Skip to content

The Muse…

“Breaking Free From Society's Chains”

Tag Archives: chequebook journalism

January 14, 2011 The Major Role and Responsibilities of Journalists

Journalists are often perceived by the public as only interested in getting the “truth” and willing to do anything to get it.
Perhaps this perception comes from what the New York Times Chief of Staff, John Winton said in 1956, when describing Journalists.
“The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tolls and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
This is not how Journalists wish to be perceived, and the role of the Journalist, according to the Media Entertainment Arts Alliance, is to  “respect the truth and the public’s right to information. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, comment, and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form of freedom of expression, They scrutinise
power, but also exercise it, and should be responsible and accountable.”
Although Journalists do have a responsibility to report what they feel is in the publics interest they also have a set of guidelines to obey. The Journalism Code of Ethics was created in 1944, and  is a self-regulated code, designed by the MEAA. To break any of the codes can result in being fined, and even expelled from the MEAA.
Journalists can find themselves in legal entangles, and one of the common areas is defamation. Others include discrimination, contempt, and plagiarism.
One should recall the 2003 Jayson Blair Scandal, in which the New York Times was embroiled in Plagarism allegations. Jayson Blair, a reporter for the New York Times was charged with plagiarism. This led to the public asking how many more Journalists at the New York Times have plagiarised. And in actual fact another New York Times reporter, and Pulitzer Prize winner, Rick Bragg was also charged with plagiarism around the same time.
Not only was this a legal issue that could tarnish the reputations of other Journalists at the New York Times, but it also had the public asking how easy is it for a Journalist to pull information off the Internet, and claim it as their own.
Journalists  will disobey the code of ethics, and with that comes legal consequences.
A situation in 1995, also resulted in a review of the Australian Journalists’ Code of Ethics.
Channel Nine’s A Current Affair (ACA) reported a story relating to a gunman who was holding children hostage. A siege developed, with the house surrounded by police and special taskforce members. A Current Affair directly disobeyed Police orders by telephoning the Gunman and Mike Willisee, the host of ACA at the time, conducted an interview with the man, as well as one of the children being held hostage. The child was put at great risk, and the police operation was jeopardised, but the TV channel management thought it was a great idea for a story. There was a lot of public outcry and debate following this situation. Subsequently the station was also fined.
It resulted in adding to the Code of Ethics the protection of others, but also outlined that while Journalists have the right to exercise the freedom of expression they also have a social responsible to protect.
This, in turn, leads to how Commercialism is affecting Journalism. While it is expected for Journalists to report to the public, more and more so it’s becoming just as important for Journalists to contribute profit to the newspaper they work for. And how far are they willing to go to gain profit?
On 23rd August 1999 Channel Nine’s ACA found missing Alaskan fire-fighter Robert Bogucki, who was lost in the Great Sandy Desert. Instead of notifying authorities the crew waited 45 minutes so they could film him.
Despite the fact he was badly in need of medical help, Bogucki was made to wear a Channel Nine T-shirt and asked to walk around. He was then given a banana to eat, and left to vomit while the Channel Nine crew filmed him from their helicopter. These pictures were used as the ‘first sighting’.
It is situations like this that project the image of the ruthless Journalist, not thinking about anything but getting the scoop before the rest of the media.
Chequebook Journalism is becoming increasing popular in the media. While it is not illegal, it does question the ethics of Journalists, and their credibility. Journalists are paying extraordinary amounts to get the ‘scoop’ and sole rights to stories. But the issue is if the Journalists are paying for the story how does the public know whether the story is true? Are those being paid only telling a Journalist what they want to hear? This is certainly the issue where informants are concerned.
Advertisers can also increase pressures on Journalists by refusing to advertise with newspapers if  they are written about in an unfavourable light. There is also the problem of Journalists writing stories that look like news stories but are in fact written to compliment an advertisement for that paper.
One of the major problems in the media today is the controversy of Media Ownership. Publishing and Broadcast Limited (PBL) and News Limited own the majority of Media Outlets in Australia, and have attempted on many occasions to change the regulations of Media Ownership, so they may own more.
