Should Journalists be held responsible for their reporting?

[journey_man 0]

I've been ranting about this for a couple of years now so I think it's time to ask people what they think. So instead of hijacking other threads here is it's own topic!

 

My contention is that journalists collectively have a massive amount of power and as such they should be responsible for what they say and not abuse this power. I don't see any evidence of this being done. I'm sure there are responsible media people and organisations out there, but I'm after the baddies. Any time journalists are taken to task about their reporting they hide behind freedom of speech and such like.

 

I think all journalists should require a license to practise, much like other professions such as engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Like these other professions it would be administered and policed via their own associations.

 

Should a journalist get caught malpracticing they would get their licence revoked. Any company caught employing a non licensed journalist would face massive fines.

 

So how do you define journalistic malpractice? I think this needs to be simple and clear. Journalistic malpractice is reporting in such a way that the "common reader/viewer/etc" (like the common man in common law) is significantly mislead. It wouldn't matter if the malpractice was intentional or negligent. The public have a right to expect fair reporting.

 

I think the benefits of this are obvious, so I wont address them. I think people will foresee a lot of problems, so I'll address the ones I've thought of.

 

The Definition is too general

I think it needs to be quite broad to catch stories that are deliberately misleading while at a technical level are actually factually correct. If it is too tightly defined clever people will find loopholes to exploit. A good example is the word "alleged". Also much common law is written in a general way and this works.

 

There is no precedent for this

Actually I think there are some legal and societal precedents:

• Libel. If you are caught libeling somone you get punished by the courts. Unfortunately a clever journalist can libel someone in such a way that a libel case wont stand up in court.
• Gossip. If someone makes up malicious gossip about another person they are usually dealt with by their peers. Significant malicious gossip is simply not tolerated. In my culture anyway!

Why go after the Journalist? Surely you should go after the employers?

Going after the person instead of the company is probably unfair as the employer may well be pressuring a certain style of reporting. The obvious threat is dismissal. However this is already covered by law in many countries. Also all employees have a personal responsibility not to break the law.

 

The reality is punishing the company itself isn't practical as the monetary rewards may often outweigh any punishment. From a practical view point a company will avoid any action that would reduce the number of journalists it employed. Also any journalist will be very hesitant to write a story that could get them banned.

 

You just want to limit free speech

Not at all. However I want journalists to be responsible for their reporting. In our personal lives we all have to be responsible for the things we say. I think this should be extended to our professional lives too.

 

You realise what a legal nightmare getting a case against a journalist to stick will be?

This may well be true. However the goal here is to significantly reduce deliberate misleading reporting. You will never stop it completely. Like most things it is appearances that actually make things happen. A couple of high profile cases a year where a major journalist takes a massive fall will do the trick nicely.

 

That's all I can think of at the moment, I'll edit this post as I think of more things.

 

I'd like to hear some feedback please! This has been bugging me for some time.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Journey Man I am very interested in this too, but I see a whole host of issues! Certainly reporters color things to thier perspective - they are often writing a persuasive arguement piece. And Yes, if it is in print then a lot of people will just accept it as fact.

 

The biggest issue I see is how you can separate the difference in the writters ideology and therefore perception, and "journalistic deception".

 

A friend recently told me about the teenage Gaede Twins, some Mary-Kate and Ashley lookalikes who perform as the group Prussian Blue - a pair of serious Hitler Youth! Appalled, I wanted to know more, so I did some google research and ended up on thier linked forums (just as a reader - not a member or poster!). These people for the most part sounded like intellegent, articulate people who had an ideology based on sound facts which they backed up with research stats. Of course - being who I am - I was reading what they said with horror, knowing that a percentage of visitors to the site would be swayed by thier argument.

 

Now clearly - a white supremesists view of the benefit of separatism, and why there should be no ethnic interaction is not what the VAST majority of the human race would consider truthful reporting ... it is an extreme case, but how do you account for this kind of variation in reporting?

