Journalists can sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by making a simple common mistake. We either try too hard to ‘balance’ a story then end up distorting the facts, or we assess contributors or actors in our story as being roughly equal when in fact they are not.

This module looks at ways of avoiding two errors, applying ‘false equivalence’ and ‘false balance’.

These two errors, which are about making inaccurate comparisons, crop up frequently in journalism.

False equivalence is when you say that two or more things are the same, when in fact they are significantly different.

An example of false equivalence is to state that “politicians are all the same”. They are not. They might have similarities and some common attributes but that does not mean they are the same.

False balance is when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, when in fact the evidence weighs heavily in favour of one side.

An example of false balance is the treatment of the climate change debate. Scientists come down heavily in favour of the proposition that human beings are causing, or at least helping to cause, global warming. A tiny minority, perhaps as low as three per cent, disagree, and it is false to represent the dispute as evenly-matched.

Ironically, many cases of false balance happen because the journalist is trying to avoid being biased.

When reporting a controversy, quite properly the journalist does not want to take sides.  But sometimes it is necessary to show that one side’s arguments and evidence are much more persuasive than the other side’s.

An example here is Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he won the 2020 US Presidential election. He has failed to produce any evidence to support that claim and has lost numerous court battles challenging the result. So it is false to present his claim as a viable argument.

False equivalence and false balance can both be used deliberately to mislead people. They are often used in misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

Or they can be examples of lazy thinking by the journalist.

Either way, they are inaccurate and care must be taken to avoid using them.

Things to remember in order to avoid using false equivalence and false balance:

• When you are tempted to say that two or more things are equal, ask yourself if you can justify the statement.
• If the comparison is likely to be controversial, explain why you think it is valid.
• Do not accept or repeat other people’s statements of equivalency, without testing their validity.
• When covering a dispute, make sure you reflect accurately all sides of the argument.  If some of the arguments are questionable, explain why.

It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.

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

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Impartiality in journalism

Accuracy in journalism

The post False equivalence and false balance first appeared on Media Helping Media.

A young radio reporter is coming to the end of his first month on the job. He’s just been approved to drive the radio station’s news car, which means he can now go out on stories and broadcast live from the scene. He’s very excited.

He looks out of the newsroom window and sees a thick plume of smoke rising from the east of the city centre. He alerts the news editor who agrees he should take the radio car, get as close to the scene as possible, and report live into the next bulletin at 4pm.

The reporter arrives at the scene at 3:50pm. He parks behind two fire engines at the corner of a building which is ablaze.

The reporter has 10 minutes before he has to go live into the bulletin. He tries to find someone for a comment, but all the firefighters are busy trying to control the flames, while the police are trying to control the crowd.

However, one of the engineers operating the fire engine pump will talk. When asked whether there are any casualties, he says “Not that we know of, but there are still people in the building.”

The reporter sees a group of people carrying items out of the burning tenements. He presumes they are trying to salvage what they can from the flames.

He lives in a similar part of the city and in similar accommodation. He feels sorry for them.

At that point he decides on the top line for his live report – that people are still in the building trying to salvage what possessions they can.

He hasn’t even considered that he could be at a crime scene where looters are stealing items as residents flee their burning homes.

He raises the radio car mast. The vehicle is new. It has the radio station’s logo plastered all over it in red, white, and blue. The reporter can see the car is attracting attention.

A group of men, some with their faces covered, gather round the vehicle. Three police officers approach and try to block their way.

By now the reporter is sitting in the radio car ready to broadcast. It’s one minute to the 4pm bulletin.

He leaves all four windows half-open to try to capture the sound effects of the chaos outside.

The 4pm news jingle starts to play.

The news reader announces that there is a major fire at a city centre tenement block. He then says, “We are now going live to our reporter on the scene.”

The light on the reporter’s microphone goes green. He’s live. He starts his report…

“The fire has now spread to four floors of this five-storey building. Dozens of firefighters are trying to contain the blaze. Residents are still in the building. Many are trying to salvage what they can from their burning homes. Working together they’re stacking their possessions on the street.”

One of the police officers, who had been protecting the radio car while the reporter was broadcasting, bangs on the window and shouts, “They’re looting, you’ve got to move, it’s not safe here.”

Emotions and assumptions take over

What we have here is a situation where an inexperienced reporter, faced with a breaking news story, is expected to report live from the scene with little knowledge of what is really going on.

