As one of the editors of a government radio news service in a developing democracy you receive information of an imminent threat of famine in a rural area of the country.

You are told that, unless immediate action is taken by the government and the international community, thousands of people are likely to die in the next few months.

You know that the government is aware of the situation but would rather not publicise the threatened famine in the hope that it passes unnoticed, as it has often done in the past.

In a recent visit to the famine-threatened region you saw thousands of tonnes of grain being readied for export to foreign markets by remote merchants.

Your research uncovered that these same merchants are known to have financed the mechanised farming of grain in the famine-threatened region.

The grain they harvest, you discovered, is largely intended for export to countries which are known to provide financial aid to your national government.

As you consider what to do, a written press release arrives on your desk from a commissioner of the famine-threatened region, pleading for immediate assistance.

The press release was sent to you specifically in the hope that you would broadcast the information.

You suspect that if you seek clearance from “above” to publish the information your request will either be refused, delayed, or will possibly disappear altogether.

As a result, the available grain will likely be exported and the famine will possibly take its toll.

If you allow the information to be broadcast, and point out the availability of the grain destined for export out of the region, it may shame the government into doing something, such as putting an embargo on the exportation of the grain from the region.

However, broadcasting the information could put your job at risk.

What do you do?

1. Refer the matter up to senior editors and government officials and try to persuade them that broadcasting the information is in the public interest and that, as a news outlet serving a community at risk, you have a duty of care to share what you know.
2. Broadcast the information without ‘referring up’ because you fear you will be blocked, and you consider it is more important to save lives than save your career.
3. Don’t broadcast, but instead pass the information on to a foreign correspondent or foreign media outlet which you trust in the hope that they will circulate the information.
4. Ignore the story, aware that this is probably happening in many other countries and whatever you do will make no difference.

Conclusion

How a journalist responds to such a situation will differ from country to country and culture to culture. There is no easy answer here. However, in the scenario set out above the journalist decided on option 2.

They went ahead and broadcast the information they had without ‘referring up’ because they feared they would be blocked, and they considered it to be more important to save lives than save their career.

After the information had been broadcast they received a stern telling off, but kept their job.

And as a result of the information being broadcast on the government radio channel the authorities announced an embargo on the exportation of grain until enough was available for the hungry in the region.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on actual events.

The post Testing boundaries – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Fake news is not new, it’s been around for thousands of years. Throughout history there have always been attempts to fool and confuse the public and distract attention from the truth. However, in recent years disinformation has become much more widespread, and it constitutes a direct challenge to honest, truthful reporting. So what should journalists do about it?

Fojo Media Institute has an excellent free resource called Fojo Check containing tools for journalists wanting to brush up their skills in fact-checking.

Annelie Frank, the project manager for Fojo’s fact-checking hub Faktajouren says many know about fake news’, but not many understand what it is.

“It’s not news, because news tells us what’s really happened even if mistakes occasionally are made. I don’t think a lot of people fall for fake news on fake news sites nowadays. The public has been educated on source criticism and on how the media works. The former US president has practically kidnapped the term with his attacks on traditional media. Fake news is not the big problem. But disinformation is a greater threat. These kinds of stories contain quite a lot of truth. A government decision can be described correctly, but relevant information will be left out and thereby the big picture is muddled.”

We spoke to a range of experts involved in training journalists, and we asked them how to spot fake news and deal with it. Responses listed alphabetically.

Associate Professor Dr. Dinh Thi Thuy Hang – Director, Center for Further Training of Professional Journalists (VJTC), Vietnam Journalists Association (VJA)

“In 2021 the VJTC conducted five training workshops for journalists in identifying and checking fake news, disinformation and misinformation.

“Fake news often appears on social networks. They have catchy and often shocking headlines to attract attention. As an internet user, I often read through the information, then look at the link (URL).

“Misinformation often comes from fake news websites which are created to appear almost identical to the original websites.

