Journalism in the 21st century is way more different from the past ages. There has been the evolution of the internet and other modern printing presses which have revolutionized the whole processes. The media laws on the other hand have always been updated to keep up with these changes. There is however temptation to work around these laws and standards, but it always come with a heavy cost. Journalists are encouraged to comply to standards in order to contribute to a safe working environment as well as saving their careers. In this career we will discuss these standards that a professional journalist ought to keep in mind.
Conflict of interest
It is very important for journalists to exercise objectivity in handling their cases and making sure that nothing is compromised in the way they approach the subject. In normal circumstances it is human to compromise on cases that involve our loved ones ,family and friends and covering such stories can present a lot of bias to the public. In such cases the standard for a journalist is to remain objective in their investigation and presentation of their case .In such cases it is imperative for the journalist to state their relationships with the people involved in the case and the editor or other superior managers will make the right calls to make sure that the case is given to someone who does not have anything to gain or lose from the case and will approach the subject with an objective mind.
The reason why this is very important is that it avoids distortion of facts. The business world also recognises this standard in most cases where managers do not employ relatives because it compromises business processes and efficiency of operations.
Objectivity
This is an extension of the previous point. Objectivity entails not being compromised in carrying out the work and not taking sides when journalists are not supposed to do so . For example, a state media journalist has a mandate to speak positive about the state and they deem that as objectivity. In this instance however it entails not being part of the story or either making their interests known in the story. A supporter of a Polish football team should be able to give a neutral perspective about the performance of the team in the recent world cup.
Many journalists make the mistake of not saying out their objective reporting but rather end up saying out their interests and this distorts the validity and truthfulness in the information being shared. This is very important because it helps to create an identity which is separate from personal work.
A very good example in an instance in Zimbabwe in the year 2005 when the Nigerian football team visited Zimbabwe to play an international friendly match. The Nigerian team was the best in Africa at that time being led by Jay Jay Okocha one of the best footballers to ever grace the continent of Africa. During the game Okocha showed his brilliance in skill, dismantling all Zimbabwean defenders and everyone was mesmerized. The commentator showered praises on the brilliance of Okocha during the game and many other state media journalist wrote stories about it . The following day news broke out that the commentator has been fired by the Sports and media minister . Many other journalists from state media papers were fired as it was said that they showered more praises on Okocha despite a fighting spirit from the Zimbabwean team. This was true , Okocha did really played well and it was human to be mesmerized by his performances but as state media journalists they had one thing to do which was to praise their country but they failed that.
From this case study we can decipher two things. The first one is that objectivity in journalism is about staying loyal to the script that one is supposed to report on. On the other side the other point is that objectivity entails that the journalist has to set their emotion s and affections aside and say out everything that is going on as it is.
Another example of lacking objectivity is how the BBC has countlessly reported on Robert Mugabe the famous president of Zimbabwe who chased away British farmers assaulting many of them for occupying land in Zimbabwe. As a British citizen and journalist this is an emotional issue having a fellow countrymen or in some instance a fellow family member is treated badly in an African country were they were born and raised. The coverage on all Mugabes stories made him a tyrant dictator, a human rights abuser and an ignorant corrupt leader. On the other hand none of the stories from the BBC covered the brutal treatment of the black peasant farmers by their white colonial masters and neither did they covered the exploitation of labour and violent acquisition of land they did in Zimbabwe which was unconstitutional. As a journalist one should not support either Mugabe or the White farmers but remain objective and deal with facts on the ground without taking sides. This is very important as such wrong information can result in uprisings and even wars. Hence journalists always have to remain objective.
Acting in Public Interest
Acting in the public interest as a journalist refers to the ethical principle of reporting that prioritizes the needs and concerns of the general public over those of individual or corporate interests. A journalist who acts in the public interest strives to provide accurate, impartial and relevant information that helps to inform, educate and hold those in power accountable.
Key Points to Consider:
Accuracy:
Verify facts and sources before publishing or airing information.