That is a common situation.

But the reporter has been carried away with the excitement of the event, and, in the absence of any credible information, and with no time for proper news-gathering or fact-checking, relies solely on his own emotions and assumptions.

And that is not good.

The fact that he lived in a similar inner-city area meant that he was unable to be objective; he immediately assumed those gathering possessions were similar to his own neighbours.

His emotions were high when he thought they were salvaging what they could. He made a false assumption and that polluted his report.

The story he had built in his mind from the moment he arrived at the scene was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was missing the importance of the event.

He was witnessing rioting and looting, not local residents working together to salvage what they could from their burning homes.

In such situations reporters must detach themselves from events, broadcast what they see, and avoid any assumptions.

If they are unable to find out what is actually going on from a reliable source, they should offer a situation report about what they can see in front of them.

There was enough eye-witness material to fill a 30-second report without adding guesswork.

Guesswork, assumptions, and emotionally charged observations are not part of breaking news reporting.

The report should have been limited to describing the flames, the smoke, the number of fire engines, the size of the crowd, and the number of police at the scene.

The reporter’s mistake was letting his imagination take over.

He was broadcasting false information to the station’s listeners.

This was before social media, but in today’s age of Facebook and Twitter, such an error could lead to a rapid spread of misinformation which would take on a life of its own as raw emotion and ill-informed reaction is added.

Lessons from this scenario

• A breaking news reporter’s job is to describe what is happening at the scene, you are not there to interpret without evidence. If you have facts that are sourced and verified, you should include them.
• It doesn’t matter what you think might happen next. Guesswork about the future has absolutely no value.
• You must avoid all assumptions when compiling a report. Assumptions are fine when you are trying to work out what the story is during the research stage, but they then must be verified or discarded during the fact-checking process – they have no place in live situation reports.
• Adjectives and adverbs have little value in live breaking news reporting. The facts are strong enough on their own. The audience doesn’t need your subjective take on things, or your own personal value judgements.

Related modules

Accuracy – scenario

Accuracy in journalism

How to avoid make-believe journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

The post Emotional assumptions – 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.

Our role as journalists is to unearth information, prepare it and then display it for the benefit of the audience. We are not there to fabricate, manipulate or force. We are there to uncover facts, not plant them. So what are the essential attitudes needed when going out on a story?

A journalist must not have an agenda

I wrote this training module after an experience in the Caucasus when a young journalist interviewed me. I was told the interview was going to be about the course I was running.

However it became clear that the reporter had only one question in mind. She wanted to know what I thought of the political situation in her country, and she kept repeating the question, clearly eager to hear the answer that she wanted to hear from a visiting journalism trainer from England.

She kept returning to the same question to which I was only able to tell her that I was there to deliver journalism training and not to comment on the country’s political situation. But she wouldn’t give up, and each time she asked the question she became more and more animated adding opinion and some anger to her leading questions.

It was an approach that I had not personally been exposed to before. And it made me think about how important it is for journalists to remain objective and impartial not only when reporting about events, but also when planning interviews.

It also reminded me of the many times I have gone out on a story with an end result in mind.

Like all journalists, I always wanted my story to run, either in print when I was a newspaper journalist, or in the bulletins and current affairs shows when I was a radio and TV correspondent.

I also wanted it to be hard-hitting, insightful, memorable and – let’s be honest – to win me praise and make me look good.

Looking back, and with the Caucasus interview in mind, here are a few thoughts on how to make sure journalism relates to reality and not our own idea of how a situation should play out.

1: Retain an open mind

It’s fine to set off on an interview having done your research and with one burning question in your mind. In fact, not to do so could be seen as sloppy and could leave you open to manipulation.

However, you need to retain an open mind and accept that unexpected things may happen. It may be that there is a stronger line of questioning than the one you had thought of as you set off for the interview.

You will probably not spot that opportunity if you are working to a set script and have an end result in mind.

So it’s important to be prepared to leave your script behind and retain an open mind when you meet your interviewee.

2: Don’t force an issue

Some journalists misinterpret resistance to questioning to be an admission of guilt, and that if the interviewee refuses to answer, or avoids the question, they have something to hide. It might not mean that.

It could mean that it was a bad question not relevant to the topic.

It could also mean that the person you are interviewing genuinely doesn’t have an answer or opinion.

It could mean that you don’t understand the complexity of the issues being discussed.

