Ethics in journalism: Where's the line?

Everyday journalists battle with the pressures of being moral and ethical while also doing their job to their upmost ability. It seems there are no strict boundaries or rules when it comes to ethical practice. Sure there’s the AJA Code of Ethics, but this is just a guideline. How do journalists know when they’ve stepped over the line? Are there specific situations which are unethical or is how the journalists acts which determines if they are being unethical? 

It’s safe to say that ethics in journalism is a murky grey area.

There are so many questions and issues with ethics in journalism that we could be here all day discussing them. What I would like to do however, is discuss an example where a journalist has clearly breached the line of ethical behaviour relating to conflicts of interest.

Reporter for The Age, Carolyn Webb, reported a story about an alleged rape by former Victorian MP Theo Theophanous in 2008. “The long article contained few details of the alleged rape. But it did contain many emotional attacks on Mr Theophanous by a woman who claimed to have been his victim ten years earlier” (ABC, 2010, online). In 2009, Mr Theophanous was formally charged with rape, but the case was dismissed because the magistrate deemed ‘the victim’ an entirely unreliable source. The accusation was completely false.

Instead of suing for defamation, Mr Theophanous then took the matter up with the Australian Press Council. Investigation into the accusations found that Ms Webb had a clear conflict of interest because she and ‘the victim’ were friends. This was not disclosed by Ms Webb. It also found that Ms Webb did not verify facts with two sources that could supposedly support her story, in fact, they outright contradicted her claim (ABC, 2010). 

This example demonstrates where the ethical line has been blurred. Ms Webb’s failure to be accurate and honest inevitably ruined a man’s career, not to mention his reputation and that of The Age. Conley and Lamble (2006, p. 402) state that “If a conflict of interest is seen to exist, and this perception is accompanied by bias in how a newspaper handles particular stories, the publication suffers a double blow to its reputation for even-handedness.”

The full video can be viewed at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2971299.htm

Ethics it seems is not something that can be formally placed into one particular box. Its boundaries change according to different situations and also the individual journalist’s moral compass. It is vital that we as future journalists use our head and our morals to judge situations and go with our gut instinct. As the picture says, we must strive for integrity, commitment and truth in reporting. 

Only by striving for these values will we truly be able to do our job with the upmost ethical standards. While it can’t be guaranteed we will never find ourselves in such situations, we must take initiative ourselves to ensure we avoid them at all costs.

Sources:

ABC. (2010, August 2). Accusations and Reputations. Media Watch. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2971299.htm 

Conley, D. & Lamble, S. (2006). Chapter 16. Ethical journalism: is it an oxymoron? The Daily Miracle: An Introduction to Journalism (pp. 373-407). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Truth & Objectivity: Can journalists really achieve them in practice?

This week Kellie, Jess and I were presenting the topic ‘Truth & Objectivity:  Postmodern casualty or PR piracy’. After much research and reading, I came to the conclusion that truth and objectivity in journalism are rather complex and at times, problematic concepts.

On one hand we have those who see objectivity and truth as an achievable outcome in journalistic practice, and on the other are those who say there is no such thing as absolute truth and objectivity in journalism.

The postmodern perspective argues that there is no absolute or certain truth, rather there are a series truths and knowledge is relative and somewhat fallible (Tickle, 2001). The underlying assumption is that truth is a social construction that can never be absolute. We can only ever have an incomplete, subjective version of any event based on one journalist’s account.

Of course this has come under fire by critics because this perspective implies that the very nature of what journalists do as the fourth estate of society is ultimately questionable. Journalism was founded on the very principles of uncovering the truth as an objective observer.

I seem to lie in the middle of these two arguments. Yes, the postmodern perspective is quite accurate in capturing the essence of journalism today, but the concepts of truth and objectivity are still valuable to the integrity and professionalism of journalism. Whether journalists can portray the absolute truth in an objective way is key to this discussion.

So why is it impossible for journalists to achieve absolute truth and objectivity?

Market and economic forces have resulted in fewer journalists but more responsibilities leaving them no time for methodological digging into leads (Tickle, 2001), time pressures and deadlines mean journalists are heavily relying on quick sources like media releases and technology make us question, ‘Is what we’re seeing in fact the real thing?’ Take the example of two cameramen filming the same thing right beside each other. Both will invariably have two different perspectives of the same event, not one being more truthful than the other. The last factor is human fallibility. We have biases, subjectivities and emotions and it would be highly unrealistic to assume absolute truth and objectivity can be achieved because we are fundamentally human by nature. Ron Martz, an American reporter concludes “he is human being first and a reporter second” (Cunningham, 2003, p. 32).

Even one of Australia’s flagship current affairs programs like Four Corners can fail to deliver absolute truth and objectivity. They bought a story from a company called Overdose about the world’s terrifying economic future. It turns our however, Overdose is funded by a Swedish enterprise who have radical views on the economy and free markets. This was not disclosed by Four Corners in any shape or form. View the full Media Watch video at:

‘Four Corners, but only one side’ http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3004109.htm


So if we can’t achieve absolute truth and objectivity, where do journalists go from here?
The answer is simple. We need to acknowledge that journalists, like everyone else, can’t deliver absoluteness. “Active acknowledgement of incompleteness by journalists in the end protects journalism from unrealistic demands and unfounded and unfair criticism” (Bowman and McIlwaine, 2001, p. 106).

We need to enquire as deep as possible to unravel as many facets of the truth as we can, verify all facts, use media releases as the basis for investigation not the sole means, and finally remove our opinions. It is through “exhaustive practice” of these things that we will ultimately do our job correctly and also remain as committed as humanly possible to achieving truth and objectivity in practice.

