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?
No comments:
Post a Comment