How should a reporter respond when someone uses emotional pressure and threats to try to stop them doing their job? Every case will be different, but in this scenario we look at a situation where a reporter is begged not to cover a story, and then threatened with violence if they publish. What would you do in the circumstances?

Fair and accurate reporting of proceedings

You are a reporter working for the local newspaper in a small town.

One of the daily tasks is to cover the local courts.

The brief is to go along, read the daily case sheet, select those that you have either been told to look out for or which stand out as being particularly newsworthy, and then attend the hearings.

You will have learnt the rules for court reporting in the country you work in during your journalism training, and you will know what can and what can’t be reported under certain circumstances.

On this particular day you select three cases to cover.

One is a follow-up hearing to a case that your newspaper is already covering. The other two are new cases which you sense are likely to produce a few lines of copy (copy is the word used in the newspaper business for the text you submit to the news editor for approval).

Of those two, one turns out to be particularly newsworthy.

You take your seat in the press gallery along with reporters from other media outlets.

You have a clear view of proceedings, and of the pubic gallery where those with an interest in the case sit.

As you leave the court a woman, who you had seen in the public gallery, approaches you.

She is agitated and begs you not to write a news report about the case.

She says the incident her adult son has been charged with was “a set-up”, that he is innocent, and that if you publish the story it will “ruin his life”.

She tells you his wife has recently given birth and he needs his job to keep his family housed and fed.

If the story runs in the local newspaper, she says, “he will be finished”.

By this point the woman is becoming emotional.

A group of people has gathered around you both.

A man steps forward and prods you in the chest with his finger saying, “Don’t forget, we know where you live.” He then pushes you and you fall back against the wall banging your head in the process. Your colleagues from the other media outlets witness the scene.

What should you do?

1: You should listen to the concerns of the woman and, having been told about the negative impact your report might have, agree not to write about what you heard in court. You are working in a small town, it’s one of those places where everyone knows everyone, your by-line will be on the piece, and it will be much easier for all concerned if you just forget the hearing took place.

2: You should jot down what the woman is saying and question her more about her son’s family, the new baby, where he works, what he does, how he spends his leisure time. This is a great newsgathering opportunity, and she is giving you loads of quotes. The added excitement about you being prodded and threatened all adds to the piece. You could weave in what was said in court with what was said outside. You are already thinking up headlines to suggest to the subeditor: “Reporter assaulted leaving courthouse”, “Local man faces ruin if found guilty”. Try to take a picture of the woman if you can.

3: You should explain to the woman that it’s your duty to report back to your editor on what happened in the court. Tell her that you will report only that which is allowed under the court reporting rules, and that it’s up to your editor to decide whether the article will be published or not. If she has any issues with that she should take it up with the newspaper.

Which is the right approach?

Nobody likes to read bad news about themselves or their families in the local newspaper, so it’s not unusual for court reporters and newspaper editors to come under pressure from those who feel that the publication of information could have a damaging impact on their lives.

When I was a local newspaper reporter such pressure was common.

But your job is to produce a fair and accurate report of proceedings, within the rules set down by the courts.

The task you had been set by your editor that morning was to attend the court, read through the charge lists, select which hearings to cover, cover them, then report back.

It was not to discuss with relatives of any of the accused how reporting the facts as set out during the court proceedings might affect the lives of their loved ones.

I suggest option three is the right response. As a reporter you need to retain your integrity by dealing with situations in a fair and accurate manner. You must not be pulled or persuaded by interested parties.

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

The post Dealing with emotional pressure in journalism – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalism, PR or propaganda?

If the content you produce pushes an agenda, spins a line, favours a sector of society, promotes a certain initiative without question, is manipulated to achieve a subjective outcome, or has a desired objective, you are probably producing public relations copy or even propaganda.

Real journalism is based on applying strict editorial ethics to all we do so that we can examine the issues that have the most impact on the lives of our audience.

So, does your journalism pass the test? Consider the following questions to see whether your journalism is ethical or not.

Eight questions to consider

1: What is your journalistic purpose and what do you hope to achieve by doing the story?

2: What is your personal motivation? Do you have any vested interests in the outcome?

3: Have you included different perspectives and diverse ideas so that the journalism you produce is thorough and informative?

4: Have you ignored any elements that might appear to weaken the story you are writing?

5: Have you considered what motivates those you are interviewing?

6: Are all your questions fair, or are they leading or manipulative? 

7: What are the possible consequences of the story you are producing both in the short term and long term?  

8: Are you using those you choose to interview in order to strengthen your article without considering the possible harm they might suffer once the story is published?

9: Are you able to justify your editorial decisions to your colleagues, to those who you interview, and to the public?

10: Is your journalism original, well-sourced, accurate, and honest?

Seven rules for getting it right

1: Keep your eyes wide open – seek truth and report it as fully as possible.

