Effects of Investigative Journalism

Tom Heinemann, twice titled an “Outstanding Investigative Journalist” was recently honoured further, with a stamp in his passport. It reads “Visa Application Failed” associating Heinemann with the “alleged terrorists and villans” for whom this stamp is usually reserved.

Heinemann’s crimes are undoubtedly of grave consequence. Through a penetrating collection of documentaries, he exposes the effect of the global market, allowing consumers to see the world they unknowingly endorse. “Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts” shows Danish teenagers in sweat shops and secured him the stamp, a precaution taken by the Indian embassy. They are not alone in the clamour to silence him. Heinemann “could tell you hundreds of stories of how Grameen are trying to intimidate him”. Grameen, the pioneers of micro-credit, are responding to the influential “Micro-debt”, a feature that threatens the image they built in the international imagination.

Micro-credit was Mohammed Yunus’ baby, a messiah sent to eradicate poverty. It was quickly adopted by us all, earning Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize with the promise of productive international aid. It hit all popular chords for willing donors, claiming to break the vicious cycle of charity by giving people the chance to support themselves.

Sadly, Heinemann’s evidence demonstrates the problems with micro-credit that long acknowledged by academics were not being addressed. He follows the lives of the micro-credited, as they struggle all the more in poverty accompanied by interest rates and weekly repayments. First they take out another loan to pay their debt; then they sell livestock, household items and agricultural land. Finally, they put their children out to work and sustainable progress seems less likely than ever.

The international media have succumbed to Heinemann’s view as quickly as they once did to Yunus’. Headlines now show micro-credit in an increasingly negative light. How do we know which reports to trust, when they contradict themselves so quickly? Widespread disagreement still exists about Heinemann’s credibility. Is the eagerness of the implicated to stop him due to the truth or the falsity of his publications? Is this censorship or justified reactions to libel? The allegation that $100 million donated to Grameen under Yunus went astray was not confirmed in trial, yet some might think that this was the real reason for Yunus’ recent dismissal as investigations into the operations of Grameen continue. The internet is teeming with contradicting opinions, from pleas to Heinemann to direct his inquires to their affected countries to demands that he retracts the ‘facts’ which some deem disguised opinion. “I want to give a voice to the voiceless” replies Heinemann. Those of us with a voice should let him know our opinions on what we have heard.

You can watch the trailer for Micro Credit here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i3BhPKkVHo The full English Version can be purchased from Heinemann’s website http://tomheinemann.dk/. When asked why it was not available for free, Heinemann explained that his hands are tied by the distributors.

Sources:

BBC

Asian Correspondant

Africa Report

Guardian

Fiji Media Decree Grants Journalists Controversial Immunity

Josefa Iloilo, the President of Fiji, recently approved a new media decree that allows members of the mass media the right to report any and all comments made by the Prime Minister or the Cabinet Ministers without fear of legal action. Reporters and their media organizations are now shielded by a legal immunity that would prevent an individual from suing on the grounds of defamation. According to Fiji Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, the purpose of the decree is to “promote transparent discussion.”

Fiji Media Watch, a civic society that focuses on media literacy and ethics, slammed the new decree, arguing that this government-granted immunity could compromise the independence of the media. They are also concerned that the decree will limit freedom of expression by not allowing opposing views to comments published.

When Radio Australia interviewed the head of Fiji Media Watch about the decree, another concern being discussed is the potential conflict with the current media ethics code. Executive director of Fiji Media Watch, Agatha Ferei, told the radio station “That is why we are saying that we do not support this, because it does counter the current media code of ethics that we're calling on all media houses to continue to abide by.”

What is your opinion on the Fiji government granting legal immunity to the media? Will this lead to more positives—such as transparency in the government—or negatives, such as a lessened independence for journalists and the potential for government officials to make defamatory comments about individuals through the media without fear of retribution?

Source: Radio Australia

To report, or not to report, that is the question:

Mystery, drama, suspense… journalistic ethics! Audiences and CIME bloggers everywhere are beginning to wonder what the new movie Deadline doesn’t offer.

The murder of an African America teenager in rural Alabama has gone uninvestigated, unsolved and unpunished for almost twenty years. When Nashville Times reporter, Matt Harper (Steve Talley) begins investigating into this case, he is faced with opposition from his publisher, violent threats from mysterious forces, a break-up with his fiancée, and his father's cancer diagnosis.

There is a lot on the line for discovering the truth and everyday journalist are faced with the ethical question: “Is it worth the risk?”

The duties and responsibilities of journalist would state that it is always a risk worth taking, suggested by the popular motto, “Afflict the powerful, comfort the powerless.” Even countries such as the United States may consider the press as a “fourth” branch of government participating in the checks and balances of governmental affairs.

The important take-away from this movie is that for this murder to go unnoticed is a crime in itself. Journalists should never be weary to report on the injustices of the society or government, as it is their moral obligation to do so.

After viewing this movie, I’m immediately reminded of another case taking place in Alabama involving the New York Times and their treatment on the Civil Rights Movement. On March 29, 1960, the newspaper carried a full-page advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", which solicited funds to defend Martin Luther King Jr. against an Alabama perjury indictment. Although faced with much criticism from consumers and even a defamation suit from a local police commissioner, The Times stayed true to its ideals.

A common goal, when it comes to journalism, should be to move society forward. The reporter portrayed in Deadline, as well as those involved in the case New York Times v. Sullivan, exemplified that goal, as well as the qualities of truth and justice.

Have you ever faced an ethical dilemma in your profession similar to Matt Harper? Post your dilemma below and check your local theater for a screening near you.

With Over 10 Countries Currently Censoring Social Media, India Will Not Be Joining Them

The statements of a judge presiding a hearing in the Delhi High Court last January provoked fear in many:

“You must have a stringent check. Otherwise, like in China, we may pass orders banning all such websites”

The statement was made in regards to obscene content made readily available via Google and Facebook. According to local laws, online content that defames politicians or spreads antireligious sentiment is considered obscene and is prohibited from sale or distribution. Google and Facebook are among 19 Internet firms recently drawn into court cases battling censorship laws concerning user-hosted content. One of the main issues in India is with libel and material that serves only to criticize or denigrate religion, politicians, or other ideals valued by the culture which is over 80% Hindu. The freedom provided by the social media scape allowing virtually anyone to publish anything has clashed head-on with local laws, which forbid content deemed “obscene.”

Despite this, Indian Minister of Telecommunications Kapil Sibal issued a statement Tuesday at the Indian Leadership Forum in Mumbai:

“I want to say once and for all, without any obfuscation, no government in India will ever censor social media… I never wanted to censor social media and no government wants to do so.”

With the simple addendum that social media must still respect the local laws, it seems that Sibal’s intent was to please every side of the issue.

Meanwhile Facebook is banned in China, and Google pulled out due to qualms with Chinese censorship policies. In North Korea, a mere 4% of the population has access to the Internet and blogging is banned. Saudia Arabia has over 400,000 blocked websites, many of them related to Islam. Since everyday it appears that the list of countries heavily monitoring and censoring the Internet to promote their political agendas and stifle dissidence is growing, we have to wonder what is next. Currently on the list are Turkmenistan, Tunisia, Vietnam, Syria, Iran, Burma, and Cuba. The ethical arguments in support of the censorship of social media are dubious at best, and perhaps international laws should be discussed or set in place to stipulate what constitutes of freedom of speech, and what constitutes violating media ethics.

Source: The Express Tribune