Old and new forms of unethical journalism

What on-going forms of ethics breach do journalists face? Are there any new types arising with the growing speed and competition for news making?

The most recent edition of the Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) ethics book highlights relevant and on-going forms of journalism ethics’ breach. Along with classic ones as reporting on sex-abuse, and privacy issues the book contains appearing relevant issues as checkbook journalism, which simply means paying the sources. Several news-makers, ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS were denounced by the SPJ for checkbook journalism.

Speaking of confidentiality of sources, former President of the SPJ Fred Brown, said: “...there's this almost sacred right to protect your sources, whereas, you know, that could really get you into trouble” and suggested journalists that “when you think about it, if you tell them what you're after, you're more likely to get their cooperation than if you go into this super-defensive mode”. In other words, its better to lay your cards open rather than deal with possible consequences.

These and many other issues are raised in the book containing 47 case-studies, decisions and questions. Again, as a journalist one can find some familiar issues to him/herself and ways to address them, as well as get acquainted with new ones. In the universe of cases the decision remains that of each journalist...

Source: StinkyJournalism.org

Is it ethical to advertise through social media?

What is the aim of social media? Isn’t it to keep people informed about each other? Facebook thinks so. The social networking site recently banned sponsored posts on its site because a new business model appeared where a company paid famous people with a lot of followers to post advertisements on their wall/page. This obviously makes user experience less credible and much more commerical which means a decrease in the quality of the service.

Users often don’t realise that their favourite singer posts a brand because he was paid for it and not because he actually uses their product which is misleading and is against ethical practices. The platform’s main purpose is to connect people and exchange information and the promotions are restricted to the side column areas as a distinct service. This way the trust of users can be preserved and the site can expect a long term future. The same concept is applicable for news outlets as public trust is the most engaging force for the audience to follow a certain news platform for reliable, accurate and ethical information.

Those media companies that let fake or misleading articles to be published and focus on shocking and scandalous news might have some attention from the public but in the long term readers get tired of reading something that obviously cannot be true or which does not present values for them. Quality and ethical journalism will take a rise and its representatives can expect a strong circle of readers and a growing prestige in the media world.

Source: Inside Facebook

Public Interest vs. What the Public Finds Interesting

In light of the recent furore surrounding an injunction stopping the press from naming a Premiership footballer involved in an affair with a minor celebrity, it seems important to assess what private information should be publishable due to public interest. Public interest is different to what the public finds interesting.

What the public finds interesting: It is a fact of human nature that people are curious about the lives of others and given the chance will happily take an interest in the lives of people completely disconnected to their own. A tad ironically, this was the basis of Big Brother the program through which Imogen Thomas (the minor celebrity in question) first entered the public consciousness. Gossip magazines charting famous people’s everyday lives are a huge business now which shows that the general public is interested in seemingly private details about these people. However, this does not mean that these matters are of public interest.

Public Interest: According to the Press Complaints Commission (the self-regulatory body that deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines), public interest ‘includes but is not confined to: i)Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety ; ii) Protecting public health and safety; iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement by an individual.’ It is arguable whether the name of a footballer who had an affair with a C-list celebrity falls under any of these categories. A footballer does not base his reputation on his moral virtue; it is based on him being good at playing football. The public has not been misled by his actions into believing something that is untrue. When politicians are involved in similar exposés, this becomes more confusing as these people have been elected by the public partly due to their reputations. As was seen during the early 1990’s in the UK, when politicians base these reputations on being moral and clean cut, it is of public interest when their lives are not conducted in this way and details can be published so that the public is not misled. Practice what you preach appears to be the mantra that politicians should follow.

The conflict between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech has been intensely debated during the last few months. This distinction between what interests the public and what is of public interest is an extremely important aspect of this debate.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

What is the future of media?

We have seen how social media networks are contributing to the acceleration of the information exchange. However, they do more than the delivery of news. Recent political developments and the wave of uprisings in the Middle East have made social media networks to information providers, where conventional news makers such as TV, newspapers and radio had limited access to the rapid developments on the ground.

With “the New Age of Journalism” the editing function of the conventional media may also need modifications. Is a junction between the social and conventional media networks in delivering news possible?

Source: Al Jazeera

"French journalists' unspoken rule"

Today's media is full of news about the scandal around the French presidential candidate, Mr. Strauss-Kahn. The event generated discomfort in the French society because the American press treated the issue in a different way from French journalism practises. In France journalists have an unspoken rule to protect the private life of politicians, especially in higher levels of the hierarchy. Photos taken of Mr. Strauss-Kahn while being arrested are considered disrespectful as French people see private life as truly one's own business.

