If you put ‘media ethics’ into an Internet search engine such as Google, you are likely to be confronted by nearly 4 million results. Such is the concern, interest and serious intent of the overwhelming number of the world’s journalists and broadcasters that there is a right and a wrong way of going about these things, that the practicality of ‘truth’ is paramount, and that a properly informed public is a highly desirable objective. This leads to a widespread continuing debate to codify best practice in achieving these ends. These sets of rules, standards and Codes of Practice regulate how journalists do their work and are far from theoretical ideas. They are the practical application of a series of ethical principles – generally defined as ‘a system of morals or rules of behaviour, recognised and approved professional standards of conduct’. But who recognises or approves such conduct – the morality of what is done in practice – and the values which inform those decisions? As we shall see, such rules are decided by journalists and broadcasters themselves, yet it is often the lack of proper reflection by media practitioners into what they do that leads to much unethical behaviour – journalists making too many decisions, too quickly and without the appropriate time to think things through. However, professional journalism is essentially connected to the real – and far from ideal – world.
Governments, institutions, commercial interests, and individuals have things to hide, things they would rather not make public because personal reputations, share prices, votes, individual wealth or power would suffer. The desire for total truth is not all that universal, hence the need for news people in particular to have a set of rules to govern what they do, and for everyone else to know what these are. This is why in 2008 the International Federation of Journalists launched a global Ethical Journalism Initiative aimed at strengthening awareness of the key issues within professional bodies.
On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which every UN member has, in theory at least, agreed. Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.
Here is a basic human belief in the value of the freedom of expression and in the giving and receiving of ideas. Such freedom is subsequently constrained by national laws that, for example, make it illegal for such expression to incite racial hatred or undermine the State.
One of the UN’s specialist bodies, UNESCO (the United Nations’ Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization), produced the International Principles of Professional Ethics in Journalism. Published on 20 November 1983 and representing 400,000 working journalists worldwide, the first of these states:
People and individuals have the right to acquire an objective picture of reality by means of accurate and comprehensive information as well as to express themselves freely through the various media of culture and communication.
The document goes on to set out:
• the journalist’s dedication to objective truth and reality;
• the journalist’s responsibility to society;
• matters of professional integrity;
• the need for public access to, and participation in, the media;
• respect for privacy and human dignity;
• respect for the public interest and democratic institutions;
• concern for public morals, and cultural diversity, etc.
Of the more important websites to appear under Media Ethics, are those of the Press Councils (see p. 386). Maintained by the Independent Press Councils, it is a forum listing over 300 Codes of Practice established by broadcasting and press interests from Australia to Zambia. While differing in length from half a page to 50 pages, their underlying aspirations are remarkably similar and form the basis of how we should treat our material, the people involved, the stakeholders, our colleagues and the public. They set out the essential Code of Journalistic Principles as follows:
• to be professionally competent;
• to be independent (from political, economic, intellectual forces);
• to have a wide and deep definition of news (not just the obvious, the interesting, the superficial);
• to give a full, accurate, fair, understandable report of the news;
• to serve all groups (rich/poor, young/old, conservative/liberal, etc.);
• to defend and promote human rights and democracy;
• to work towards an improvement of society;
• to do nothing that might decrease the public’s trust in media.
Another code for journalists was set as The Munich Charter of 1971 (available online) and specialist Codes of Practice exist for advertising (p. 229), and for general programming (pp. 351, 386).
The job of the media is to mediate – between those involved in making news and the public who consume it – and to provide that conduit with as much clarity, transparency and honesty as possible. This means separating fact from opinion, issuing corrections when mistakes are made, and being as open as possible regarding the process of journalism. It is very much in the public interest that producers, reporters, interviewers – broadcasters in general – should constantly challenge their own standards and ethical assumptions. It helps, therefore, to take time out to establish a culture of values and clarify local practice. There is much to be learned from the sharing of ideas and concerns.
Objectivity, impartiality, and fairness
Some declare it to be impossible, that we are inevitably creatures of our own age and environment, seeing the world through the lens of a particular time and culture. In this sense only God is truly objective. But broadcasters must be concerned with truth – even when quite different perceptions and beliefs are held to be true. Objectivity here means recounting these truths accurately and within their own context, even when they conflict with our own personal values. The difficulty is that professional news judgements must, in the end, rely on personal decisions. This is why the question of individual motivation is so important: why do I wish to cover this story in this way? To tell the truth, or to make a point?
