The new draft code of ethics for journalists issued this week by a committee appointed by the Media, Arts and Entertainment has recognized the uncertainties of journalism and the need for judgment and assessment of degrees. It recognizes the grey areas and eschews absolutes. It talks of journalists “”striving” for accuracy; “”making efforts to” ensure people get a right of reply; that they should “”guard against” commercial considerations; “”aim to” attribute information to its source; ”exercise particular care for” the welfare of children.
The existing code, on the other hand, is prescriptive. It says journalists “”shall not” allow commercial considerations to influence them; “”shall” respect private grief and “”in all circumstances” respect all confidences.
The new approach is fine as a statement of high principle, but without strong, independent enforcement of principle rather than technicality, it could fail.
Incidentally, the new code has also dropped the reasonable requirement that journalists identify themselves and their employers before getting interviews for publication.
The MEAA certainly took a worthwhile step in looking at its code of ethics and getting a group with three of four members independent of practising journalism. It succeeded in making a statement that underpins the values of journalism; it is difficult to quarrel with any statement within the new code as a stand-alone proposition. However, as an expression of accountability or living up to public expectations, the words of the new code could make enforcement more difficult, even presuming that the MEAA establishes a strong new enforcement protocol.
The present procedure is little short of a sham. It is a system of peer review and usually secret … that is a system that journalists themselves frequently deride when applied to the medical, legal or other professions.
There is pressing urgency for a a review body to enforce journalists’ ethics that is independent of the profession of journalism … that is a body that has all or an overwhelming majority of its members not practising journalism. It should have public hearings and public rulings with statutory privilege. There are difficulties in regulating journalism that are not present in other professions because journalists are usually employed by large organizations and often have to bow to organizational pressures in a way that professions comprising partnerships and sole traders do not. Further, regulating the profession has to respect freedom of speech. But a regulating body could fine and publicly reprimand media proprietors could join the process so that non-union members are also bound by an ethical code … even if it means swallowing some of the defects in the new draft.
The test of the new code will come more in the spirit of its enforcement than in the actual words its employs to lay down a conduct of accuracy, fairness and decency. The present prescriptive code fails through poor enforcement; it may be that a less prescriptive code can be more successful with stronger enforcement.