Nothing black and white about journalistic ethics
This week there’ve been two moments where journalistic ethics have been part of a big Australian story. In both cases, we’re talking about shades of grey rather than black and white or right and wrong, but overall, I think they come out okay.
First came Tuesday’s attack on The Australian’s reporting on the alleged terrorist plot.
Watching the press conference held by Victoria Police’s Simon Overland, the initial impression was that The Oz had done an extraordinarily reckless thing. It had, apparently gone to press with the story before planned raids and created a real risk that targets could be tipped off.
But then the shades of grey came in.
First, there’s the old journalistic saying (from Northcliffe, I think) that news is something that somebody, somewhere does not want you to report – the rest is advertising. There’s an element of truth to that. If newspapers needed people’s permisssion to write anything then they’d be pretty empty, and the public uninformed.
And then, although the detail hasn’t emerged, it’s gradually become clearer that The Oz had done some kind of behind the scenes deal with the Federal Police, having known about the story for several days. It also left the story out of its early editions. It was not, to use the words of associate editor Cameron Stewart behaving like a cowboy paper.
(As an aside, I know that a particular TV programme maker has been working for months on a super secret squirrel documentary which gives them access to the AFP. I wonder if the cameras captured any of thos negotiations. If so, a little more on that may yet come out.)
Certainly, the attack on The Oz is already looking more like an issue of Victorian-versus-AFP police internal politics being at least one of the factors.
And this is the argument where perhaps my morals have been sullied by being a journalist. But let me make it anyway. Although social good can be a beneficial side effect, newspapers are not of themselves social institutions. Their purpose is to gather news and share it. Only in the most extreme circumstances would they or should they not do so. If a paper pulls its punches every time there is a risk, it stops having a purpose.
So the job of an editor is to balance the risk – The Oz did it right. There certainly seems no evidence that harm was done as a result. And sometimes the editor gets it wrong (remember the misjudgement of Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph in running with the so-called Pauline Hanson photos?)
But that’s what editors have to do. Those who play it safe too often lose their readers, because they’re failing to serve them just as much as if they took a reckless risk.
Like I say, it’s shades of grey.
Then comes the other big journalistic dilemma of the week – protection of sources.
On Wednesday, Steve Lewis of the Daily Telegraph gave up Godwin Grech as his source on the utegate affair. He wrote:
“Since The Daily Telegraph revealed the first details of the affair, I have been silent about my primary source. I believe there is now a public interest in disclosing the contact I had with Mr Grech, given he now admits to having lied to me. While journalists have a professional obligation to protect their sources, Mr Grech can no longer be afforded such protection.”
Again that is, at first glance, a clear breach of the journalists’ union the MEAA code of ethics which argues that sources should be protected “in all circumstances”.
There was a good discussion of this topic on The ABC’s Media Watch at the end of June, examining journalists’ obligations when their source deliberately miselads them.
And the code with journalists should be a straightforward one. If you tell them something confidentially, they should never reveal you as the source, no matter what. But then come the shades of grey. How about if you’re deliberately lying? It’s not like going to confession – journalists are not, you’ll be amazed to hear, priests.
On this one, my own view is Lewis got it wrong. Not because of ethics, but for practical reasons. Having publically given up a source, even for sound reasons, he’ll find it harder to be trusted next time.
But again, that’s not black and white, and not necesarrily an issue of journalistic ethics.
Everyt day there are examples of journos doing sleazy, unethical things. But this week, in the big issues, journalists and newspapers did their job. Even if that means dealing in shades of grey.
Tim Burrowes
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
topics
Cameron Stewart
Daily Telegraph
ethics
journalism
journalists
Media Watch
News Ltd
newspapers
Pauline Hanson
police
raids
sources
terrorism
The Australian
union
Tim, are you familiar with the Hutton Inquiry that took place in the UK?
Quite pertinent to this topic.
For those that don’t know about it, the story involved a claim that UK Govt officials ‘sexed-up’ a dossier with the intent of promoting reasons to go to war with Iraq. The most famous claim was that Saddam Hussein could launch an attack with WMDs within 45minutes.
It culminated in the tragic death of the source of the scandal, and former UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly.
(You’ll notice I don’t say suicide. Whether it was or not, personally I think The Independent had it right when they call the inquiry a whitewash.)
User ID not verified.
Tim
For what it’s worth, I think Steve Lewis got it right and you’ve got it wrong.
The MEAA’s Code of Ethics lays it down that “Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances. ” As I pointed out on Media Watch, other comparable codes do not. The Canadian Association of Journalists says: “Make it clear that if a source lies or misleads you, all agreements are off.”
I think this must be an essential conditon of any agreement to accept information on a confidential basis. Of course, even if information does turn out to be wrong, the journalist should not give up a source unless there’s a public interest in doing so, and it is beyond doubt that the deception was deliberate, not a well-intentioned error.
It is quite clear that Godwin Grech, having concocted what he now calls a ‘record of exchange’, passed it off to Lewis as a genuine email – one that could literally have led to the resignation of a Prime Minister. You can’t get much more seriously misleading than that.
If journalists allow sources to feel that their identity will be protected whatever mischeivous garbage they serve up, then the whole convention of confidential sources is imperilled.
In any case, Lewis only outed Grech after he had outed himself to The Australian.
And by the way, it’s publicly, not publically. We’re nitpickers at Media Watch!
Cheers
Jonathan Holmes
User ID not verified.
while I’m nit-picking, and before anyone else picks me up on it, it’s mischievous, not mischeivous
User ID not verified.