Ethical Journalism

Two years ago I was looking through my archive. Searching for one material I was swamped into reading my works. I found out that 30 per cent of what I had written I liked no more. Not just because the topic had lost its importance but the way of writing was the matter. Annoyance lasted for long but then I guessed it's good to look at yourself from aside, find your own drawbacks, mistakes and having realized it all to feel how much you have grown up. That's the best feeling brought with years and experience - to understand what "better" means.

Over 1,000 subscribers ceased contracts with the Dutch daily morning newspaper De Telegraaf ("The Telegraph") for publishing the photos and the interview with an 8-year old Dutch boy, the only survivor of the plane crash in Libia few months ago. The society considered bothering a stressed minor as unethical and especially in the state of knowing nothing about his parents' condition.

"Managing" an exclusive of the kind would be impossible if the child had been hospitalized somewhere in the Netherlands. The journalists were lucky the injured was in Libia. They would have had luck in Georgia too - video and digital cameras, mics and dictophones are usual things for any hospital notwithstanding whether a specific accident is of public interest and the specific injured person is a public man.

In addition to public officials, policy makers being of natural public interest for their activities a public man is a celebrity for his/her activities or statements and in special cases an individual or individuals becoming of public interest for the events developed around him/her. That's the criteria for the court in democratic countries to recognize a person as a public man.

But this kind of recognition doesn't mean anyone can violate the private space of public men without appeal. In the course of the July 17-18 workshop on journalism ethics Media.ge has already told about Dutch media pundit Daphne Cohen presented international cases featuring the violations of private space which gives a very interesting picture.

For instance a lady in Estonia lodged an application to the press council on a local newspaper. The applicant alleged that through publishing his 3-year old son's photos made in the bath the edition violated the kid's private space. The council agreed with the complaint since the journalist making the photo had no consent from the kid's grandfather being nearby. In addition the court considered the case as a violation since municipal sauna is a partly intimate place and people therein do not expect to be filmed when bathing bare.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognized by Georgia too includes provisions on filming children and obtaining interviews from them. According to the document this action is permissible only following the permission of the child's parents or guardians unless otherwise the intrusion into private space of a child is being considered as violation.

A different decision was reached in Britain in regard to the photo made at the stadium. Following a defeat of Chelsea vs Liverpool photo journalists at Old Traford, all-seater football stadium made photos of a 10-year girl and her father. The applicant (girl's father) alleged the magazine made a public fun of her girl and he was furious since the girl's face was not covered like in other editions.

The commission examining the application ruled the photo was distinguished with anti-public gesture and the girl's closeness to her father holding the posture of Nazi salute at the moment. As a result he was arrested. Moreover, the photo made in the public place or during a public event (when numerous photographers and TV cameras are present) cannot be considered as an intrusion in the private life of a child and a reason of danger to his/her welfare.

The British considered another fact as a violation of private space, in particular an article on an actress. The publication informed she refused to play the role offered earlier since she was pregnant. In addition the article stated "her attempts to have a family are ruining her progress in career."

All these conclusions were made by journalists, media experts. In addition media itself pointed out what mistakes she made, and what she did right. That shouldn't be superfluous, all the more the journalist, as a rule, do not shoulder the burden of alleging. Our profession is within limits of far more moral, ethic criteria. Do we, journalists have a moral right to call others upon ethic actions or criticize them if we afford to violate these norms?

For instance how can a person have moral damage compensated when being called by the familiar journalist of a respectable image, discussing a specific topic. Without warning of obtaining a comment the journalist records the conversation on the dictophone and then publishes it word by word indicating the name of the respondent. It's enough to imagine yourself as a random respondent to understand the way it feels.

Ethical journalist restricts the use of converted footage even in case the journalist presents him/herself to the respondent/s. The exceptions are made in case there is no other way to cover the event of public importance. At least two sources and cross verification of the source, equal hearing of the parties, their natural and not artificial balance - up-to-date ethical journalism follows this criteria.

The issue - what is ethical to Georgian journalists - resulted into hot discussions following simulated Kronika on Imedi TV. The television made a public apology in response to the decision by the Georgian National Communications Commission at the very expiration of the fixed term. The anchor of the Special Report, alleging the attitude towards her was partial, withdrew her signature from the Charter of Ethics ahead of the examination of the case.

For being ethical signing any document is not compulsory. Adherence to the norms of ethics is that matters. The norms which, citing Daphne Cohen "is needed for more comfort in the life of the civil society." Ethical journalist agrees there is no absolute truth but the distinction of the fact, respondent's viewpoint and journalist's stance is the best way to portray reality.