OPINION: Ethics In Journalism
OPINION: Ethics In Journalism
What does a journalist owe his/her audience?
By William Jones And D. S. Mitchell
Society of Professional Journalists
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair, and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with honesty and integrity. There are four fundamental principles at the foundation of ethical journalism and the Society encourages their use in practice across all media.
1.) Seeking Truth And Reporting It.
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information.
2.) Minimal harm
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues, and public members as human beings deserving of respect.
3) Acting independently
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
4.) Being accountable and transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Journalism ethics are about practice, not the outcome.
Recently information has emerged about the monarch shaking 1995 Martin Bashir-Princess Diana interview. It appears the interview was arranged under appalling pretenses. It must have seemed right clever back in 1995 for the BBC’s then-rising star Martin Bashir to hack out a path to the truth about the Charles-Diana marriage through behind-the-scenes lies and mocked-up documents.
Bank The Value, Ignore The Wrong
At the time, it was rewarded with the onerous forex of late 20th-century journalism — a scoop! It turned the practices of celeb gossip reporting right into a constitutional disaster. And, paid ahead, that forex turbocharged Bashir’s career. And it must have seemed smart for the BBC to adopt Britain’s approach to building its empire — bank the value, ignore the wrong that generated it. After all, the London-based media was — is — an intensively competitive journalistic world, then still deep in Thatcher culture where ends were overwhelming means.
Big Hit-Huge Scoop
Diana’s “there have been three of us within the marriage” were earth shaking words. Neilson ratings were eye-popping. The interview with Diana broke the royal marriage and shattered public confidence in Charles as a competent and trust worthy heir to the throne. Taken as an interview, it gave Diana a platform to tell her story in an intense heart felt situation despite the fact the “facts” leading up to the interview had been faked by key players. On the surface, it had all the elements you’d hope for: an information story that reshaped the information plan.
Fabricated Pretenses
The problem is now known that Bashir obtained the interview under fabricated pretenses. Bashir created fake bank statements and showed them to Diana’s younger brother, The Earl of Spencer, to access her. The forged statements purported that members of her staff were being paid to surveil the princess. After Bashir showed Spencer these documents, he gained his trust and he was enlisted to introduce Bashir to Diana for the interview.
Fakery And Beyond
A report launched recently from Lord Dyson finds that Bashir was aware of the fakery as early as 1996 and swept it under the proverbial carpet. This report shows a catalog of moral, professional, and editorial failures at the BBC in the 1990s, which occurred on three main levels. First, the interview of the century was obtained by deception. Martin Bashir has admitted to forging bank statements. This report says he repeatedly lied to several people, including at the BBC. Second, the investigation led by future director general Tony Hall was “woefully ineffective.“ Bashir was believed far too readily. Earl Spencer was not interviewed. Crucially, Dyson rejects the grounds given for this failure by Hall and his team. Finally, Dyson uses a phrase which he knows to be explosive. There was a “cover(ing) up.“ The origin of the cover-up is not clear. But no matter: the BBC conspired, on a vast scale, to deceive Diana, The Earl of Spencer, the monarchy and the public who it is funded by and serves. Outrageous, at its most basic level.
Additional Highlights
The report additionally highlights the silly theatrics of all of it. Whereas they led Spencer to hyperlink Bashir with Diana, they didn’t drive Diana to provide the interview. That true. However, her appearance makes it obvious she is at a perilous place, emotionally. She was vulnerable and depressed. She was a ready made victim. In so many ways by so many perpetrators. Her sons, Harry and William are claiming such underhanded tactics were indeed harmful to her mental state. The moral expectation of journalists is that they’ll practice their craft with honesty. The “means must match the ends” principle has been challenged with the looser more nebulous “public interest” concept — if the story matters enough getting it out is all that matters.
Should there be an obligation for truth?
Journalists bending the truth to coerce reluctant news subject to open up are now a common phenomenon. However, this matter is serious for two reasons: the alleged forging of bank documents, which paint the journalist in poor light, and the alleged cover-up, which reflects poorly on the BBC. But would Diana have granted the interview even without being told she was being spied on, even bugged in her home and her aides paid off?
Needing To Be Heard
Circumstantial evidence, including the statement of author Andrew Morton, whose 1992 book first revealed Princess Diana was trapped in a failed marriage. She had secretly collaborated with him, suggesting she might have granted the interview without Bashir’s questionable tactics. So why resort to the unnecessary?
Adhere To Code
BBC’s reputation has made it the ethical template for media organizations. The extent to which it cleanses itself of the stain will be watched keenly by those who cherish its values. By adhering to codes of professionalism, no matter the situation, journalists will always get the information they want. Deceitful tactics, therefore, should no longer be part and parcel of journalism.
https://www.calamitypolitics.com/2019/01/19/protecting-freedom-press/