Impartiality: Report news objectively, avoiding personal biases and giving voice to multiple perspectives.
Relevance:
Report on topics that matter to the public and have significant impact on their lives.
Transparency: Disclose any conflicts of interest or sources of funding that could influence the reporting.
Confidentiality:
Protect the identity of sources who may face harm or retribution for providing sensitive information.
Responsibility:
Ensure that the reporting does not harm innocent people or compromise national security.
By adhering to these principles, journalists can fulfil their role as watchdog of democracy and ensure that the public has access to the information they need to make informed decisions.
Reporting on public interest in critical in many cases and should be handled with a lot of caution as journalists sometimes can end up causing more damage instead of trying to save the general public.
As explained earlier on Accuracy is all about reporting as it is and not adding anything to story. There is no room for doubt and margin for error in journalism and journalists are always encouraged to report information that is accurate when acting in public interest . A very good example is the case of Zimbabwean shooting of 1 August soon after the death of Mugabe , citizens were shot in the central business district of the capital city. There had to be a warning about this act and many news journalists reacted by publishing that the army was shooting anyone protesting the government and people were encouraged not to commute to the city centre.
This was necessary to save the lives of many despite the government later on denying those claims citing that it was an act of the third part and threatening to sue journalists who had earlier on published those stories . The journalists however cited they acted in public interest, and it was accurate that a certain number of people had died in the CBD and they had been shot and their news helped others not to fall in the same fate.
In terms of responsibility in acting in public interest it is very important for news reporters to make sure that they do not harm anyone in the process as they can be sued for libel. We will discuss the issues of libels later in this chapter but regarding responsibility the journalist ought to make sure that the information is not malicious.
This can result in contract termination of severe law suits when there is no act of responsibility on the journalist side hence when acting in public interest the most important thing to clarify is make sure that there is definitely a public interest in the case before moving forward.
A very good example could be that of a sewage leak in an area where people get their safe water to drink and this issue can result in the water being contaminated and overally the whole community. To make sure that there is no such incident the journalist has to first seek and quantify the reason for public interest which in this case is very clear and they can publish a story based on that information. The danger for not taking action on a story like this is that the public can be affected if the story is true and there is no public awareness hence it is very important that no chances are taken and the journalist does the right thing.
Relevance as described earlier on above is very important when dealing with cases like these. Here the journalist has to have enough evidence which proves that the issue is a public interest issue. The reason to avoid such is because some journalists tend to pursue personal interests or end up being used by cooperates or politicians for selfish interests whilst hiding in the name of public interest.
The most important thing in this instance inorder to make sure that all loopholes are eradicated is to remove any doubt which points to the fact that the story is in the state of public interest .Stories which are deemed as relevant are those which contain endangerment of the public or public information that is very important to the public on their daily lives for example that was a case in the country of Zimbabwe in 2017 when the military general Cde Chiwenga connived with the fired vice president who is now the president of the country his Excellency ED Mnangawa to hold a coup against the then president RG Mugabe. This started as a rumour that the president was being help hostage at his home and he had missed important meetings that were scheduled for him. 2 days passed with people asking about the whereabouts of the president , state journalists knew what was happening and they could tell the public not to panic because he rumour now was that there was going to be a war .
No journalist could say a single word or act in the public interest of the majority because they could lose their lives , at the same time the information was very relevant for the public to know what was happening . Noonee acted in general interest until the military itself took over the broadcasting operations and urged all citizens to be calm as they confirmed that they had the president and were keeping him safe . The military also confirmed that they were only targeting criminals around him and they had nothing bad against him.
This case study shows that in most cases acting in public interest is very good but sometimes it can put the journalist in danger. Large cooperates with vast resources and huge amounts of money control the media , the journalist has to be aware of that when acting in public interest. There are lines which are not meant to be crossed , doing so can result in the journalist losing their job. It is very important to note that in as uch as acting in public interest is a good thing there also has to be an act of being careful as there are huge cooperates on the other hand which are not interested in any of thise stories.
