Honestly, being a journalist is the toughest profession that I have come across. I've read reports about journalists being tortured, jailed and most of them are still in exile.
Journalists are trained to write skillfully and to earn a living with their pen. They are taught to be ethical, honest and to earn their credibility in the moral way. However, what if circumstances do not allow them to do so? They are so perturbed by their conscience that does not align with their ethical standards that they blow the whistle on unethical and immoral practices in the newsroom.
If a certain journalist feels very strongly about an event or issue that deserves public scrutiny, but does not align to the practices of the journalism industry, what should he/she do? Keep mum? Do not bother or blow the whistle?
Instinctively, the first two options are the norm which journalists will opt for simply because it will not bring any problem or cause any trouble.
However, the third option tends to be deadly. Whistleblowers have it the hard way.
It takes an extraordinary sort of boldness and fearlessness to be a whistleblower. These journalist might be ostracized, fired or even murdered.
In relation to Week 9’s case study – the journalist who blew the whistle on Rupert Murdoch was found dead. Sean Hoare, the former showbusiness reporter for News of the world who was the first named journalist to allege that Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead. Police has yet to find the real reason to his death however, they ruled out suicide.
Currently, in the Singaporean context, there are numerous constitutional provisions that give some form of protection for whistleblowers. For example, Section 36 of the Prevention of Corruption Act guarantees that a complainant’s identity will not be revealed, throughout court proceedings, lest the court finds that he has willfully created a false declaration in his complaint. Similarly, Section 208 of the Companies Act offers protection to company auditors by ensuring that they will not be liable for defamation for any statement made in the course of their duties.
Nevertheless, the efficiency and nature of such regulations presumes that the focal obstruction against whistleblowing is the anxiety of retaliation or revenge like cessation of employment or liber and slander lawsuits if the whistleblower’s identity is revealed.
But what if the whistleblower is dissuaded and frightened of standing in favor of justice because he has partaken in the unlawful activity in order to uncover a plot or story?? Should there be laws permitting whistleblowers protection from trial to embolden and inspire them to report such illegitimate happenings to the authorities?
Friday, July 15, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Week 9: Investigative journalism - where to draw the line?
Journalism describes and explains about events which has an impact on our lives and is established in a few forms. It uses diverse techniques and writes for different objectives. I’ve done some research and realised that there are five main types of journalism: investigative, news, reviews, columns and feature writing. Let us focus on investigative journalism. Journalists who specialize in investigative journalism create headlines with news that typically exposes scandals however, that does not make them detectives! Basically, investigative journalism targets to probe and uncover the truth about a specific individual, subject or incident. However, where should journalists draw the line?
Hacking into a private individual’s cellular phone and deleting / forwarding the owner’s email / message is definitely unethical and unruly. However, major publications like News of The World– One of British’s largest selling newspaper did just that. It was reported by The Guardian (2011) that, reporters and journalists of the News of the World hacked into the cellular phone of assassinated teen Milly Dowler and gave her parents’ false hopes that she was still alive. The voicemail messages were erased by journalists in the first few days after Milly's disappearance to free up space for more messages. Hence, friends and relatives of Milly established erroneously that she might still be alive while police officers and investigators feared that evidence may have been destroyed. It was reported that News of the World journalists responded by engaging in what was normal and typical practice in their newsroom by employing private investigators to get them a story.
Despite the difficult nature in obtaining credible and authentic information, journalists should be ethical and, not sink so low. Although investigative journalism is distasteful, it is vital to a democracy’s socio-political hygiene. The tabloid newspaper’s behaviour is definitely derogatory to the journalism industry.
References
The Guardian. (2011). Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked by News of the World . Viewed on 9 June 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world>.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Week 8: Moral minefields: Legal and Ethical Dilemma
Presentation week! As highlighted earlier, what’s legal might not necessarily be moral.
Legality vs. Morality.
Then there are questions about how far journalists should cooperate with the authorities. When does cooperation become collaboration? When does a good contact become a corrupt relationship? These issues do arise routinely in newsrooms, not in the language of abstract moral questions, but in daily practice. In newsrooms they often say that someone has “gone native” by which they mean that, for example a crime reporter, has become too close to the police on whom he or she relies for information.
Basically, morality & ethicality is a double-edged sword, and we have to utilize it in such a way, which would not harm others, but instead exploit it for the overall benefit and well being of the public. Such as in the reporting of celebrity’s lifestyles, it is also up to the reporter to decide what is considered gossip and what is considered pushing the limit. Ethics seamlessly ties in all concepts of journalism, in whichever platform it presents itself, whether in traditional news reporting or online journalism. As the popular phrase goes, a pen is mightier than the sword and being the bearer of the ‘pen’, journalists have to deal with the power that is bestowed upon them. There is no distinct line that can clearly demarcate what is acceptable and appropriate as it ultimately culminates into one’s moral upbringing and values. The law presents what it thinks should be acceptable, but it contradicts with certain circumstances where the perpetuation of an unethical disclosure might appear to be for the general good of society.
So, what do you think? How far would you go for a story? How far would you go to protect your sources?
Legality vs. Morality.
Then there are questions about how far journalists should cooperate with the authorities. When does cooperation become collaboration? When does a good contact become a corrupt relationship? These issues do arise routinely in newsrooms, not in the language of abstract moral questions, but in daily practice. In newsrooms they often say that someone has “gone native” by which they mean that, for example a crime reporter, has become too close to the police on whom he or she relies for information.
Basically, morality & ethicality is a double-edged sword, and we have to utilize it in such a way, which would not harm others, but instead exploit it for the overall benefit and well being of the public. Such as in the reporting of celebrity’s lifestyles, it is also up to the reporter to decide what is considered gossip and what is considered pushing the limit. Ethics seamlessly ties in all concepts of journalism, in whichever platform it presents itself, whether in traditional news reporting or online journalism. As the popular phrase goes, a pen is mightier than the sword and being the bearer of the ‘pen’, journalists have to deal with the power that is bestowed upon them. There is no distinct line that can clearly demarcate what is acceptable and appropriate as it ultimately culminates into one’s moral upbringing and values. The law presents what it thinks should be acceptable, but it contradicts with certain circumstances where the perpetuation of an unethical disclosure might appear to be for the general good of society.
So, what do you think? How far would you go for a story? How far would you go to protect your sources?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)