Press too hard at times like these and you could end up looking silly and damage the integrity of the media organisation you represent.

Confrontation is not necessarily a sign of good journalism – just because you get a reaction doesn’t mean you have made a good point.

3: Be firm but fair

You can be rigorous and robust in your interviewing and remain fair. You probably won’t achieve this with a shouting match and a standoff.

It will need clear questioning and sensible interpretation of the answers.

Your role is not to appear smart and score points against the interviewee. Your role is to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

Be prepared to back down if you have asked a question that is clearly irrelevant and off-topic.

Be prepared to admit when you are wrong or when you are still learning.

Be prepared to acknowledge a good point if the interviewee offers a plausible explanation.

Always challenge yourself more than you challenge the interviewee. If not, you will appear arrogant and lacking in objectivity and impartiality. Interviews should be conversations, not lectures.

Interviews conducted with a desired end result are rarely more than rants, and fitting only to those media organisations that have vested interests controlling their editorial agenda.

The post How to avoid make-believe journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Can a journalist also be an activist for a cause without compromising the core editorial values of journalism? I began thinking about this after being invited to contribute a chapter for a handbook for journalists living in exile.

In the email, the reason for inviting me to write a chapter was expressed as follows, “because you are an experienced journalist and a media activist.”

If journalism is meant to be objective, impartial and fair, then surely a journalist can’t be an activist?

But what if that journalist campaigns for freedom of expression, can that be achieved without compromising the editorial ethics listed above?

The following is an edited extract of a chapter I wrote for the book Becoming a journalist in exile.

Journalism, news and activism

I was honoured when I was invited to write the opening chapter for a book designed to be a guide for journalists in exile who are currently experiencing freedom of expression issues. I have never met the person who invited me to contribute; our only contact has been over the internet.

Our lives couldn’t be more different. He is working, unpaid, as a reporter, editor and publisher in a network of refugee camps, and I have a comfortable lifestyle in England thanks to a long career in journalism.

When I first read the email asking me to write the introduction chapter “because you are an experienced journalist and media activist,” it made me think.

If length of service equals experience, then I guess I qualify as an experienced journalist. I started as a reporter at my home town newspaper in the 70s, moved to radio, became a TV correspondent, and then a political editor before moving to online journalism to be the managing editor of both BBC News Online and CNN.com Europe, Middle East, and Africa.

I have worked as a journalist and manager in print, broadcast and online, but, as far as certificates go, my walls are bare. I passed a few basic exams for shorthand, typing and the essential law for journalists more than 30 years ago, but that’s it.

I have never thought of myself as a media activist. In fact I have always thought of activism as being incompatible with true journalism and I have always considered an activist to be someone who pushes a cause without aiming to reflect an alternative view point. If that is the case, and if an activist makes no attempt to remain objective and impartial, how can they also be a journalist?

Journalists must always aim to be removed from the issues they are covering. They must avoid becoming emotionally and politically involved, because once they do they are likely to lose their objectivity. So from my Western perspective I have never considered myself to be a media activist, but I think I understand what the person who contacted me is referring to.

For the last eight years I have been working with journalists in transition and post-conflict countries, and countries where freedom of expression is under threat. In all cases, I have been trying to help them establish strong, independent, high-quality media organisations. In those conditions, I can see the term activism being used in a different way by those who don’t enjoy the levels of freedom of expression that I enjoy in the West.

Perhaps the phrase media activist reflects the realities of what journalists in the majority world face day to day.

I come from a society where journalists are taken out and wined and dined by the powerful and influential, whereas many journalists in the majority world are simply taken out with bullets and bombs.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists.

However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression.

One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.

We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, balanced and fair. We need to be fair and open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views.

If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What impact does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?

We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story. We need to ask searching questions. We need to talk to all sides, particularly those who hold public office. And, in doing so, we need to provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate. All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them.

Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression. If so, count me in. Not only do I qualify by definition, but I am proud to be a member of that global fellowship.

However, as far as using journalism to fight for a particular cause, that is a difficult one. In those cases the journalist probably needs to accept that they have crossed a line in the same way that a journalist who moves into public relations (PR) does. Once crossed they are using their skills for a different purpose. They are no longer aiming to reflect all significant strands of opinion but, rather, they have chosen to focus on one and make that their editorial priority.

The post Are journalism and activism compatible? 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.