 

Do we all become one homogenous world, all of the same opinion?

Deliberate deception is a problem, and something I would like to see people held accountable for, but how and where are lines drawn?

[soubriquet 0]

A good topic.

 

I'm against it because I see all legislation as ongoing restriction of personal freedom.

 

That said, I despise most of the reporting I read in areas of my expertise. It's done by journeymen with no understanding of the topic. Sensational headlines sell papers, whether the broadsheets or the tabloids.

 

You pose difficult questions.

[grungy-gonads 54]

I will think and give this more in-depth and authorative gg analysis at a later date (when I'm not drunk), but, unfortunately, I don't believe most journalism I read or at least have a massive handful of salt on hand.

[JA2340 16]

Somewhat related, I object to the use of the "X is expected, at his press conference tomorrow, to announce nnn". This is not news, the press conference is irrelevant and the "news" item is pure speculation.

 

Surely there is enough actual news to use, without making up stuff that might happen at a press conference to come later.

[journey_man 0]

soubs: I hate legislation too. An effective voluntary code of ethics would be better. But how to implement it? Any ideas?

 

Mamabear: I think opinion pieces would pass the test - you are attempting to influence people through your persuasive arguments. What would fail would be if you bolstered your arguments with false information. This would help constrain the Hitler Youth too, they would no longer be able to write pieces that declared as a fact things like the Holocaust never happened.

 

I definitely don't want a homogeneous world, I simply want people to be responsible for what they say in public. Opinions rock, lies don't. The Internet is an obvious target too. Too hard for the moment, lets start with the professionals first and see where that goes...

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Sounds good .... now to get the rest of the world on side ...

[grungy-gonads 54]

 Quote:

An effective voluntary code of ethics would be better.

Seriously, the chances of that working are 0.

[journey_man 0]

 Originally Posted By: Mamabear

Sounds good .... now to get the rest of the world on side ...

Therein lies the rub. Ideas welcome cos I have no clue how!

[NoFakie 45]

I agree with your concerns, but I don't think the problem is with ordinary journalists. The problem is with consolidated media ownership. Journalists do not control the message, media owners do. There used to be strict rules against multiple ownership of different media outlets. However, largely thanks to corporate lobbying such restrictions have gone.

 

The work of all journalists has to pass editors answerable to owners. Anything undesirable doesn't get through and what does get through is obviously acceptable.

 

If media ownership were more diverse, different media outlets would effectively check one another. As it is, the same interests own or control all the media. It is why no antiwar voices were heard before the Iraqi war. The only mainstream pundit who had concerns, Phil Donahue, was sacked. The vast scale of the demostrations worldwide amply show that many ordinary people were against the conflict before it even started. They knew from the start that the "intelligence" was bogus.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Mr Wiggles, this is exactly the same kind of thing that the White Supremesists were saying over and over about the media related to thier cause....

 

I do agree with you that if we are all allowed a voice then the truth will be spoken by someone somewhere, but we will also be having to contend with masses of background noise to sift out before we get to the facts.

 

Debate is good. Discussion is good. And PEOPLE need to be less gullible.

[JA2340 16]

The web is a really good example ... There is a heap of good stuff out there, but there's also a heap of CR4P. Anyone with an opine can put it out on the web and have it considered as "fact" by someone. - Some fora are full of this sort of stuff.

 

(Obviously, not this one!!!)

[JA2340 16]

 

Australia has a voluntary code of journalistic ethics ( linky here ) but that does not mean we are immune from the sort of stuff you are talking about, Jm.

[NoFakie 45]

I don't know anything about white supramatists in Australia, but if they're against consolidated media ownership, I agree with them on that one. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day etc.

 

On what issues in particular do you feel the press is deliberately misleading people and in what way?

 

[Mantas 3]

How about a star rating for honest reporting?

