OPINION by Journalist Abraham Morris
I strongly hold the view by all ethical and journalistic standards that Journalists at all times, should be hundred percent non-political, non-partisan and uphold the ethical values of accuracy, balanced and credible Journalism.
As it stands, the latter is the case with the Liberian professional Journalism community. Those values continue to diminish, partisanship on the increase, while ethical values continues to decrease astronomically.
There’s high wave of Journalists/Talk-show hosts or newspapers using or publishing vulgarity and unsubstantiated claims against politicians and well-meaning individuals, without the sense of taking into consideration of the ethical ABC values of Professional Journalism.
If I may ask: Is it due to media owners and managers inability to properly compensate us for the profession we chose to pursue, or due to our half-hazard training or recruitment?; or the major advertiser, Government of Liberia’s inability to pay bill timely?; or our own inability to adhere to professional ethics or zest for self-aggrandizement at the detriment of the Journalism profession; or the inability of the Society of Liberian Journalists (SLJ) and the Press Union of Liberia (PUL) to regulate the media profession or the poorness of the sector?
If these are all facts or my personal perception, than I beg to differ, because the Society of Professional Journalists (SLJ) in one of her papers on Ethics and Political Involvement states that the SLJ Ethics Committee gets a significant number of questions about whether journalists should engage in political activity.
But the simple answer is SLJ found was: “No!” Don’t do it. Don’t get involved. Don’t contribute money, don’t work in a campaign, don’t lobby, and especially, don’t run for office yourself.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. These are the most pertinent parts of the internally renowned (Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics:
— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived
— Remain free of associations that may compromise integrity or damage credibility
While those are the most directly relevant provisions, the following also apply, but in different ways:
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection
Objectivity in today’s superheated political environment may be impossible, but impartiality should still be a reporter’s goal. Even those who are paid to have opinions — columnists, editorial writers, talk show hosts, bloggers (OK, maybe not always paid) — should at least be aware of all relevant points of view.
Skeptics of journalistic objectivity are quick to point out that some publishers and owners of news media outlets may not follow the rules they lay down for their employees. A few get more deeply involved, and they may contribute to candidates. Is this ethical? It’s at best a double standard, and a questionable practice.
But at the very minimum, there should be public disclosure — in their own media — when media magnates get politically involved in this way.
Reporters covering politics are at the other end of this spectrum of what may be tolerated. For them, almost no political activity is OK. Some reporters interpret this as meaning it’s off-limits even to register to vote as a Democrat or Republican or third-party member. Some take it to extremes and even decline to vote in a general election. Those are extreme positions, and unnecessarily prim. The proof of a reporter’s impartiality should be in the performance.
Families and close relationships create another set of ethical dilemmas. If a reporter’s spouse, family member or other relative — or even a close friend — runs for office, the reporter should not be covering the campaign. The same is true if a spouse or relative is working in a campaign. Issues campaigns — public referendums, bonding for public works projects, tax questions, etc. — are less likely to be considered partisan than candidate elections. But even here, a reporter covering a campaign shouldn’t take sides.
For political reporters, yard signs, bumper stickers and even campaign buttons should be considered off-limits. For a broader range of journalists — whether they’re covering politics or not — political activism should be avoided. The editor/publisher of a Denver newspaper once told his employees not to attend a concert whose proceeds were being donated by the band to a candidate for the U.S. Senate. That applied to all employees, from newsroom to mailroom.
Many employers’ codes of ethics are much more specific than SPJ’s code about their employees’ involvement in politics. The SPJ code is merely advisory, but a journalist can be fired for violating an employer’s ethical rules. NPR’s code, for instance, says quite bluntly that “NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies” concerning issues that NPR covers — which is pretty much everything.
Newspapers, in particular, have a longstanding practice of endorsing candidates in competitive political races. Although some readers think these endorsements signal a bias in the publication’s news coverage, SPJ encourages editorial pages to promote thoughtful debate on candidates and politics; letting readers know through endorsements which candidates share the newspaper’s vision is part of that discussion. Part of an editorial page’s responsibility, though, to take every appropriate opportunity to explain the firewall between news and opinion.
Reporters are not columnists or editorial writers. SPJ’s recommendation is that reporters not take a position on an issue, or in a candidate race, that they are covering. They may do so privately, but they definitely should not do so in a public or visible way.
Ironically, journalism is a profession protected by the same First Amendment that grants to all citizens the right to run for office or to support, by word, deed or cash, the people they would like to see elected. But journalists who want to be perceived as impartial must avoid any display of partisanship.”
Hence, I hold the view that even though I am partly or 50 percent in mainstream media, I am still of the greatest conviction and hold the ethical values of associating, pledging my support for any Politicians Political Institution, neither am I involved with activities.
Don’t get it twisted, I have a political affiliation. I hold certain politicians in very high esteem, I love certain politicians so much, I am friendly or related to some Politicians; but that has never persuaded my believe nor convinced me to take sides.
Therefore, I beseech the SLJ and the PUL to put check to us (Journalists or if you may, mainstream media practitioners) should be put to check. It is absolutely wrong and unprofessional.
NOTE: The views expressed here are solely mind and not that of any organization, institution or group I am associated with.