Ethics of journalism;

Do they exist, or are they being dreamt of??

Ethics are best defined if they’re differed from morals. However, that doesn’t mean ethics and morals can be contradicted. The end of Kevin Carter (1961 – 1994) – the photographer who got the Pulitzer Prize 1993 – is the best example of this fact [1]. In my point of view, ethics are best done when morals are considered. This is one point. Two, ethics must take into consideration the age we’re living in; ethically and practically speaking. What do I mean by ethically and practically speaking?

For example, it’s too late now for old-fashioned journalism to be considered as a real journalism. This kind of news organizations have to change themselves; or they’ll face the possibility of “being out of business”! Couple of decades ago, local TVs, Radios, newspapers etc…were the major sources of news. Today, we have; websites and their multi-services such as: online services, stream, RSS, SMS etc... These tools are very simple for users to use, but on the other hand, they are very complicated to be competed! I mean, the amount of information they deliver is great, and audience, who is the main definer of the concept of “the best”, will always look for the quality. Maybe some old-fashioned local journalism has the privilege of the best local coverage, U.S.A people, for example, are somehow focusing more on their local issues, but who guarantees the next coming era? Will audience still be interested mainly in local news? This revolution is just in its infancy! I do think it will grow to be something much different from what we’re facing now.

According to the first definition of the word “Ethic” in the Longman dictionary which says: “ethic is a general idea or belief that influences people's behavior and attitudes”, I think, globalizations even changed our general ideas and beliefs!

It changed them by applying some kind of “would-be” substitutions to life aspects! Some theories think that journalist carrier is endangered! One point can be shown in this quotation: “This is particularly important to journalists who face the danger that their profession will be so technology-driven that the reasons for doing journalism are forgotten” [2]. On the other hand, we have the other point of view: “the role of the professional journalist will be secure in the future…” [3].

I said in the introduction, I don’t know what’s coming next in this speedy development to determine how journalism will look like in the future! Of course, I don’t think a robot can be a journalist! But, maybe journalists will loose some of their importance as the best source for telling a story. This shortness may come because the concept of a journalist nowadays is very hard to define. If we noticed the last quotation; only the role of ‘professional’ journalist will be secure! But, who is a ‘professional’ journalist, and who is not?

Western free press considers its journalists the only type of journalists exists! Authoritarian nations’ journalists, market communicators and public relation practitioners object against such a discrimination! With no basic standards to define, it’s hard to tell who’s right, and who’s wrong.

And this is, by the way, the second definition of the word “ethic” in the Longman dictionary: “ethics are moral rules or principles of behavior for deciding what is right and wrong!”

Now, what is right? And what is wrong? Is the right now will be the right in the future?? What kind of ethics do we need to develop the ultimate goal of journalism ‘to tell the truth’?

Because rightness is relevant from one nation to another, I think the best way to answer this question is by generalization. First, there are certain codes of conducts mentioned in every constitution of every nation; such as freedom of press; for example. Also, there are ideals are mentioned in university books as ultimate goals to be achieved. Objectivity is a good example here, though “As a practical manner, objectivity is an illusion [4]”. And the rest are merely simple facts! However, none of the above mentioned are followed by all, and some of them aren’t followed at all!

The first journalistic ethical standard is credibility. It’s just a simple fact. I consider it the highest ethical standard that differentiates news agencies work!
Al Hora [5] News Channel; for example, which started broadcasting to the Arab audience right after Iraq war; has every standard anyone can imagine! It has reporters all over the world, almost unlimited budget, technology, good programs; but it doesn’t have this characteristic “Credibility”, because, everyone knows that it’s U.S.A made to defeat Al Jazeera! So, it may last as much as U.S.A wants, but still no one will have his news from it; not only because it’s fighting Al Jazeera – Al Arabyia is competing Al Jazeera and it has a recognized audience – but also because Al Hora is related to U.S.A administration policy and propaganda. Credibility needs something concrete to be base on; “this may take years, but it could be destroyed within few seconds”.