Now one could ask whether the way of handling the scandal from the media's side was ethical or not? Protecting one's privacy is a significant element to consider when reporting, however the public would expect from one of its leaders to show good example since his acts determine his personality and as a leader it is important for the people to trust a good person. Media ethics are obviously regarded different in different parts of the world and what is unethical in one country; it might be still common or acceptable in another.

Source: The New York Times

Philippines: women advance journalism

The atmosphere of supression and censorship, where surveillance and interrogation of journalists was not excluded from government methods of fighting against any critique in its address female journalists have led the battle against the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in Philippines. The result – the authoritarian regime toppled and women outnumber men in media networks today.

Inday Espina-Verona, a journalist of the country’s leading broadcasting network, says: “You cannot explain the rise of the women journalists without talking about martial law. When the men were struggling back into journalism, the women were already there.”

The reaction of the women journalists for more censorship and harsh consequences for their personal security was even “more critical pieces about the government”. The executive director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility Melinda de Jesus says “editorial competence and independece” are their priority, whereas quality journalism – their aim.

Source: The New York Times/International Herald Tribune

Bulgaria in the spotlight: is media loosing its role as a voice for civil society?

A couple of months ago CIME was reporting on the world wide concern related to freedom of media and media ethics in Hungary.
On the same issue, Central and Eastern Europe is again in the spotlight. This time related to Bulgaria.
At the end of April the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe stressed out that some new provisions in the Bulgarian Criminal Code are, allegedly, endangering the freedom of the press by introducing the possibility of punishing journalists convicted of instigating hatred, discrimination or violence based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, marital or social status, or disability with imprisonment of 1 to 4 years. Although the provisions can have many positive effects, they might, in OSCE’s view, endanger the possibility of expressing legitimate criticism
Also relating to Bulgarian media there is a recently published Wikileaks source according to which “Bulgarian media is highly manipulated and increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Reporters and editors accept bribes to cover stories, to print propaganda articles as though they were news, and to not print information that sponsors do not approve. The media's cooption obviously limits its ability to serve as a voice for civil society”.
As it can be seen these days Bulgaria is dealing not only with problematic new legislation but also with questioning itself some underlying issues behind media, as corruption and manipulation, which are very threatening for media ethics.

Sources: OSCE, Novinite

The Rich and Private

One story that has hit the headlines is that of Max Mosely as he loses his European Court battle for media privacy. Mosely like many others who can afford to take such actions preserves privacy. People’s freedom should be respected but so should media freedoms. Clearly there is a role for responsibility and what is classified as news or information for the consumption by the general public. Mosely argues that the media under UK law should not expose the private behaviour of anyone without telling the "victim" first, which he belives breaches his right to a private life, guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention. What do you think?

Source: The Independent

Press freedom and journalism ethics

May 3^rd, the World Press Freedom Day, marked not only the struggle for press freedom in many parts of the world, but also honoured its promoters who often risk their lives and health to reveal to the world “all other abuses of fundamental rights”.

When many take it for granted, others sacrifice their security and lives in the attempt to share their grievances with the rest of the world. Very often their actions are hindered by structural orders, which happened in Egypt with the closure of the news bureaux. Not seldom are also cases when journalists themselves lack knowledge or skills of using the true information they possess, or are used to writing the other version of the story.

Whatever it is, maintain the president Erik Bjerager and vicepresident Marcel van Lingen of the World Editors Forum, “[Y]ou have to learn to tell the truth, learn to write down facts that are different to those you once assumed, learn to note down opinions that are also new in the world of the journalist, and learn not to be afraid of giving your mental opponents a podium from which to speak. Only then can you call yourself a representative of the free press.”

Both views suggest it is a matter of journalism ethics being undermined regardless if it is realized in the top-down (being restrictions coming from authorities) or bottom-up (i.e. lack of ethical journalism skills in individual journalists) manner.

Source: Journalism.co.uk

Syrian government threaten media black out

Zimbabawe had a media black out when talks are under way between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, MDC, stating that as long as the talks are going on, neither side should “directly or indirectly communicate the substance of the discussion” to the media, nor should they use the media as a negotiating platform. And now there are planned threats to do the same in Syria, after the detention of Al Jazeera journalist Dorothy Parvaz. More than 20 journalists have been detained by the Syrian government since the current unrest escalated in March.

With more and more journalists covering the wave of uprisings against authoritarian regimes across North Africa and the Middle East, should journalist think about media ethics first against such blackouts before their own safety and security? Many journalists been in these conflict areas have and are still being subjected to intimidation, threats and repeated physical violence. If the journalists and media organisations are being denied access to information, through some form of information and privacy law within that country, should journalist continue to ensure the public are given information against their own safety and security?

Source: Aljazeera