What the editor, producer or reporter must not do is to introduce a partiality as a result of conscious but undisclosed personal convictions and motivation, even for the best of reasons. Making decisions based on one’s own political, religious or commercial views is to put oneself before the listener. The impartiality of chairmanship is an ideal to which the producer must adhere, for any bias will seriously damage one’s credibility for honest reporting. Yet in a world when one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter’, the very language we use in imparting the facts is itself a matter of dispute and allegiance. In this example one needs to use either more neutral words such as ‘guerrilla’, ‘gunman’ and ‘insurgent’, or to concentrate purely on the factual outcome of an act – ‘the bombing killed six, caused many serious casualties and created an atmosphere of shock and fear’.
Here are further examples where the words used betray a partisanship or bias in the case being presented. The Guardian newspaper analysed some of the terms used in the British press during the Gulf War of 1991. The findings still give us cause for thought.
Objectivity becomes more difficult and more crucial as society becomes less ordered in its deliberations and more divided in its values. This is something that many countries have witnessed in recent years. The crumbling of an established code of behaviour alters the precepts for making decisions.
A useful definition of objectivity, quoted in Journalism: Principles and Practice by Tony Harcup (Sage, 2004), comes from J. H. Boyer:
• balance and even-handedness in presenting different sides of an issue;
• accuracy and realism in reporting;
• presenting all main relevant points;
• separating fact from opinion, but treating opinion as relevant;
• minimising the influences of the writer’s own attitude, opinion or involvement;
• avoiding slant, rancour or devious purposes.
This means that nothing is added to truth, and nothing significant taken away. An issue is presented impartially with all its constituent parts and differences, unaffected by the presenter’s opinion. Nevertheless, broadcasters are thinking human beings and are not meant to be without views – simply not to let them affect their work.
Democracy cannot be exercised within a society unless its individual members are given an unobstructed choice on which to make their own moral, political and social decisions. That choice does not exist unless the alternatives are presented in an atmosphere of free discussion. This in turn cannot exist without freedom – under the law – of the press and broadcasting. The key to objectivity lies in the avoidance of secret motivation and the broadcaster’s willingness to be part of the total freedom of discussion – to know that even editorial judgement, the very basis of programme making, is open to challenge. Keep the listener informed about what you are doing and why you are doing it – that is the public interest.
During the normal course of an assignment a reporter might go about gathering facts and details, conducting interviews, doing research, making background checks, taking photos, videotaping, recording sound, and so on. Harm limitation deals with the question of whether everything learned should be reported and, if so, how. This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:
Journalists should:
• have compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects;
• be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief;
• recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance;
• recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy;
• show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity;
• be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes;
• be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges;
• balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
In other words, there is a need to consider what harm may be caused by publishing news, as well as withholding it.
As an independent monitor of power, the media serves a useful function when it can watch over the few in society on behalf of the many, to guard against the abuse of power, the unfair treatment of individuals and, in the extreme, to counter tyranny. This is where an independent media goes hand in hand with a democratic society. This monitoring role can certainly go wrong, for the press and broadcasting itself wields power that must also be supervised by its own publicly accountable control bodies. In Britain, this means the Independent Press Standards Organisation and, for broadcasting, the National Regulator. Properly overseen and following ethical guidelines – which are also in the public domain – the media should be able to supply information, comment and amplification on matters that enable society to understand and perhaps to work through its disagreements.
Another dilemma arises when those matters that a government’s legitimate intelligence services wish to keep secret in the interests of national security, are suddenly exposed by an internal whistleblower. Or data which is the property of a national institution or private company, is made public by someone who has hacked into their computer. Should the media collude with the perpetrator in these cases and publicise the information, even if it is placed on the Internet in the public domain? The answer has to be ‘no, not necessarily’, in the same way that television does not show something, like a hostage murder atrocity, simply because it has been placed on a public website. The broadcaster must always ask the question, ‘Is this in the best interests – overall short-term and long-term – of my listener or viewer?’ Sometimes there are no easy answers.
Having determined those ethical principles that support truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and balance – to which we shall return in the next chapter – we should look at some of those activities which lie outside these parameters and may therefore be said to be wrong.
