You are a political correspondent working for a broadcaster.

A general election has been called. You receive an invitation to speak at a public event about the role of journalists in covering elections.

After your talk the people who invited you ask whether you would be prepared to do some private coaching for a number of politicians who were interested in what you had to say.

The fee suggested is five times the daily rate you receive from the media organisation you work for. They also hand you a gift as a ‘thank you’ for attending the event.

What do you do?

What do you do?

Do you:

• Accept the gift as a payment for your services, and agree to take on the media training for the politicians. After all, you have expertise that they seem to need and are willing to pay for.
• Hand the gift back, and explain that although you were happy to talk about the role of the journalist in covering elections, you are not interested in coaching politicians on how to manage the media.
• Go back to the office, resign as a journalist and take up a new career teaching politicians how to avoid tough questions and spin a line.

Suggested action

You should hand the gift back, and explain the situation to your editor.

It’s not wise for political journalists to get involved in training politicians. That is the job of public relations and communications professionals.

It’s fine to offer to speak about the role of journalists in covering elections, but it’s not a good idea to be rewarded by a political party, even indirectly.

Accepting gifts

It’s potentially dangerous for a journalist to accept gifts. They will never be free. There will always be a price to pay at some future date.

Your media organisation will have a policy on this. Usually, the best advice is to refuse gifts.

There may be some situations where a reporter or producer on a lifestyle programme is offered facilities to sample so that they can review  them.

In such cases the following rules should apply:

• Keep accurate records of what has been accepted.
• Always inform suppliers that they cannot refer to your news organisation in selling their products.
• Never offer suppliers any editorial influence in the programme you are producing.

Conflicts of interest

There must never be any situation where personal, commercial, business, financial or other interests have any bearing on your editorial decisions.

Typical situations where there could be a conflict of interest for journalists include:

• Public speaking/public appearances at events which have a political agenda.
• Media public relations training, where the journalist is asked to train business leaders or politicians in how to avoid tough questions and spin a line.
• Personal connections to charities, campaign organisations, and political parties.
• Accepting hospitality and personal benefits during the course of your work where there is an expectation of an editorial return.
• Personal financial and business interests associated with the stories you are covering.

Conclusion

It’s fine for journalists to speak at public events about their work; how those attending use what they hear is up to them.

But staff members of, or regular freelancers for, any media organisation should always obtain permission from their employers beforehand. As long as you are a journalist working for them, your actions reflect on them whenever you speak, appear or work in any other role you are offered that involves journalism. Your actions can affect your news organisation’s credibility and reputation.

What you should not do is work on behalf of one group or other in order to help them improve how they package and present their particular message and avoid tough questioning from journalists.

The political correspondent in this scenario didn’t do anything wrong, but was probably naive in accepting the invitation in the first place.

They really should have asked more questions about who was organising the event, who would be attending, and why it was being staged.

Related training module

Integrity and journalism

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

Roles and responsibilities

In democracies, the role of the journalist is supposed to be to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

The role of politicians is supposed to be to represent those who elected them, and to ensure that the concerns of that electorate are listened to, considered, and, where appropriate, acted upon.

In such a political system, the journalist should act on behalf of the audience to ensure that politicians do their job.

The journalist should be exploring and covering the issues that most concern their readers and listeners.

In doing so they should include a diversity of voices and political opinions in order to offer the richest and most complete coverage possible.

If they achieve that, they are more likely to offer journalism that enhances understanding and encourages dialogue and debate.

The fourth estate (that’s us)

Journalism is sometimes referred to as “the fourth estate”, and is seen by some as being crucial to the functioning of a healthy and fair society. Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the US Declaration of Independence, and the country’s third president, once remarked, “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter”.

Perhaps Jefferson was right in suggesting that journalists are more important to society than politicians. Perhaps, in some societies, the politicians know and fear that.

What is clear is that the relationship between journalists and politicians can have a significant impact on the functioning of a fair and just society.

Politicians make decisions and take action on behalf of the public. Journalists scrutinise those decisions and report the implications to the public.

Journalistic types – which are you?

To understand the relationship between the media and politics, it’s important to look at the various dynamics that can exist between a journalist and a politician.

Here are a few that come to mind:

1: The hunter: Tracks politicians down relentlessly. Follows any trail. This journalist never gives up until they have their prey. They are driven and won’t believe the politician, even when the politician is telling the truth. The hunter journalist can often lack perspective and objectivity. Their contribution to enhancing the understanding of the audience is questionable.

2: The activist: Committed to a cause and will fight any politician who is against that cause while supporting any politician who backs the cause. This journalist can be blinkered and one-dimensional. They find it hard to be objective because they realise that offering another perspective may weaken the angle they wish to push. The activist journalist enjoys being seen as the martyr and often risks becoming the story rather than covering the story. The question has to be asked, can an activist be a journalist and can a journalist be an activist – highly unlikely.

3: The buddy: Becomes a close friend to the politician and rarely questions their position, often taking the stance that the politician is right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. This journalist will do the politician a favour, but will have limits – usually when they think they will be found out. However they will always be ready to lend a hand when needed if they feel that their coverage might benefit the politician and themselves. The buddy journalist is easily manipulated.

4: The possession: Owned by the politician through compromise and over-familiarity. They probably lost their journalistic integrity at an early age. Likely to publish anything the politician wants with no questions asked. This journalist is little more than an unpaid member of the politician’s public relations team. They enjoy name-dropping and being seen as connected to the influential.

5: The party member: Does his or her best to hide their allegiance, but can’t help it showing through in their tone, story choice and their ability (or inability) to ask the searching question. The party member journalist will spend a lot of time rubbishing the political opinions of those with whom they disagree. They can be spotted by their enthusiasm for a story that other, less-compromised, journalists fail to see. They will defend that story choice against all logical reasoning.

6: The comfortable: The “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” journalist. Their view is why fight when you can both have a profitable and easy life? Who will know? This journalist sees their job as a 9 to 5 chore that serves only to provide the means to exist. Usually enjoys fine wine and good food. Is available to all parties to woo. The comfortable journalist sees this as being fair, impartial and objective.

7: The constructive journalist: Manipulated by those who fear probing, rigorous and sceptical journalism. Pressured into self-censorship due to senior and peer-group pressure to take a positive view of news. This could lead to the “constructive journalist” becoming little more than a public relations machine having been stripped of their role in scrutinising, questioning, and holding the powerful to account. The constructive journalist allows those with something to hide to keep their secrets and becomes a messenger for those who are setting the ‘constructive’ and ‘positive’ news agendas.

8: The true journalist: Free from party ties, has integrity and can’t be bought, is passionate about informing the public debate, seeks the truth, reports objectively and fairly, and includes multiple perspectives even including those they dislike. Is prepared to investigate all they hold dear. Sees nobody as being beyond reproach and is realistic about human nature. The true journalist seeks the truth.

The post The relationship between journalists and politicians 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.