This is a constant concern for Journalists, because if News Limited and PBL controlled the media outlets, not only would the options for Journalists who didn’t want to work for those two companies be reduced to zero, but Journalists question whether the media outlets would be used to promote other businesses.
More importantly it would result in self-censorship by Journalists, and the stories would not be considered fair or open reporting.
The Productivity Commission has repeatedly rejected applications by both companies, stating that their business and editorial interests would influence the content and opinion of their media outlets.
It is in the public interest to ensure the diversity of information and opinion, and encouraging freedom of expression in Australia media, leads to a stronger preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer.
Unfortunately for Journalists Media Ownership has already made an impact on what is circulated in the media. An example of this is the way News Limited wrote on the Iraq war. Everything they wrote about was generally in favour of the war, and not so surprising was that Murdoch’s stance on the war on Iraq was in favour of it.
Journalists and their roles in wartime tend to change. The information divulged to the media is often from the Government, and is only what the Government wishes to tell the Media.
This make it hard for a Journalist to find out the truth, even those who are embedded with troops are only told what the military wants them to know.
This could be considered manipulation of the media by the Military, as in a sense they are controlling the media.
This manipulation was evident in the Private Lynch situation. The Media and the public were duped into believing that U.S Marines saved Private Lynch from torture, where in actual fact it was a PR exercise for the U.S Military. Lynch had not only not be stabbed as the media was told, but the footage of her being ‘rescued’ had also been edited.
It was only discovered that the whole situation was a farce when Correspondent was approached by a doctor who looked after her.
Another problem with Journalists embedded during wartime is the fact more often than not the camera footage that the public sees is footage that has been handed to the media from the military.
Technology has changed the role of the Journalist, cutting out the middle-man.  No longer are they just the reporter, but often the photographer, and the editor too.
Computer technology has changed a Journalist’s roles. Not only may they now be expected to write an article for print but also for online.
Technology such as the Internet can be a good and a bad thing for a Journalist. One of the benefits of the Internet for a Journalist is being able to research quickly, conduct e-mail interviews and video-conferencing interviews. They can also use social mediums such as Twitter to get their voices and stories heard.
Unfortunately it has also caused problems for Journalists. There is the increasingly blurred line between editorials and advertising. Advertising takes on a more dominant role than news on web pages and Journalists are concerned over what is editorials and what is advertising.
Another problem for Journalists is the credibility and accuracy of the news distributed online.
With on-line newspapers often there is very little staff available, and without staff there is no time to check or verify news stories.
The Media and Politicians generally work together to make news. Both of them need each other for some reason or another, yet there are times where relationships can become strained.
Where Politicians are concerned the media tend to look at the negative side of them.
In Canberra a Journalist can make or break the career of a Politician, and the same can be said for what a Politician can do to a Journalist.
An example was the situation between Laurie Oakes and Cheryl Kernot. It was revealed by Oakes that Cheryl Kernot was having an affair with Gareth Evans. This situation brings forth the question of ethics again. Did Laurie Oakes tell the public because it was in the publics interest, or was it revealed because of what Kernot had said about Oakes in her book?
Politicians can also have an impact on Journalists through DA-Notices. The DA-Notice means that the Australian Government has the power to decide if information should be put out into the public, or whether it is crucial to National Security. They can place DA-Notices on newspapers, which is censoring them.
Anti-Terrorism Laws, enacted after September 11 and after the Bali Bombings now mean that anyone who has information on what may be deemed as terrorism activity has to reveal this information. To do not would result in arrest.
This has changed the face of Journalism in some retrospects, and they could even be considered as in the same category as not revealing sources.
Journalists in Australia already go to jail for not revealing their sources because of lack of Shield Laws. Anti-Terrorism law such as these, while lawful and understandable, are still an infringement on confidentiality, and also in a sense are self-censorship.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,