[soubriquet 0]

I can't answer your question Journey Man, but I'd like to work through some ideas. I'll use Australia as an example, but please Ozzies, don't get precious or think I'm having a go at you.

 

The skipper of the Sea Shepherd gets on his hind legs and lies blatantly to the press "Japan is breaking the law". This is news, and it is reported straight. Don't blame the journalists. The Australian Government knows full-well that this is a lie. They say nothing, because there are no votes to be had here, and it's a nice deflection from their own eco-crimes.

 

The Australian science community say nothing because the next funding round is coming up, and upsetting the Minister can upset the grants, and lead to layoffs. (Ask me about contradicting The Minister and career development).

 

We are left with mavericks, like me, and conspiracy theorist nutters to blow the whistle. I separate myself from the nutters because I reference my claims against mainstream science rather than internet blowhards.

 

Coming full-circle, it's not the basic journalism that is the problem. It is the lack of credible opinion pieces. The media are too gutless to tackle difficult issues honestly. It's not a matter of legislation.

[journey_man 0]

My goal is to significantly reduce deliberate misleading reporting. You will never get it all and I think that you would be crazy to try. The 80/20 rule would apply.

 

If your sources lie then that is a big problem, and it's going to happen from time to time. However when responsible reporting gains traction a culture will develop where checking your sources information would be normal. It is possible the the Sea Shepherds skippers story would not have stood up to any real scrutiny. But more importantly he would only get one chance. In this case the journalist would have been taken to task for a dodgy story and found innocent. The skipper of the Sea Shepherd would be seen as the guilty party. He would be known from then on as an unreliable source and journos who wanted to keep their jobs would be very careful with any information he provided.

 

Addressing My Wiggle's point about the media owners - this is a problem with all forms of business, the bigger the business the more control they have and the more protection they get from the governments. Directly tackling the media giants would be very difficult. Unwinnable even. However by preventing their journalists from knowingly reporting falsehoods we reduce the corporation's ability to lie. Like the comment about the Iraq war, they can still not say anything. However this method of control is short lived, nature loves to fill a vacuum, and it wouldn't be long before a small independent news source would fill the void. I'm sure all those antiwar protesters were getting their info from somewhere!

[thursday 1]

Not adding anything worth a glance here.

 

When the Tibet shit hit the fan, our lovely western media, (CNN comes to mind but I could be wrong, such is their noble reputation), showed footage of the PLA brutalising Tibetan monks in Lhasa. A day after it was aired; hold on, aren't those Nepalese police riot controlling in 2006 in Katmandu?

 

CNN or the like: "Ahem, yes, we apologize for the wrong footage" or something like that.

 

I could be a journalist so I disclaim accuracy in the above.

[Mantas 3]

It's a sad truth that almost all media will run with the story that sells rather than the story that is true. Create a hero, create a villain, whatever, just give them a story that they want to hear.

The main objective of any media outlet is to make money. Lets not be coy about this. They are a business just like any other. Soub's example about the Sea Shepherd is a classic example, but the state owned media, the ABC, did question the whole issue of international whale sanctuaries.

You can't blame the media alone. Most newspapers would go bankrupt within weeks if people stopped buying their newspaper. TV net works would disappear if people stopped watching their station.

I was serious about a rating system. Set up by an independent (ha ha) body to provide a guide to the consumer of which media outlet has the most integrity.

[soubriquet 0]

Nothing like a bit of file footage to fill in the blanks, eh thursday? Were they goose-stepping and wearing German helmets?

[journey_man 0]

 Originally Posted By: Mantas

Set up by an independent (ha ha) body to provide a guide to the consumer of which media outlet has the most integrity.

This idea has merit, especially if the rating body had great credibility. Perhaps Standard and Poor's (country and corporate credit rating crowd) could be convinced to do it. I wonder if anyone at all would get an A?

[JA2340 16]

Nah, their ratings don't go low enough for the majority of the world's journalistic endeavours.