The journalists’ union published a proposed new code of ethics this week. It is longer than the previous one, but is a great improvement on it.
But whatever code the union publishes, it will suffer from the fact that not all journalists are members. This is because the union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, has two roles: an industrial one and a professional one. It is in the latter role that it attends to ethics issues. This drawback should be overcome. More of that anon.
The new code has four elements which should get greater public approval and one which retreats from a strong stand in an earlier draft. (The full text of the code was published in The Canberra Times on Wednesday.)
Like all codes, it reflects to some extent the concerns of the times. Recently we have had the furore over The Hand that Signed the Paper and a growing public disgust of media breaches of privacy and other underhand media tactics.
In the new code, plagiarism and chequebook journalism are treated more seriously. The former is out; the latter only tolerated if disclosed and if in the general public interest.
However, an earlier draft required journalists to identify themselves and their organisations unless the only way to get the story was by subterfuge and then the subterfuge should be disclosed. The new draft replaces this with a general requirement to use fair and honest means to get information. That could easily run to a journalist pretending to be an ordinary citizen to get information.
The best thing about the new code is in the enforcement provisions. In the past, accusations of breaches of ethics have been heard in a secret closed shop. Only members of the union could be on panels to hear complaints; and they were heard in secret.
Under the new code at least one member of the public would sit on each three person panel hearing complaints and the process would be as open as possible. The panels can warn, reprimand, fine or suspend or expel from the union.
Perhaps it would be better if the public members had a majority. As to the public process, it would be helpful if the process attracted protection from defamation laws.
For too long, journalists have delighted in the public disclosure of others’ misdeeds, but were happy to keep their own secret.
It is a pity, though, that this code will be restricted to members of the union. Because the MEAA’s role is primarily industrial (wage claims and the like) many journalists do not belong _ typically senior journalists in management or semi-management positions or those that do not want or need industrial help.
It would be better if either a completely separate professional body could be set up, leaving the industrial element of journalism to the MEAA. Alternatively, the MEAA could have a purely professional arm to deal only with professional matters like ethics; copyright; defamation; the annual Walkley Awards for journalism and so on.
If this happened, employers and employees alike would share a single ethics process. It would carry more force and would give the public an avenue for redress against bad journalism which it does not now have. Existing ethics cases are a closed shop; the Australia Press Council does not deal with the electronics and defamation law can usually only be reached by the wealthy and in any event is a minefield that has little to do with the quality of journalism.