Sources:
ABC. (2010, September 6). Four Corners, but only one side. Media Watch. Retrieved September 11, 2010, from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3004109.htm

Bowman, L., & McIlwaine, S. (2001). The importance of enquiry. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 102-112). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Cunningham, B. (2003). Re-thinking Objectivity [Electronic version]. Columbia Journalism Review, 42(2), pp. 24-32. Retrieved Septmeber 13, 2010, from ProQuest database.

Tickle, S. (2001). The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but... In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 89-101). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Invasions of privacy: Is it in the public interest or for the public's interests?

Do journalists have the right to invade someone’s privacy? What reasons or defences are considered morally okay to do so?  With so many questions only one thing’s for sure; privacy is a moral and ethical minefield for journalists and the media in general. 

According to Keiran (1997, as cited in Richards, 2001, p. 188), “the notion of the private delineates a sphere within which we are free to be intimate with others and pursue goals and interests we have without being subject to the public gaze.” The personal and sometimes intruding nature of a journalist’s job makes the line between respecting privacy and invading privacy a fine one. What I find particularly fascinating however, is the ‘unspoken rule’ that seems to exist regarding celebrities and the invasion of their privacy by the media.

Richards (2001) notes there has been a significant shift from current affairs and government news to entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle in our society. We can’t deny it; we are utterly obsessed when it comes to knowing the private and detailed lives of the people we admire. The invasion of privacy debate is certainly well documented when it comes to celebrities. They argue that they have the same legal and moral rights as any individual when it comes to keeping their privacy. On the other hand, “by entering public life, individuals surrender any claim to personal privacy: accordingly, they are ‘fair game’ for enquiring journalists” (Richards, 2001, p.191). 

This justification questions whether the invasion of a celebrity’s personal life is in the public interest or for the public’s interests. A forum called ‘Celebrities and privacy? You asked a barrister’ was held by BBC News in 2003 to discuss whether celebrities lose their fundamental right because of their choice to be in the public eye. It bases its discussion on the lawsuit by Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas who are claimed 500,000 pounds in damages against Hello! Magazine. They said the tabloid invaded their privacy by taking and publishing unauthorised photos of their wedding. In the end, barrister Iain Christie stated, “what the courts are trying to reconcile is the idea that even a public figure does have a right to privacy against the public interest in receiving information about them” 
(BBC News, 2003, online).

I’d say I would have to agree on this. While celebrities do lose some right to privacy by being in the public eye, I don’t believe they should lose all rights. They are, after all, individuals who deserve some aspect of normality. Journalists and the media need to be wary of this and really question whether it is in the public interest or for the public’s interests.

Sources:

BBC News World Edition. (2003). Celebrities and privacy? You asked a barrister. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/2744599.stm 

Richards, I. (2001). Public interest, private lives. In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice (pp. 187-197). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Online: A new journalism?

Online has taken the journalism industry, and safe to say, the world by storm. Continually growing since the 1990s, it seems that traditional media has reacted to the online change with fear, converging with the form to simply survive in the competing media world (Nguyen, 2010). This convergence however, raises a few questions about the future of journalism including the role of the traditional journalist. 

Like most people my age, using the internet is about as normal as getting dressed in the morning. It is a routine part of everyday life used for leisure, research, entertainment and increasingly for sourcing the news. A recent survey of journalism students found 90 per cent were choosing to source news from online, rather than traditional newspapers saying they were "impractical" compared with their digital counterpart (ABC, 2009, online). In many ways this is because online has so much more to offer people in terms of immediacy, interactivity and multimedia formats for a considerably lower cost (Nguyen, 2010).


With online news continuing to grow stronger in terms of audience and content, it seems traditional media and journalists have no choice but to adapt to this 'new' journalism. Steensen (2009, p. 702) says that "traditional skills such as specialised, investigative beat reporting and deadline sensitivity have been downplayed and replaced by immediacy in reporting, multiskilling and multitasking, copy-paste mentality and 24/7 deadlines" as a result of online news. Steensen (2009) also points out that this revolution in the role of the journalist is being shaped by both historical or traditional factors such as writing skills and also contemporary factors like audience interaction.

Both journalists and traditional media will have to adapt to the inevitable change to online forms. Tapsall (2001, p. 239-241) states that “news organisations are more likely to be asked ‘how will you compete with online?’ Rather than ‘do you need or want to maintain an online presence?’.”I believe this is where thinking needs to change. 

Rather than adopting this technological determinist perspective (Tapsall, 2001), traditional media needs to view online as a partner, utilising its potential to disseminate news rather than a form it must use to stay in the competition. With competition comes a decline in journalistic news values which is why we as future journalists must adapt to all forms (we’re well on our way) and use them to our advantage in delivering the stories that audiences want and need. 

Sources:

ABC. (2009). Journalism students ‘don’t read papers’ [Electronic version]. ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/11/2513424.htm

Nguyen, A. (2010). Harnessing the potential of online news: Suggestions from a study on the relationship between online news advantages and its post-adoption consequences [Electronic version]. Journalism, 11(2). 223-241. Retrieved September, 2010, from SAGE database.
Steensen, S. (2009). The shaping of an online feature journalist [Electronic version]. Journalism, 10(5), 702-718. Retrieved September, 2010, from SAGE database.

Tapsall, S. (2001). The media is the message, In S. Tapsall & C. Varley Journalism: Theory in Practice. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 235-253.