Representatives of the public should sit on panels to hear ethics complaints against journalists, according to an independent report prepared for the journalists’ union published yesterday.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union which embraces journalism issued the report which was commissioned in 1993.
The first code was adopted by the union in 1944 and revised in 1984.
The 1944 code stressed honesty in obtaining a reporting news and not taking unfair advantage of a fellow journalist. It was born out of the heady days of a highly competitive print media.
The 1984 code highlighted respect for the truth and the public’s right to know as the over-riding principles. It was born after a time of greater unchecked power of the executive and before the maturing of bodies like the ombudsman, administrative review and human-rights commissions where the media played a major role in citizen redress.
The 1994 code continues the obligation to seek the truth but now stresses the need to respect the rights of others. It stresses rights to privacy, particularly in times of grief; the need not to exploit people in vulnerable positions; and the need to avoid unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics.
It comes at a time of increasing community resentment as media excesses, something acknowledged by the union in setting up the inquiry in the first place.
The report recommended a review of the ethics code every five years.
The review committee was headed by Father Frank Brennan and included writers, an academic and a judge.
Following further comment and debate a final decision about the draft will be made in the middle of the year.
The report acknowledged, “”The code alone cannot ensure ethical journalism, only journalists can.”
It said the union was a hybrid of trade union and professional body; the code was a product of the latter.
(Most media organisations employ non-union members, but media organisations, including The Canberra Times, have invariably adopted the union’s code as an ethics benchmark or have drafted their own codes embracing similar principles.)
Enforceability of existing codes was often criticised, especially the lack of public involvement in disciplining journalists who breach the code.
Yesterday’s report addresses that. It recommends an ethics panel in each state (no mention of territories) of eight journalist members and four public members who are experienced respected and independent. Complaints would be heard by panels of three including at least one public member.
There would be an appeal to a national panel.
The report stresses that the enforcement procedure and findings be as open to the public as possible.
“”Publicity can be a powerful deterrent to journalists,” it says.
He addresses the criticism of the closed nature of present procedures with the comment that journalists’ “”enthusiastic disclosure of the misconduct of others, yet reticence or suppression about their own, is hypocrisy that corrodes the credibility journalists need to strengthen.”
Penalties would be warning, censure, fine up to $10,000, suspension up to two years or expulsion. Employers would be informed along with information that might help the employer decide on what sort of correction and compensation should be provided to the victim if they have has not already been given.