The second one is the condition that Robert L. Stevenson focused on as the only way to secure the future of a journalist, which is ‘professionalism’. In fact, this concept is very vague and huge. From my point of view, professionalism basically includes: belief in journalism as a way to show the truth, objectivity in sense of showing all sides’ perspectives and points of views, fighting to get the news, highly educational background, “avoid misread and misunderstanding the foreign contexts [6]”. There are other aspects of course, like, skeptism, creativity – only in the ways of getting a story; not in stories themselves of course –, determination of ‘newsworthy’ etc...! How should we achieve professionalism in individuals, and in news organizations?
We need to have highly trained journalists to achieve it. Training journalism universities, institutions, and even in news organizations themselves; all over the world must be focus on the common mistakes – so to speak – that always face journalists and reporters. After all, you don’t know what’s right, until either you commit, or somebody commits the wrong! The third one is mentioned in every constitution; which is freedom of press. Stevenson said: “ if press freedom is defined as freedom from government control, the United states has the freest system in the world, but even there, the right is not absolute!” Yes, he is right! Let me illustrate one simple example happened two days ago! Tayseer Alony, who worked as a reporter for Al Jazeera during Afghanistan war, is sentenced to 7 years in jail in Spain – he has a Spanish nationality –! He has a record in the number charges; from being Al Qayda member, planning terrorist acts etc….! All of sudden, they dropped all the charges; including being Al Qaydah member! Still one left was about the circumstances he interviewed Osama Bin Laden during Afghanistan war. However, when a Spinach court issued its judgment on him, he was convicted with “cooperation with a terrorist cell!” The worse part is that; the court in its judgment said: there were classified evidences [7] prove that Alony is convicted, but no one is authorized to see it; not even his lawyers because of “national security”! Which reminds us, of course, of how “national security” is really “vaguely defined” [8]. Usually courts determine what’s right and what’s wrong! This is a court of a “free world country[9]!” So, I don’t think freedom of press really exists anywhere, because politics in a way or another still affect its independency.

Depending on all above-mentioned, what future do we see? What end do we have? And what is right, or at least; since “the right is not absolute”, what is wrong?
“People will still trust journalists as a truth teller”, so let’s not disturb this trust. Real journalists, form my point of view, are those who definitely know what ethics they should follow, and what kind of reporting they should drop. An international code of ethics of journalism will be a failure, just like what happened when George Bush wanted to create a global legal system that includes freedom press [10]. It will be a failure because of the argument will start about who will implement it? Who is authorized? U.N is doll in U.S.A bed, thanks to Vetos! I.T.U is pretty old to do a modern mission. Journalists’ organizations, I don’t believe in their ability to fight “big guys”; such as U.S.A, and the Western world! With all do respect to all, we can’t trust any agency to control the implementation of journalism ethics! So, I think it’s an individual task most of all to be implemented by journalists themselves. How and When? We can’t wait forever to see what will happen in technology development. Anyway, it’s not an option. However, for those who don’t want to, remember, only ‘professional journalists will survive’, ethically speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] Philip Seib (2002) The Global Journalist, Chapter 6, page 120.
[2] Philip Seib (2002) The Global Journalist, Chapter 1, page 3.
[3] De Beer, A& Merrill, J (2004) Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media systems, Chapter 5, page 88. [4] Philip Seib (2002) The Global Journalist, Chapter 1, page 8.
[5] Al Hora: means in Arabic: the Free.
[6] De Beer, A& Merrill, J (2004) Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media systems, Chapter 11, page 153.
[7] Al Jazzera website: http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F45D0B51-F71D-4490-9A31-E858E22CBA6B.htm
[8] Philip Seib (2002) The Global Journalist, Chapter 1, page 4.
[9] A quotation from George W. Bush statements.
[10] De Beer, A& Merrill, J (2004) Global Journalism: Topical Issues and Media systems, Chapter 5, page 76.