• payment, actual or in kind, offered for the promotion or suppression of particular issues or interests. Commercial and subscriber stations in particular must have clear rules as to what is the legitimate buying of advertising time and what constitutes the greyer areas of ‘favourable editorial’. Payments to or by contributors may constitute bribes instead of proper fees or expenses;
• reporting may become biased because of a strongly held personal belief. This is the more difficult when that belief can be justified on religious or moral grounds, e.g. the advocacy of war, the practice of human cloning or abortion, the treatment of ‘other’ religions or races, the coverage of crime and anti-social behaviour;
• the deliberate misrepresentation of a person’s views in the way recorded interviews are edited, or by the context in which their contribution is used;
• an understandable desire for stations to want to maximise ratings or profits, which in itself may affect staff in reporting objectively. Priorities have to be weighed when there is an apparent conflict of interests;
• the prevention of any segment of public opinion from being included in the output. What is the basis for deciding whether a view is insignificant, too extreme or from too small a minority?;
• to be deceitful with the listening public about how material was obtained, especially when using secretive or surreptitious methods (see p. 90);
• getting the news out of proportion – magnifying the less important but possibly colourful story at the expense of the significant, but more difficult.
Sometimes it is easy to veer towards bad practice without any fault being intended. It is often expensive to cover an issue as fully as one would like; there might not be the resources to take on a government department, or a powerful corporation, or even to provide the necessary staff training to do the job well. The sin of omission, of not doing something because of an outside pressure, is often the one that doesn’t show – except to the person who made the decision knowing it to be ethically wrong, or made it because of undisclosed personal motives.
It is natural to have loyalties when your own country is at war and one of the greatest moral dilemmas is how to report fairly in these circumstances. Is it even possible? It took courage for the late Sir Richard Francis, then Managing Director of BBC Radio, arguing for even-handedness back in the Falklands War, to declare that ‘the grief of the widow in Buenos Aires is no less than the grief of the widow in Portsmouth’. This was not a popular sentiment with the government of the day.
It is easy to be cynical about the moral standpoint of others – ‘well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?’ – and this is what tends to generate words of a particular colour. But cynicism itself eats away at all belief and starts to destroy the ability to perceive objective balance. It is right for news interviewers to be sceptical, otherwise they could not ask the probing questions needed to challenge assumptions and arrive at a deeper truth. But there is no need always to believe the worst of people and reject all opinion but one’s own – that’s cynicism.
Cynicism: sarcastically to doubt or despise human sincerity and merit; to be incredulous of human goodness or integrity.
Scepticism: to be inclined to suspend judgement, given to questioning the truth of stated facts and the soundness of inferences.
Not only should journalists be sceptical about what they see and hear, but they should be sceptical about their ability to know what it means – and this requires another essential quality, humility.
Given some pretty high-sounding aspirations by editors in general, they quickly founder if the climate in which they operate is repressive or unduly censorious. The relationship between the media and government and other major power-holders is therefore crucial. What if they do not share the ethical concerns of the journalist? The DFID booklet Media and Good Governance says:
Free, independent and plural media (radio, TV, newspapers, internet etc.) provide a critical check on state abuse of power or corruption. Further, they enable informed and inclusive public debate on issues of concern to people living in poverty and give greater public recognition to the perspectives of marginalised citizens. Engaged citizens need information that allows them to exercise democratic choices.
The key questions in the relationship of media and government are, therefore:
• How pluralistic is media ownership?
• How independent are the media of government and political parties?
• What pressures might be brought by major multinational corporations?
• How representative are the media of different opinions, and how accessible are they to different sections of society?
• How effective are the media in investigating government and other powerful bodies?
• To what extent do the media report public and political events within acceptable bounds of accuracy and balance?
• How free are journalists from restrictive laws, harassment and intimidation?
• How free are private citizens from intrusion and harassment by the media?
One is wary of situations where the media are owned exclusively by government, or by a narrow elite so as to exclude other interests. We should be watchful when opposition or minority parties are denied a public hearing – especially in times of national stress.
The best and most crucial support for the ethical position adopted by a broadcaster comes from the public, who recognise that it is their best defence against deceit and manipulation. At no time is this more important than when there are strong forces that would seek to undermine it. Stations are closed down and journalists imprisoned and sometimes killed for attempting to tell the truth. The UN Charter notwithstanding, ‘the freedom of the press’ is by no means universal.