“When in doubt I cross check the date and the event to see if the information is published on other newspapers or news sites. If the news is discussed by other sources, such as mainstream newspapers, there’s a high chance that news is true. However, for journalists, they still need to verify the information with sources to gather evidence in order to confirm that the news is accurate.

“When I find misinformation being spread, I often post on my family’s and friend’s groups on social media to tell them that the information being shared is fake and that they shouldn’t believe it or circulate it. However some people still circulate misinformation even though they are suspicious of the information being shared via social media links.”

Sanjoy Hazarika is a former reporter for the New York Times, author and documentary filmmaker. He is co-convenor of the South Asia Media Defenders Network (SAMDEN) and currently Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). He is the founder of the Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research (C-NES).

“I encourage journalists to access well-known resources and organizations which flag, challenge and disseminate information about fake news and their media handles. Every major country has a few dedicated persons focusing on these critical issues. In addition, the answer to fake news is to place the facts on any issue in the public domain.

“Another way — slower than getting a news break from a reliable source but reliable — is to use freedom of information/right to information laws which exist in many parts of the world.

“Journalists have won national and international awards by anchoring their reporting about key government issues of public concern on right to information (RTI) requests. RTI has become an important tool for media to investigate official wrongdoing. The facts can’t be disputed because they come from the original source: the relevant government department.”

Naomi Goldsmith – journalism trainer and media consultant

“I personally think there is no such thing as ‘fake news’. If the information is fake, then it’s not news.

“News, of course, should always be accurate, and where there is uncertainty or controversy – this should be made clear.

“There are people who knowingly or mistakenly create or pass on information which is not accurate, and this can more precisely be referred to as disinformation and misinformation.

“Disinformation – like dishonest – means it’s deliberately false. Misinformation – like mistake – means there wasn’t a deliberate intention to create or pass on false or misleading information. It was a mistake.”

(Naomi has written a longer piece for this site about dealing with disinformation and misinformation).

Jaldeep Katwala – writer and journalist

“Look at the source. Is it an organisation you trust? If the information comes to you via social media from a friend of a friend or someone you vaguely know, be particularly suspicious.

“Does it sound credible? Are the sources quoted recognised and traceable?

“Beware of opinions masquerading as facts. Always ask what is this person’s perspective and ask if they are trying to support an outrageous statement with partial or unlikely facts.

“Journalists are gatekeepers of information. We check the validity of what we are told and then share it with the audience once we are sure it is accurate, honest and truthful.

“Sometimes journalists fail in this regard, so information published by other news outlets also needs to be tested.

“If you’re not sure that information is correct don’t pass it on. Be subjective but don’t be obsessive.

“In your work as a news gatherer be sure to cast your eyes and ears widely in an attempt to include multiple perspectives. Don’t limit yourself to a personal echo chamber cut off from the real world and other points of view.

“Keep an open mind, listen to diverse opinions, and always check and double check all the information you come across before passing it on to those who turn to you for reliable information.”

Richard Sambrook – Emeritus Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University

“Fake news is a phrase used to cover many different sorts of problems – and sometimes used to undermine legitimate journalism. Basically there is misinformation – information which is unintentionally wrong and simply needs correcting – and disinformation, which is deliberately wrong and intended to mislead.

“The problem of disinformation isn’t going to go away. The tools of disinformation are getting more sophisticated. For example, artificial intelligence can now manipulate audio and video to make it appear people have said things they have not said.

“So how can you spot Fake News? Ask some basic questions:

• Who is saying this? Is the source clear and are they who they say they are (e.g. is the website url genuine?)
• Where are other voices, views and sources on this topic? If there are none – be suspicious.
• Why are they saying this? Is it to inform? persuade? entertain? educate? Or might it be to mislead?
• When was this said? Is it contemporary or is it a picture or quote taken out of context from the past to mislead about a current issue?

“When misinformation or disinformation is found, it needs to be corrected. But that alone may not be enough. In the end, serious journalists need to commit to high standards of accuracy, fairness, providing evidence, reporting a range of views and being open about their purpose and accountable if mistakes get made. Openness and transparency are the best means of winning trust.

“Understanding fake news and verification techniques are built into core journalism modules at Cardiff University.”

The post How to identify and deal with fake news first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A young journalist is appointed as a parliamentary reporter for a public service broadcaster in a Western democracy.

He is assigned to cover a specific region of the country. His job is to get to know his area’s MPs (members of parliament) and to cover their activities.

Keen to make an impression, he draws up a list of all the politicians on his new patch. His region has several constituencies where the sitting MP is a senior government minister.

A national story breaks. The minister in charge of the department concerned is on the reporter’s list. The journalist makes contact.

The minister, a Secretary of State in the department at the centre of the story, invites the reporter round to his private rooms in the parliament building. He has, so far, been refusing to be interviewed on the topic.

They have a chat, the reporter explains that he has taken over the patch and that he wanted to get to know all his MPs.

The minister seems friendly. He offers the reporter a cup of tea. They appear to get on well. The MP’s assistant is hovering in the background.

Towards the end of the chat the reporter asks the politician whether he would agree to a short recorded interview on the developing story. He says yes.

An audio clip from the interview makes national news. After it is broadcast, the reporter’s boss praises him for his work; it’s a good start in the new job.

Three months later the minister’s assistant calls to tell the reporter that the minister has a story for him. The reporter is excited. It sounds like he could be in line for another scoop.

He’s invited to visit the MP’s office again. When he turns up he’s handed a piece of paper. He reads what seems like nothing more than a public relations plug for the minister; the reporter fails to see the story.

He questions whether there is anything newsworthy to report. The minister seems surprised, and replies that he had done him a favour with a quote three months earlier and now it’s his turn to return the favour and report what the minister wants.

The reporter had no idea that the minister would want to call in a favour after giving a quote.

The minister’s assistant talks to the reporter as he leaves and suggests that it might not be as easy for her to arrange a meeting in the future if the reporter fails to cover the story the minister wants publicised.

What should the reporter do?

a) Do the story the way the minister wants. The reporter will be covering the region for some time, and he does not want to fall out with one of the most senior politicians on his patch – doing so could mean that he will miss out on quotes in the future when he might need them.

b) Ignore the request, knowing that he is under no obligation to cover the story. He might have been naive in the way he approached the first meeting with the minister, but he didn’t do any deals to get the first interview.

The suggested approach

Political interviewing should never be a matter of returning assumed favours.

Journalists should never do deals to get information or interviews. There will always be a price to pay if they do.

In this case the journalist reported the matter to his line manager who also failed to see the news story in the issue the minister wanted to publicise. And, even if he had, it would have been wrong for the story to be covered on the understanding that it was because a favour was being returned.

Interestingly, deciding not to cover what was a PR stunt didn’t disadvantage the reporter when it came to requesting future interviews. The politician was clearly trying to exploit the situation.

Related training modules

How to interview politicians

The relationship between journalists and politicians

Integrity and journalism

text

The post Returning ‘favours’ – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

What is bias?

Bias is a prejudice or favour for or against an individual or group. It is often an inaccurate and unfair judgement. We are all biased. It’s normal, although it is not desirable

Our brains have to process a lot of information in a short time. It therefore sometimes takes shortcuts. This ability can help keep us safe. We quickly assess whether or not the unknown person approaching us is a threat or harmless.

Factors affecting our unconscious bias

• Our background and upbringing
• Personal experience
• Societal stereotypes
• Cultural context

Unconscious bias can lead to inaccurate assumptions

Journalists should not make assumptions. They should base their judgements on facts and reliable evidence.

• Unconscious bias can lead to damaging stereotypes.
• It can lead to the assumption of innocence or guilt.
• It can mean only a few types of people are interviewed and have their views broadcast or published.
• It can mean that the best people are not hired for the job.

Different types of unconscious bias

Unconscious bias means we do not knowingly show bias, but bias is evident in what we produce. If we are aware of the different types of bias, we can take steps to try to avoid it.

Affinity bias

This bias occurs when we are drawn to people we are like. We are biased in favour of those with whom we share an affinity. That’s to say: people like me.