2: Act independently – owe nobody and don’t seek favours or favourites.

3: Minimise harm – protect your sources, respect privacy, be aware of possible consequences.

4: Assess all facts – don’t ignore the uncomfortable, or that which goes against your script.

5: Seek out independent sources – don’t follow the flock, find fresh voices and perspectives.

6: Thoroughly check the validity of information – take nothing at face value and make sure you have researched and can justify the inclusion of every fact.

7: Be wary of subjective manipulation – don’t be swayed by those who want you to put a positive spin on news.

Seven attitudes of mind

1: Be honest, fair, and courageous in your news gathering and reporting.

2: Give voice to the voiceless, scrutinise the executive and ensure your journalism holds the powerful to account.

3: Guard vigorously the role a free media plays in an open society.

4: Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives, especially those which are rarely heard.

5: Remain free of associations and activities that could compromise your ability to publish the truth.

6: Always consider how your journalism could impact the lives of those who feature in your coverage.

7: Treat all with respect, and not as a means to achieving your journalistic end.

A dozen rules on accuracy

1: All work must be well-sourced.

2: It must be based on sound evidence.

3: Your writing must be thoroughly fact-checked.

4: It must be presented in clear, precise language.

5: Avoid spreading unfounded speculation, rumour and gossip.

6: Accuracy is more important than speed. Never rush a story to be first with the news. Better to be second and right rather than first and wrong.

7: Ensure you always weigh all the relevant facts and information in order to get to the truth.

8: If an issue is controversial you must always include all relevant opinions so that your reporting is not one-sided.

9: Gather material using first-hand sources wherever possible.

10: Ensure you read through everything you write.

11: Check the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

12: Corroborate claims and allegations made.

Six considerations regarding impartiality and diversity of opinion

1: Always strive to reflect a wide range of opinions.

2: Always be prepared to explore a range of conflicting views.

3: Never ignore any significant strands of thought or under-represented groups.

4: Exercise your freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.

5: Ensure to avoid bias or an imbalance of views on all issues, particularly controversial subjects.

6: You will sometimes need to report on issues that may cause serious offence to many. You must be sure that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence.

Seven criteria for deciding when news is in the public interest

1: Exposing or detecting crime.

2: Highlighting significant anti-social behaviour, corruption or injustice.

3: Disclosing significant incompetence or negligence.

4: Uncovering information that allows people to make informed decisions about matters of public importance.

5: Protecting the health and safety of the public.

6: Preventing the public from being misled.

7: Protecting issues of freedom of expression.

Fairness

Be open, honest and straightforward in dealing with contributors, unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise. Where allegations are being made, the individuals or organisations concerned should normally be given the right of reply.

Privacy

It is essential in order to exercise your rights of freedom of expression and information that you work within a framework which respects an individual’s privacy and treats them fairly while investigating and establishing matters which it is in the public interest to reveal.

Integrity

Always remain independent of both state and partisan interests. Never endorse or appear to endorse any organisations, products, activities or services.

Sources

Accept information from any source, but know you will need to make a personal decision as to which information is worth considering and which is not. Sources must always be checked, especially when dealing with first-time sources that have never been used before. It is important to protect sources that do not wish to be named.

The post Is your journalism ethical? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The Media Helping Media ethics section is designed to help journalists navigate some of the challenges they might face as they go about their work. The ethics modules are a set of guidelines, not rules. They need to be adapted to ensure that they are regionally and culturally relevant.

The guidelines are for journalists who want to provide robust, searching, issue-led journalism that informs the public debate so that the audience/users/readers can make educated choices.

The modules are based on a desire to deliver editorial excellence that reaches the whole audience regardless of race, religion, nationality, personal preferences and social status, with impartial, fair, accurate and objective information.

The material on this site has nothing to do with producing so-called ‘constructive news’ or ‘positive news’. Subjective value judgements sit uncomfortably with editorial ethics. These modules will help journalists deal with editorial issues affecting life as it really is rather than from a controlled perspective, which, in the view of the author of this piece, is not journalism.

Increasing demand for ethics training

The creation of this section follows a growing demand for training modules to help journalists cope with the editorial and ethical issues surrounding newsgathering and news delivery.

Many people have written editorial guidelines, and a search of the web will throw up dozens of variations. We have chosen to base the Media Helping Media guidelines on the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. This is mainly because the two founders of Media Helping Media spent many years working at the BBC and have trained thousands of journalists in how to apply these guidelines.

However, the Media Helping Media guidelines are significantly different. Because they are used in training courses in various parts of the world, they are continually adapted and rewritten to reflect regional issues and sensitivities.

The issue in all cases is to deliver editorial excellence based on a clearly defined ethical code of practice that balances the rights to freedom of expression with editorial responsibility.

