be accountable has led to the community having no trust in them. So they fail & the model is broken.

    It is theorectically in the power of journalists to fix this, but with fewer jobs and an uncertain future many are prepared to sell their soul to the highest bidder or for their favourite political cause.

  5. Today we have Michelle and Lenore writing editoriala about asylum seekers that say precisely nothing, offer no insight into law or conventions and an editorial again advocating push offs to Malaysia.

    IN the Australian we have Shanahan and Stewart whining about the small number of asylum seekers and conflating asylum seekers with a managed migration program, as if asylum seekers with guns at their backs give a stuff about being managed.

    Then we get to one small factual article stating that the only Afghan deported in years was a Pashtun man who flew here years ago, and the Afghan ambassador stating that no Hazara will be allowed back by force.

    That is buried in a side column away from the whinging.

    The Gemma Jones whinges that people will be paid just enough to barely survive in dire poverty while not noting that the cost of a family of 4 on Christmas Island is $14 million a year.

    When they sit down to their regular Walkley wank this year they will have few stories worth supporting. Like McClymonts silly stories about Thomson that led to zero and were all made up.

    Or Sarah Fergusons illegal taping of refugees based on the word of a man who was deemed by the UNHCR to be a war criminal who was getting his revenge – contrast that with the actual work of Hamish McDonald who worked for months to have Indonesian kids illegally jailed here exposed and released.

    IN the first case Ferguson put thousands of lives at risk, invited vilification based on the claims of one war criminal and in the second the law was changed so the Indonesians are not rarely charged with the non-existent crime of smuggling.

    Almost no journalist in the last year deserves an award, Hamish is one who does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *