I’ve been writing about professional ethics, the collapse thereof, and ways to resurrect them in the public interest for a while now, with the HIH fiasco the latest proof that we need a major overhaul of ethical standards and their enforcement.
I was brought back to the question of journalists’ ethics – and whether we had any right to throw stones- when archiving the early Webdiary pieces of Jack Robertson for his columnist archive. Jack debuted on Webdiary in late 2000, in response to a series of outraged columns I wrote on the Reith Telecard affair. In Questions to you journos (Jack2000) said it was a bit off for journos to take the high moral ground on political rorting and conflicts of interest when we were unaccountable for such matters ourselves.
It’s a great point. The media is an extremely powerful institution in our democracy, and journalists, while mere cogs in some ways, are not officially accountable to citizens in any way save for the law of defamation. Is it any wonder that we journalists are held in such low general esteem?
After Jack’s piece and a flood of supportive emails, a Webdiary poll found politicians were more respected than journalists! Reader’s reactions and my reactions to all the criticism are at Ink v Inc: Of hacks, bean-counters and the bottom line ( webdiary6Nov2000), Take two: Journos v pollies – too close to call, webdiary7Nov2000, Journos v pollies: the final edition, webdiary8Nov2000, Catharsis complete. What next?,webdiary9Nov2000, Journos v pollies: the tirade goes on …, webdiary9Nov2000, and So what are YOU prepared to do about journalism?, webdiary14Nov2000,
I’ve been thinking about how we could be more accountable through self-regulation for years now, but can’t see a way it can be done effectively on an industry-wide basis.
My interest is double-edged. Many members of the public see journalists as mere cyphers for their owners and the editors they appoint, and others see them as self-appointed moralisers and blame-pointers free of any real constraint. In reality, we’re between these extremes. I see a strong ethical culture in journalism both as as means for journalists to resist pressures to write stories in the interests of their owner’s businesses and interests and to unreasonably intrude upon the privacy of citizens, as well as a way to keep us honest and respectful of our readers and of the truth.
In a speech I gave last year (see Ethics overboard: How to promote integrity in the moment of choice, webdiary14Jan) I argued that journalists should be drawn into a broad-brush reform of ethics to apply to all the professions with public duties in addition to earning their living. Weblogger Scott Wickstein (who says he “used to be a network engineer … I got downsized in 2001, and after not being able to get a ‘real job’ I went back to the factory life whence I came”) disagreed. He wrote in eyeofthebeholder:
Margo Kingston has called for the government to regulate journalists ethics:
“I’ve been trying for ages to think of a way to enforce journalists’ ethics without government legislation. I can’t. Only journalists belonging to the union have a duty to comply with its code of ethics,and many aren’t in the union. The bosses have no such duty unless they voluntarily sign up to a company code of ethics, and can and do employ people not in the union. In any event, ethics should be seen as ideals to strive for, ideals that can be highly nuanced, and easily forgotten.
Ethics are also a group standard, meaning they requires constant discussion and thought between colleagues, and that requires openness.
So what I’m thinking of is framework legislation, to cover all jobs with ethical duties. It could require all professions to have an ethical oversight body comprised of a chairperson and directors agreed to by consensus between the profession’s leaders and consumer groups, and if consensus cannot be reached, by election. Membership of the professional body would be compulsory to work, and members of the oversight body would have legal protection against defamation and the like.
This is a very poor idea on several levels. For one thing, everyone has his or her own idea of what is ethical. Most of us have common areas where we would agree is ethical or not ethical but in most cases there would be cases where people would disagree. Legislation would legally enforce one set of ideas about ethics at the expense of others. This has cultural implications as well Ethics are drawn from many sources, but cultural values are part of that; so are religious ones. A legislative solution would have to be clever indeed to avoid legally enforcing one value set of ethics over all others.
Another quibble I would have is that legislation tends to draw a line in the sand. This is legal, that is not. This legalistic approach would re-inforce the trend to forget the ethical issues involved in a case. In a non-legal ethical guideline system that doesnt draw boundaries, a journalist is more likely to look at the grey areas and consider the principles behind the guideline then they are if they can merely consult the organisations lawyer and say Is this legal?. This sort of system doesnt work very well but it does occasionally focus minds on ethics. The legalistic solution is hardly likely to do that.
Margo wants this system to apply to all professions.
There’s a strong case to be made for compulsory standards organisations for doctors, lawyers and accountants- for journalism, there is no such case to be made. This smacks of professional trade unionism, and also possibly restraint of trade. What if I want to start up my own version of Crikey.com.au?
There is a case to be made for providing criminal sanctions to members of professions that do the wrong thing. Auditors, accountants, lawyers all need to be reminded of their responsibilities. Journalists probably have less need due to the defamation laws. But that is corrective legislation and will no doubt be complex enough of its own. Legislating ethics on to people is a bad idea.
First of all, I’m not arguing for the ethical standards themselves to be put into legislation. This would go against what ethics are – an ideal to strive for, the precise details of which evolve over time. My idea was for legislation setting up the structure for professional oversight bodies run by the profession (and consumers) to which it would be compulsory to belong.
Legislation would make it compulsory to belong to and abide by the decisions of these bodies, that’s all. It would be up to each profession to lay down its ethical duties in the light of the public interest each profession must serve. For example, a lawyer has a duty not only to his client, but to the legal system and the court. Accountants have duties to the investing public. Engineers have duties to deliver safe engineering solutions. And journalists – what is our higher duty? That’s a tough one, especially since the internet has so greatly expanded the variety and source of available information and opinion.
As I made clear in my speech, I wouldn’t like to see black-letter ethical standards, but more general principles which are made clear through the application of particular examples to them. Ethical behaviour relies to a great extent on peer group expectations, and adherence to them requires a system whereby professionals with ethical concerns or questions can seek guidance from their peers through their professional associations. This mechanism – if it’s in good working order – reduces the temptation for professionals to convince themselves in the privacy of their offices and under the pressure of client’s desires to find a way around ethical constraints.
Scott’s point about a journalists’ professional standards association being a means to impose compulsory trade unionism is not on point. Lawyers, accountants and doctors, for example, can’t practice without a certificate certifying that they have the necessary qualifications and have agreed to abide by their profession’s ethical codes.
However no formal qualifications or training are required to be a journalist. As I said in my speech, I became one not knowing there was a journalists’ code of ethics! The right to free speech is fundamental to our democracy, and it’s inconceivable that people would not be permitted to publish what they like – as bloggers, letter writers, whatever – if they’re not in a professional association.
On the other hand, should the public have a right to make certain assumptions on the basis that someone calls himself a journalist? Should they have the right to believe that ‘a journalist’ is bound by certain ethical standards he must comply with, just as someone who practices law or medicine must?
In a world where information transfer is instant and competing versions of the facts are routinely aired, I reckon there’s an argument for self-regulation backed by legislative imprimatur. It could be compulsory for all journalists in “mainstream media” to belong to the ethics association, and for others who wish to call themselves journalists to do so as well.
Last year saw a sensational example of a mainstream columnist, Janet Albrechtsen, accused of plagiarism with a twist – stealing the words of others AND changing them to suit her case. Media Watch exposed the matter, but her employer, The Australian, not only refused to issue a correction to readers and an acknowledgement of plagiarism, but gave her free rein to defend herself by attacking the motives of her accusers without responding to the substantive allegations.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that these days anything goes. That means that readers can be lied to, and misled, without redress. That’s got to be bad for the public debate, hasn’t it? We get privileges as journalists – responsibilities must attach, mustn’t they?
In 52 Ideas for a healthier Australian news media (Jack2000), Jack proposed another model for reform:
42. Ethics. Your Trade Association should establish an internet site on which ten senior Australian Reporters lodge unambiguous personal opinions on specific ethical cases as they arise. (Call it the ‘Council of Grand Ethical Poobahs’, or something.) Reporters could then check the site during high-profile debates (such as the Current Affair hostage one), and draw guidance (or not) from the judgements presented. These should only be as brief as ‘I think that such-and-such Trade behaviour from such-and-such Reporter was ethically unacceptable/acceptable’. Not a jot more no deconstruction, no lengthy dissection, no dissembling. Leave the empathy stuff for pub discussions. The judgements would carry ABSOLUTELY NO weight beyond simple peer group pressure. Passwords would be issued with Association membership, and the site would NOT be for public consumption. Finally, ‘Ethical Poobah-hood’ wouldn’t be optional, but obligatory. Every Reporter with over twenty years’ experience (say) would be required to eventually serve a one year ‘Ethical Tour of Duty’ on the ‘Poobah Council’ site. It would be an obligation of Association membership. Look, we all know that Reporters are individualistic and competitive, but ultimately it comes down to which is more important to you all: your individuality or your Trade’s long-term, collective credibility. And we don’t make distinctions between Reporters – we blame ALL of you for any INDIVIDUAL ethical cock-up. (Grossly unfair, but true.) Reporters are the only people who can influence other Reporters’ ethics. Not only is external regulation undesirable, it can simply never work. It’s up to you, and you know it. An internet site will remind a young Reporter, working out in the sticks for a prick of a proprietor and faced with an awful ethical dilemma, who the good guys are. They’ll be able to draw strength from the fact that the O’Briens, the Oakes, the Grattans and McKews to whom they are aspiring are on their side.
You don’t have to be a member of the union to practice journalism, so Jack’s idea is an opt-in one. In many ways, crikey.com.au is doing the job his website would have, except that it is open. I favour this, as readers have the right to have a say on what they want in the way of ethics from journalists.
It’s too glib to say that, in the end, ethics are a personal thing. Some people have young families to support – if insisting on ethical behaviour could lose you your job, they are under much greater pressure to compromise ethics than those without family responsibilities. This is a good reason why ethical standards should have a weight outside the individual – to protect professionals against improper pressure.
Another way to do ethical enforcement is through an individual employer. For a start, some employers wouldn’t do it because they shamelessly promote their owner’s commercial interests (or censor news against it), or because their quality control is so lax they’d be hoist on their own petard too often. If an employer does stick its neck out, as the Herald did a few years ago with its ban on journalists accepting junkets, its competitors hone in on every little thing and make a meal of it. Trying to take a stand for higher standards leaves you wide open to self-serving attacks from competitors who couldn’t care less about standards but see the chance to bring down a competitor who does.
But the core relationship here is between the media group and its readers/listeners/viewers (with the spin-off that the product’s credibility demands respect from other media). The goal of company-imposed standards is to foster trust in your readers. If you make a mistake, you correct it as quickly as possible. If a reporter plagiarises, he is disciplined and the error noted in print. The Herald has its own ethical code now but it has not yet been published in the paper, partly due to the fact that the question of how readers should be involved hasn’t been decided. Who would they complain to about an alleged breach? What process would be involved for a decision? How would frivolous complaints be dealt with?
A published code with a procedure for readers complaints and decisions requires as a bottom line a culture of trust between management and staff which strips away the naturally defensive positions of both journalists and editors. Staff need to have the confidence that an error can be quickly brought to management’s attention and fixed without undue recrimination or the targeting of staff who are unpopular with management. I love Jack’s idea of a closed website for detailed discussion this would help foster the openness and constructive attitude required for the system to work.
Anyway, all this is pie in the sky. All I can control is Webdiary. What should you expect of me?
I’m a member of the journalist union, the Media Alliance, and bound by its code of ethics, updated a few years ago after exhaustive consultation of members. It states:
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. MEAA 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 sources 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 persons 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.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
***
Journalists in mainstream media without an ethical code have only one real option to keep the culture honest – they leak. Luckily, we now have two outlets for leaks on unethical behaviour – Media Watch and crikey.com.au. From there, peer group pressure, and public reaction determine whether anything is done.
Webdiary has tested out my ethical parameters for a practical reason. Write for the paper, and your work goes through sub-editing. Word length can be cut. The words can be changed. The story might not even run. The sub editor writes the headline. News conference decides where to place it in the paper. Sub editors decide when to have your piece legalled.
In other words, there’s lots of checks and balances on your work, and lots of things can be changed or go wrong.
With Webdiary, the responsibility is mine. I write it, edit it, put the headline on it, decide whether it needs the lawyer to look over it, and publish it. Grammatical and spelling errors are mine. Errors of fact are mine. What I write is what you get. I decide which reader’s emails do and don’t get published. If you’re unhappy with Webdiary, you know who to blame. I’ve got nowhere to hide.
The relationship between writer/moderator and reader/contributor is direct and transparent. Still, not having anything written down leaves it to you to work out what my ethical values are and what I’d like from you in that regard, which isn’t ideal. I’m going to write a draft of what I strive for ethically on Webdiary, and what I’d like from readers who want to contribute, and put it up for comment. If you’ve got any suggestions, let me know.
Harry Heidelberg had a few thoughts on all that the other day:
You told me my piece on the Australian diaspora was the second most viewed article on Monday last week, and the next day the article by Scott Burchill was the most viewed piece. With all the hype that used to surround the internet and the painful process we went through with the bubble bursting, sometimes it is easy to forget that we have been through a revolution. I am sure we are just at the start of something even more momentous. This has all been a prelude.
There are a few realities that are easy to forget. It’s routine now for people to bank online. Bills are paid, airline reservations are made and goods are bought and sold. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. It’s part of life now and it wasnt for most just five years ago. Profits are even being made.
Outside of the purely commercial arena is where Webdiary fulfills its charter. The idea of the Herald accessible anywhere in the world would have sounded like fantasy not that long ago. It all seems like such ancient history but its not really that ancient. If someone were to say in 1995 that the two of the most viewed articles in the Herald were actually produced by readers, I think most would be bemused by such an idea.
It reminds me of those grainy black and white pictures most Australians have seen where Bruce Gyngell says, “This is television”. Well this is the internet and some of the original dreams are coming true. People are being empowered.
Ethics and online journalism: That’s tough. Is it really any different? The readers’ contributions are kind of like letters to the editor, but when they are given such prominence as in the last week does it change anything? I’m not sure but I have a feeling it does. It seems to me that the line between the journalist and the reader-contributor becomes blurred. This of course is a wonderful thing in most ways because it is empowering people who would otherwise not be heard. It goes back to the Webdiary Charter.
You said once that the National Library is archiving this stuff so it’s not exactly chat. It’s more than that. We may not realise it but this is pioneering. Trail blazing! Then again from the contributor point of view maybe not that much has changed. Letters have always been at the key point in the paper where you see the editorial and columnists.
I’m not a journalist so I don’t know the ethics. This proves how nuanced they are. As an example, is objectivity an ethic or not? What about balance? In your own work I can certainly relate to your own views about this. I think much of what people expect is artificial. Nothing is really that objective.
What about the space? Is it ethical of you to sift out views that don’t suit your agenda? Do you have some ethical responsibility regarding balance within the space or is it just entertainment? I know you do allow varied views so I am not accusing you of anything, I am just curious.
Why be curious, why not find out? This just shows how different the era we live in really is. If you have an information need, something pretty curious to check out, it takes no time to find out. I just typed “journalists code of conduct” into “Google” and found 84,800 entries in 0.24 seconds. I don’t have to wonder what it is – I can check in an instant. There’s an old ethic there. Acknowledging the work of others. Apparently it is a huge problem in schools an universities now. Late in completing an assignment? No problem, find it on Google. I think plagiarism has to be monitored more than ever. I am sure with tight deadlines and unlimited information available in seconds, the temptation must become greater in the online world of journalism to break this old rule. Who would know if you adapted an article from the Kansas City Star?
On the other hand, this is where average people become empowered. I am able to check your facts and you are able to check mine. Either there is a million Australians living overseas or there isn’t. Before the net, I would hardly have been calling Canberra to find out such things. I just typed Australians living overseas in Google and it came up in a quarter of a second.
Would you check the facts though? If I make such an assertion, is it just considered opinion or does there have to be some checking?
Also, which source of information do you cite when you find something online? Just the original source? Like what if I found out about the DFAT figures from another site – is it OK just to cite DFAT? This may sound pedantic but I actually feel guilty for not mentioning that Southern Cross expat site. I think it was they who lead me to Professor Hugo. Sure it seems pedantic but someone key was left out of my sources. Was that unethical?
On the other hand it would become ridiculous if you had to cite every source you trawled through to get to what you wanted.
Also what about identity? This is not required to be checked on talk back radio so I don’t see why it should be online. My understanding is that letters pages used to do some checking.
What about the separation between advertising and content? Is this any different online? I assume if I am critical of a major online advertiser you treat it the same way as the hard copy version. On the internet advertisers know where you are, so when I read ads on top of Web Diary, they always appeal to me to come and find out about Australian property at a London showroom. The net knows I am in Europe, knows I am probably an expat and might be interested in buying an apartment in Melbourne. It probably doesn’t change anything……but not everyone sees the same thing. When you rally against development it is funny that your page seems sponsored by developers when I look at it in Europe! Often in Melbourne though. Right now they are telling me that I can get a free food and wine pack in London and Melbourne apartments are going for only 139,000.
Are contributors bound by ANYTHING? I feel I am. On the other hand I would hate the idea that people check guidelines before contributing.
Does time come into anything here? On the net everything happens at warp speed. Does this change your behaviour and does that change have an ethical aspect?
On the net it is possible to put things up and take them down quickly. You once removed a Polly Bush contribution – that’s something you couldn’t do offline. I’ve never noticed it but perhaps you’ve also altered history in other ways. Are the archives as originally published and does that matter? Is it OK to go back and change them?
Margo: I took Polly’s piece down at the editor’s request as it contained drug references to which he did not approve. The only other time this happened was about 18 months ago, when I took down details of a stop work meeting on proposals to merge the Canberra bureaus of the Herald and the Age at the request of the online editor, who convinced me that publication was an unreasonably provocative act in the circumstances. I correct back entries when people (and there are a few of them in the blogging world) point out grammatical or spelling errors. I don’t change archives on matters of substance.