The modules in this section cover:

• Accuracy: Producing well-sourced information based on solid evidence
• Impartiality: Being fair and open-minded coverage while exploring all significant views
• Fairness: Operating in a transparent, open, honest and fair manner based on straight dealing
• Privacy: Ensuring we respect and never invade personal privacy unless it is in the public interest
• Offence: Delivering challenging journalism that is sensitive to audience expectations
• Integrity: Dealing with groups keen to use, manipulate or mould the media for their own advantage
• Interactivity: Engaging the audience in our output in order to ensure that we reflect public opinion
• Legal: Avoiding the courts while continuing to inform the public debate.

Check our ethics section for the full list of training modules.

The post Why editorial ethics are important first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Exploring all sides of an issue

Fairness in journalism means exploring all sides of an issue and reporting the findings accurately.

Members of the public should never be used to exaggerate the importance of a story. As a journalist you have a responsibility to examine your own motives, and ensure that your personal feelings and emotions do not influence what you report, whom you talk to, or determine which elements of the story you highlight.

You also need to think carefully about the language and tone you use to ensure that it doesn’t give an inaccurate and unfair representation of the facts. Your job is to inform the public debate, not manipulate that debate. You are working on behalf of the public, not using them for your own ends.

A journalist should have no motivation other than presenting sourced and verified facts. You should not have a desired outcome – that’s activism. And some would argue that journalism and activism are not compatible. You do your job regardless of the outcome.

Right of reply

You should always offer the right of reply when making allegations. However, there will be some cases where this rule needs to be checked with senior editorial colleagues.

If, for example, you uncover information that you consider to be in the public interest, and which involves serious allegations against an individual or group, it might not be appropriate to approach those who are the focus of your investigatioin.

This is particularly important if the information could lead to criminal arrest. In most cases, the fact that a person has agreed to be interviewed is sufficient to prove informed consent.

However, care needs to be taken when dealing with young people, the vulnerable, and those who have been recently bereaved or have suffered from trauma.

Those you are going to quote must be told when the material will be used, in what context, and how the material will be used.

This is particularly important with broadcasters and with any media organisation operating a converged newsroom delivering content to multiple platforms or devices.

It may seem obvious to you that the material will be searchable online and viewed worldwide, but your contributor may not have thought this through, especially if they are under stress. It is only fair to point it out.

If the member of the public is making a significant contribution, on which the whole item or broadcast programme is based, this needs to be made absolutely clear to them. They have a right to know:

• if there is a discussion or debate surrounding their contribution and, if so, the range of views being represented and the likely contributors.
• whether their contribution is live or edited and when it is likely to be broadcast (be careful not to give assurances if the broadcast time could change).
• a broad outline of the way you see the discussion going (your reasons for doing the piece).
• any changes leading up to broadcast or publication.

You do not need to let them see any pre-recorded material, or material that is likely to be published online, even if they are involved. 

You should avoid inviting them to proof-read what you are writing; that could lead to pressure to make changes that are editorially unacceptable. 

If a preview is requested, you need to examine the editorial, legal and ethical reasons for this.

Seeking a response

In cases where there are allegations of wrongdoing, you need to offer a fair opportunity for people to respond to the allegations before broadcast or publication.

When seeking a response, you need to keep accurate records of when, how and where the person was approached, along with their response to the offer.

If the material is for TV and radio, that response needs to be broadcast in the same programme, or at the same time, as the allegation is made. Again, legal reasons might override this.

Editorial independence

Contributors sometimes try to impose conditions before agreeing to take part in interviews. You must retain editorial control and not enter into any agreement that stops you asking the questions your audience would expect you to pose.

It is unlikely that it would ever be appropriate to broadcast or publish an interview in which the contributor sets out what she or he is prepared to be interviewed about. However, if such a case arises, it must be made clear to the audience the conditions that were set in order to obtain the interview.

The contributor must also be told that you will be making this clear before and after the interview is aired/published. They need to understand that journalists deal with news, and are not public relations (PR) consultants offering a PR platform.

In some cases, people who have already been interviewed will decide to withdraw their consent. You should consider their objections, but whether you use the material or not is an editorial decision and must be based on whether it is in the public interest to publish the material.

You should be open to signing agreements for access to premises or to talk to staff, but you must examine the agreements closely to ensure that they do not involve the surrendering of editorial control. To do so would compromise your editorial integrity.

The same is true of indemnity forms. In all cases, if unacceptable conditions are imposed, you should withdraw from the project.

You should never ask contributors to expose themselves to health and safety risks, and they must make clear in writing that they recognise and accept any risks.

Note: This site was been given permission to use and adapt elements of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines in these short editorial ethics modules. They have been updated to reflect changing international, regional and cultural variations.

Related modules

Integrity and journalism

Editorial integrity – scenario

Interviewing integrity – scenario

The post Fairness in journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.