By Mohammed Adamu
I CLOSED last week with   this key point, namely: that the ‘freedom of the press’ –ironically- does not belong to the press. That media ethicists say it is a ‘public trust’ reposed in the media to be enjoyed not by the media, but by the people. And that although journalists must be constantly alert to see that “the public’s business is conducted in public”, they must also “be vigilant against all who would exploit the press for selfish purposes, including from amongst themselves”.

The debate even among judges about ‘lawful journalism’ has always been about maintaining a delicate balance between two fundamental human rights: the ‘right to privacy’ and ‘freedom of the press’. And in the frequent clash between these rights even rational judges tend often to prioritise the right of the individual to privacy over and above the ‘freedom of the press’ to invade the privacy especially of private citizens.

But how can this delicate limit be jealously guarded when everyone now who has a mobile phone and can load some data, has become a journalist; and how can this limit not be brazenly transgressed when every ‘journalist’ is now interested more in driving acrimonious controversy than in promoting healthy debate; when every so called journalist prefers to ‘argue’ rather than ‘reason’ around issues?

It is in the defense of the ‘right to privacy’ that the propriety even of ‘investigative journalism’ is itself called to question; like: ‘whose interest is served or whose rights are abused when journalists have to deploy un-orthodox or illegal means to gather information?’; ‘who benefits from ‘investigative journalism’: -the public or  some special interest within the public?; ‘whose right to privacy is invaded, or maybe even violated when journalists investigate stories?

And so although ‘investigative reporting’ is linked to the notion of ‘checks and balances’ in a democratic system, most discussions about ethics in ‘investigative journalism’ are concerned with the validity of the method of exposing wrong doing. Is deception for example legitimate merely because journalists believe they are in the pursuit of truth? Should reporters use hidden cameras to get a story? Or can they use false identities to gain access to information?

Media power

And so now the questions arise: how should the media manage the power of its freedom? –or how should the media regulate the freedom of its power?’; especially now that everyone has become a ‘journalist’ and virtually every ‘journalist’ is interested more in stirring controversy than in true journalism; especially now that the ‘journalist’ has truly come of age, from his unedifying ‘lap-dog’ past, through to his now in-elegant ‘watch dog’ role to a more macho ‘attack-dog’ posture?

Two fundamental restraints

If the media –as they say- is subject only to two fundamental restraints: the restraint of its self-imposed ethics and the restraint of the disapproving eye of the public; and if these are the reasons that the media is left unregulated by substantive law, so that –as Clemenceau said- it may “voluntarily assume responsibility” to regulate itself, or failing which to be whipped into line by the disapproving stare of the public, then media ethicists must have a rethink!

There is something wrong with the media –especially in our own part of the world where the judiciary is hardly at hand, or rarely approached, to aid those whose privacy is daily invaded or whose reputations are violated. And we must ask the questions; ‘is what is wrong with the society equally what is wrong with the press? Or is what is wrong with the press equally what is wrong with the society? Does the media take its freedom as an opportunity for self discipline in the sense of ‘voluntarily assuming responsibility’, or as an opportunity to give “the public too much froth –simply because- too few want substance?”

If too few members of the public want substance, do we have a civic duty as journalists to elevate the taste of the public away from ‘froth’ or do we have the professional liberty to exploit the public’s poor taste by denying it ‘substance’? Should we care more about ideologies and less of facts or more about democracy and less of law? Should bad news continue to drive out good news? And if like Clare Booth said that “people are primarily moved in their choice of reading by their daily emotions… prejudices, ambitions, desires… hate and fears” what should the media do? cater to these trivia or guide it to more edifying quests?

Too much freedom or little space

We must decide whether we are in it to make returns to the public or to the shareholders; to build the national character as Spiro Agnew had said or to expand the gross national product; to enlighten or to debase; to cater to the nation’s whims or to serve the nation’s needs; to inform or to confound; to respond to the vibes of deadlines or to hearken to the call of accuracy; whether to give more space to plane crashes or to ignore the thousands of daily safe landings; to ‘comfort the afflicted’ or to continue to ‘afflict the comfortable’.

When ‘in doubt’ about a story should we ‘leave out’ or should we publish to ‘clear our doubt’? Should we have a motive for publishing ‘the truth’, or should ‘truth’ be our motive for publishing in the first place? Should we be Agnew’s ‘effete corps of impudent snobs’ or truly journalists who operate by the rules no matter whose ox is gored? Should we be Safire’s ‘nattering nabob of negativism’ or Napoleon’s “givers of advice, regents of sovereigns and tutors of the nation”?

Does the media have too much freedom or too little space to do its duty? Does it protect democracy or is democracy rather hurt by the way we practice? Have we employed our powerful voice to ‘enrich the people or debase them”? Do we exercise our awesome power with equally awesome responsibility, or are our ‘vast powers equally vastly abused’? Should there be external checks on the media to ensure that they do not abuse this power or should the media be left unfettered and unshackled in the hope that someday it will self-regulate itself by the observance of self imposed ethics and codes of practice?

And the question must be asked, are the resentments against the media from its virtues of telling the truth or from its notoriety in stirring controversy?

I close with Spiro Agnew’s charge on the American where he once challenged it “to turn their critical powers on themselves…. to direct their energy, talent, and conviction towards improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate their great freedom with their great responsibility”.

Lord Denning said: “In order to be deserving of freedom, the press must show itself worthy of it. A free press must be a responsible press.”

Postscript

IN ‘seeking and reporting   the truth’, we must question the motive and the accuracy both of our ‘information’ and of its ‘source’ -to avoid inadvertent error; we must seek out the subjects of our stories to give them opportunity to respond especially to allegation of wrongdoing; we must avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, disability or status and we must prioritise giving voice to the voiceless, even if disproportionately with those that have always been heard.

In ‘minimising harm’, we must show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by our stories; we must remember always that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials or those who seek power, influence or attention; we must ensure that all those affected by the issue have a voice in the story and not just the proponents of the most extreme views who sent their press releases.

In our ‘obligation to act independently’, we must remember always that although the public’s right to know is fundamental, that right is still inferior to the right of the ordinary folks to their privacy and to the control of information about themselves.

In ‘being accountable’, we must put the reader first, we must admit mistakes and correct them promptly; we must also expose the unethical practices of the few or the many among us and generally-speaking, abide by the same high standards to which we hold others.

In the ‘demonstration of journalistic responsibility’ we must be constructive -especially when we criticise; and we must report fairly, accurately and without bias. We must not just present the news but motivate the people to think and to act; conveying knowledge not just news development; not just covering ‘conflict’ but also reporting ‘consensus’; not just publishing ‘failure’ but reporting ‘success stories’ as well.

Few institutions are more important to a democratic society than a free and independent media. It behooves the media in our reporting to insist on truth, fairness and balance; and it behooves the public to demand that in our reporting and in our analyses, we must honour the very principles that empower us.

Ethics is like religion. It is like keeping to the tenets of the commandment: it is essentially a ‘thou-shall or a thou-shall-not’. Marguerite H. Sullivan, author of A Responsible Press Office -An Insider’s Guide said ethics are “the conscience of a profession”. The physicians are bound and self-regulated by the Hippocratic Oath; lawyers by the Rules of Professional Conduct; Journalists by the ethics and codes of journalism. But now that everyone has become a journalist, how do we get everyone to mind the ethics of our dear profession?