Confirmation bias

This bias occurs when we favour information, which confirms what we already believe. For example, if we are not in favour of policy X, we are more willing to believe that minor setbacks are major problems and proof that ultimately policy X will fail.

Anchor bias

This bias occurs when we rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive and we are anchored down by it. For example, if the first piece of information we receive comes from an official who says Y is a problem – we will see Y as a problem rather than questioning whether or not this is true in the first place.

Bandwagon Bias

Jumping on the bandwagon means joining in something just because it is fashionable or popular. Journalists often follow stories or trends because other media outlets are doing so. Journalists need to keep up with current trends, but just because other media houses are following a story it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s important or true.

How to avoid unconscious bias

• Be aware of the different types of unconscious bias.
• Think about the situations where you are likely to be susceptible to unconscious bias.
• Find your trigger points when you are likely to make snap judgements.

Possible triggers for unconscious bias

• Under pressure of a deadline.
• Under pressure from your boss to come up with stories.
• When you are tired, stressed or hungry.
• When you are in an unfamiliar territory or with unfamiliar people.
• When you feel threatened or judged.

Measures for tackling unconscious bias

• Step out of your comfort zone. Talk to as many different types of people as you can.
• Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. See things from their perspective.
• Counter stereotyping by imagining the person as the opposite of the stereotype.
• See everyone as an individual rather than a type.
• Flip the situation. Imagine a different group of people or flip the gender. Would you still come to the same conclusions?
• Be careful with your language and images. Make sure they do not contain assumptions, harmful stereotypes or inaccuracies.

Test your knowledge of unconscious bias

Question 1: Unconscious bias is a quick judgement based on limited facts and our own life experience. True or false?

Answer = True. Biases are often based on quick judgements. Examining your assumptions is a good way to counter bias.

Question 2: The manager agrees to let one of your colleagues work flexible hours. You view this as an indication that they are not as committed as those who work regular hours. This is not unconscious bias if they later do turn out to be trying to avoid certain responsibilities. True or false?

Answer = False. In this case, someone who believes that employees who work flexible hours are less committed than those working more traditional hours may start to develop perceptions of colleagues who work flexibly which confirm that belief. This is unconscious confirmation bias.

Question 3: If you choose to recruit candidate Z because you get on with them because you studied at the same college – this is not affinity bias if they are a different gender and ethnicity to you. True or false?

Answer = False. It is affinity bias because you still feel an affinity to them through a shared experience of college.

Question 4: Unconscious bias is based on the following:

1. Gender
2. Appearance
3. Previous experience
4. Ethnicity
5. All the above

Answer = All the above.

Question 5: What is affinity bias?

1. Believing something because your friends believe it.
2. Being more receptive to people who are like you.
3. Looking for evidence which backs up your beliefs about someone.
4. Creating stereotypes about different groups of people.

Answer = b is correct

Question 6: Unconscious bias can give people an unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage. True or false?

Answer = True

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

False equivalence and false balance

Accuracy in journalism

The post Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The public interest means anything that is relevant to the lives and well-being of all of us, to society and our communities. It concerns the “common good”, meaning matters that affect our health, livelihoods, quality of life, security, and our governance.

The public interest does not mean what the public might find interesting. Broadly speaking, the difference here is between what is relevant to members of the public, as opposed to what might merely entertain, fascinate or titillate some of them.

News journalism is reporting matters of societal relevance. Not gossip and titbits about well-known figures, or about personal events and circumstances of others that do not affect broader society, but which merely pander to voyeurism. A journalist with a brief to report news should therefore apply a public interest test before deciding whether to cover a story.

In most cases it is clear what is and what is not in the public interest. But in some cases, such as stories concerning the private lives and actions of public figures in positions of power, the distinction is not clear.

The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and functional society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that. It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process. If journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.

All serious journalism, then, contains a public service ethic. To fulfil this public service role, journalists must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in an ethical and professional manner.

A journalist must have compelling reasons to deviate from standard good practice: if it is the only way to bring an important subject to the public’s attention.

For example, journalists should be honest about who and what they are; they should always give their names, and say for which news organisation they work.
However, there are times when a journalist might have to go undercover and hide their true identity and the real reason for their actions. Such cases could include the investigation of crime or political wrongdoing.

This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided, but if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.

Journalists should not intrude into people’s private lives – but there might be a case for doing so if the person being investigated is a public figure whose private behaviour is at odds with what they advocate in public life, especially when their position can influence legislation.

In this case, media intrusion – normally an objectionable practice – could expose hypocrisy and dishonesty. However, such intrusion must be clearly shown and clearly seen to be in the wider public interest.

Things become more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so. Here you need to have a serious discussion with colleagues about the circumstances, the public interest benefit in covering the story, the risks involved and the likely consequences.

Some countries build “the public interest” into their legal systems. So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is “in the public interest”, you should check whether the legal framework gives you the protection you need in each and every case.

In some countries, those in power might actively oppose journalists revealing information which, although in the public interest, might threaten their control of society. In such cases the public interest test takes on another meaning. How those in power define the public interest might be more about control than freedom of information. Here, extra care is required.

Some public interest justifications

If the decision is taken to publish, it is likely to be because the story would do one of these things:

• Correct a significant wrong.
• Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety.
• Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about an important issue relevant to our society.
• Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life.

None of this is easy. Journalists grapple with these issues every day. Many factors at play have not even been considered here, but if you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.

Related training module

Public interest – scenario

The post Journalism and the public interest first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A media organisation needs to be clear about what it stands for. If your audience is to put its trust in the news you produce, then those who turn to you for reliable information will want to understand your values and how you intend to live up to them.

They will expect you to be transparent about how you operate and accountable for what you produce.

Earlier in this series of media strategy training modules we looked at four of the essential elements of a successful media business and how they were like the legs of a table with each having to be as strong as the other.

The first of those legs is identifying the target audience groups or segments that the media organisation aims to serve.

The second is the list of issues, topics and stories that will satisfy the information needs of that audience.

The third is the market strategy that will support the media business revenue generation.

Now we need to look at the fourth leg – the vision, values and ethics that should be evident in everything your media organisation does, and the pledge that you make to your audience.

The vision for the media organisation needs to be set by the senior management team and approved by the relevant board, trustees or regulators. It will describe how you will operate and why you will be different from others.

Typically, this vision will be set out in the ‘About Us’ page of your website. This is where you state what you stand for, what you aim to offer to your target audience, how you will deliver the material, and how you aim to be accountable by welcoming feedback and audience involvement.

The same page might also include text describing the values and ethics that you promise to uphold in all you do.

It might contain a pledge to the audience about how you and all your staff will operate.

It could include an invitation to the audience to contact you if they feel that you fail to deliver on your promises. This is how you offer transparency.

Sample About Us page

The following is an example from the About Us page for an independent media house in a country in transition. The page includes the vision, a pledge, the values/ethics the media house promises to uphold, and an invitation to get in touch if they fail. It might help you draft a pledge for your audience. Feel free to copy and improve.

“Our pledge to those we serve is to seek the truth, deliver the facts, and offer relevant context and analysis where appropriate.

“Our tone will be non-judgemental, objective and fair.

“In all cases we strive to include all relevant opinions and ensure that no significant strand of thought is neglected.

“We will strive to dig where others don’t, give voice to the voiceless, shine a light in dark places, scrutinise the executive, and hold the powerful to account – all on behalf of you, our audience, whom we aim to serve with integrity.

“We aim to produce journalism that is professional, credible, reliable , trustworthy, dependable, and totally transparent.

“Our desire is create a conversation about the issues that matter, and enable maximum participation, so that our output reflect as diverse a range of perspectives as possible.

“In so doing we hope to be part of the process of national healing, nation building, reconciliation and reconstruction.

“We aim to be a listening media organisation that deals with, and reflects, the issues that most concern those we serve.

“We want to help members of our audience to talk to each other without fear or favour and, through robust engagement, help ensure a tolerance society by encouraging the celebration of our diversity.

“We aim to offer a canvas for people to showcase their best ideas to help transform the country into a knowledge-based society where citizens are free to express their creativity, ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

“We have set ourselves challenging objectives, but we believe that only be striving to achieve the highest can we elevate ourselves above the elements which tend to hold our country back.

“However, if you see anything in our output where you feel we may have failed to deliver on the pledges set out above, and where we may have failed on issues such as tone, accuracy, impartiality, objectivity, taste, decency and fairness, please let us know by using the contact us form. We are here to listen and to improve.”

The above is just an example. You will know what your pledge to your audience should be. Don’t be afraid to state it.

Cascading objectives

Once you have the vision, values and pledge, you need to communicate these carefully and thoroughly through every department of your media business. This is done partly by setting objectives at the corporate, departmental, unit, and personal level.

Every department will have objectives set for them by senior management. These will be directly related to the vision and pledge.

To achieve their objectives, each department will need all units reporting to them to, in turn, achieve their particular objectives, and each unit will need all individuals to achieve their objectives.

We will consider this in more depth in the next training module entitled “Managing people, setting objectives, nurturing and developing staff”.

The post Vision, accountability and transparency first appeared on Media Helping Media.

You are a reporter working on a newspaper in a coastal resort where there are plans to build a new leisure centre on the site of an old hotel complex dating back to Victorian times.

You sense that something is wrong when a local politician becomes an outspoken champion for the proposal, despite widespread opposition from environmental campaigners, historians, and residents. The politician says the development will be good for business and for the fortunes of the town.

While investigating the story you find that the politician has close business connections with the owner of the hotel who submitted the planning application and the developer who has had the building plans drawn up. It’s also emerged that the politician has links with a betting firm that plans to open a casino on the new leisure site.

Three years ago, when the Victorian hotel was extended, you accepted an invitation to attend the opening. There was a buffet and free bar. The party went on late into the night. The owner generously offered free accommodation. The next day you wrote a story for the newspaper which carried the headline “Victorian hotel given new lease of life”.

Now, three years on, as soon as you start to ask questions about the proposed new development, both the hotel owner and the politician remind you that you were quite happy to enjoy the hotel’s hospitality in the past and that surely you owe them a favour.

They ask you what it would look like if they let it be known that you were a journalist who liked to accept free gifts from local businesses.

They hand you a news release they have prepared along with some exclusive artist impressions of the proposed development and suggest you reproduce the material unchanged.

What do you do? Do you:

1. Talk to your editor, admit that you accepted hospitality at the opening event three years ago and leave it to your editor to decide how the story is covered.
2. Drop the investigative part of the story in order to protect yourself and your newspaper in the hope that by keeping quiet and not asking awkward questions your earlier involvement will not be revealed.
3. Take the news release and images from the businessman and publish the story the way they want it presented.

Suggested action

You should talk to your editor and admit that you had accepted hospitality from people who are now part of your investigation and that they have warned you not to explore the story any further. Share the information you have with your editor, set out the links you have uncovered, and enlist their support for continuing with your piece.

The only way to resolve such issues is by being honest and transparent in all your dealings and then learning that accepting what some might consider to be favours could compromise your work as a journalist.

Why this is the right answer

There is a saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This means that when you are given something free of charge, people often expect a favour in return.

For a journalist, this is particularly difficult. However, we are all learning and you will certainly not make the same mistake again.

You must talk to your editor, tell him or her all the facts, be totally honest, and move on.

Your newspaper owes it to its readers to tell the truth, and the story must be investigated, even if it proves embarrassing to you.

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events.

Related training modules

Is your journalism ethical?

Integrity and journalism

The post Journalistic ethics – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Allegations are made about an incompetent medical surgeon and a subsequent cover up at a hospital. People have died.

Your news editor asks you to investigate. The only problem is – the surgeon is your cousin. What do you do?

1. Investigate the surgeon thoroughly. The fact they are a relative will not deter you from doing your duty as a journalist.
2. Try to dissuade your news editor against the story. You know your relative to be a competent and committed surgeon. Sometimes things go wrong during operations and patients die.
3. Tell your news editor that you are related to the person in question and ask for someone else to be assigned to the story.

Suggested action

It is difficult to be 100% impartial when dealing with stories about family or friends. Also, public perception is important. Even if you do investigate the allegations thoroughly and write the story – your audience still has to believe that your professional integrity was not compromised. By separating yourself from the story at the outset the audience can continue to trust your news organisation. So option three is probably the best course of action.

Related training modules

Impartiality in journalism

Fairness in journalism

The post Editorial impartiality – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Emily Shawcross is an award winning blogger living and working on an island state in the Caribbean.

She is something of a maverick by nature but has uncovered some really good stories on corrupt practices involving mining companies and politicians.

Eventually this leads to an award from the United Nations as anti-corruption journalist of the year.

Islands TV recruits Emily to be the main presenter on its evening business programme, Drive For Money.

Emily is excited by the new job and is looking forward to bringing her award-winning investigative journalistic approach to the programme

However, Islands TV signs a secret contract with the Minister For Industry And Development, John Jackson, which, for the equivalent of $250,000 USD, guarantees him at least 10 appearances on the programme during a 20-week run.

Emily finds out about the contract, but has only just joined Islands TV, and is earning more in a month than she did in a year as a blogger. Should Emily:

1. Say nothing but strive to ask difficult questions to balance out any bias
2. Raise her concerns with the producer of the programme and Islands TV management and hope that they will at least acknowledge that any interview is paid for
3. Resign immediately and say nothing about why
4. Resign immediately and leak the story to Island TV’s main competitor, Sunshine Watch

What would you do?

Suggested action

In the real example of this fictional scenario the reporter resigned but said nothing. However tough the interview might be, the reputational risk to Emily’s name as a journalist is more important than any other consideration.

Raising the concerns with the station management was pointless, since corruption works two ways. Accepting the money is as corrupt as taking it. Leaking the story would have broken the terms of Emily’s contract of employment.

The post Interviewing integrity – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The circumstances and background

You have been sent to cover an incident at a border crossing following reports that a large group of asylum seekers is trying to gain entry to a neighbouring country.

It’s reported that shots have been fired and some people have been killed.

You arrive and see a child sitting by the roadside crying.

You think it’s been abandoned and take a picture. It’s a wonderful shot.

You call your news editor and prepare to send the image back to the newsroom.

The news editor is excited; pictures like this win awards.

As soon as you have sent the image, the child’s mother appears and picks the child up. It stops crying.

It seems the child’s grief was caused, mainly, by being separated from its mother.

Once it saw its mother it seemed to be happy – despite the chaos surrounding it.

The mother shouts at you for taking a photograph, and wanders off into the crowd with her child.

What should you do?

1. Pretend the incident with the mother never happened. You have already alerted the news desk. They want to use the image. The mother will probably never know and is unlikely to take action, and you could end up winning a journalism award for the picture.
2. Talk to your news editor, explain the situation but recommend that the image is used anyway because, although it’s not accurate, it does show the misery and suffering at the border crossing.
3. Look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Suggested action

The best course of action would be to look for another shot more representative of the story even though it may be less powerful.

Why option 3 the right answer

It’s all about accuracy and reporting honestly from a situation.

• Don’t just go for the shocking, sad and emotionally-charged images without finding out whether they really reflect the scene you are witnessing; to do so may be exploiting the victims and failing to uncover the true cause of the distress.
• Be sure that what you photograph accurately reflects the true situation and is not a distortion of reality; on the other hand, never ignore the one-off that could reveal an aspect of neglect or harm that has so far gone unnoticed.
• Never stage-manage a shoot to hype up the story; your job is to report through images what has actually happened.

Related training modules

Accuracy in journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

Transparency and full disclosure – scenario

All the scenarios on Media Helping Media are based on real events. 

The post Photo journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.