The Committee of Editors reviewing the UK newspaper industry's Code of Practice have decided not to include a conscience clause for working journalists. Should journalists have the right to exercise their conscience in the context of their professional duties, and the right to protection from sanctions for doing so?
You can read Bill Hagerty's British Journalism Review article 'A matter of conscience' at www.bjr.org.uk/data/2003/no3_hagerty.htm
There are currently 7 posts for this topic.
| From Chris Frost, Liverpool John Moores University A conscience clause is important, especially when the PCC's code of practice is often in a journalist's contract of employment. Journalists should be allowed to make professional judgements and be supported when they do, not feel obliged to do as they are instructed (or often perceive they have been instructed). The idea that seems popular with some editors: that they are responsible for ethics and not the journalists who work for them, is clearly fallacious; and the PCC has publicy applauded the idea that journalists should be dismissed for unethical behaviour without regard to whether they were following instructions from their employer. |
|
| Chris Frost | 23 03 2004 12:13:16 |
| From Bob Borzello, The Camden Trust I can imagine the editorials if the CBI were to decree that managing directors were to be the conscience of their businesses and that employees should be limited to yes sir yes sir three bags full sir involvement. |
|
| Bob Borzello | 23 03 2004 12:44:14 |
| From Claude-Jean Bertrand, Professor emeritus, University of Paris-ll I believe the "conscience clause" was a French invention. It was part of a 1934 law establishing the legal status of journalists, and not merely a professional code. The same thing obtains in Spain. The law says that if a publication changes its style or political orientation to such an extent that a journalist feels that he/she cannot work for it any longer, he/she can leave with all normal benefits. That can only be guaranteed by law. As a symbol, it's great. In practice, only journalistic stars can use it. The others are too scared not to find a job elsewhere, with hundreds of journalists unemployed. If you consider that a "conscience clause" is simply the mention in a recognised professional code that a journalist may refuse an assignment that he/she believes to be unethical, that is quite common. And should be if the profession (including editors) has the slightest sense of what ethics is about! Check in my list of 300+ codes (in English) on www.presscouncils.org. The website now has a Google search engine that makes it much easier to sift through the codes - some of them very, very long. Do keep fighting. Journalists need rights as well as duties. They can only get public support (against political or economic forces) if they serve it well, ie. ethically. That public support for the profession (declining in many countries) is basic to the independence of news media, which itself is basic to the expansion of democracy. So.......... |
|
| Claude-Jean Bertrand | 23 03 2004 16:24:13 |
| From Mohammed Elsharif, Translation-Interpreting Officer, In Your Own Language Strange, if the journalists are the conscience of the nation, do you imagine them without one. |
|
| Mohammed Elsharif | 25 03 2004 10:15:05 |
| From Bill Norris, MediaWise Chris Frost's statement that the PCC Code is often included in a journalist's contract of employment raises an interesting point. If such a journalist refuses to carry out an assignment which he believes will be in breach of the Code, presumably (lacking a conscience clause) he will be liable for dismissal. If he does carry it out he will be guilty of breaching his contract. Hobson's choice! |
|
| Bill Norris | 25 03 2004 15:21:38 |
| From Rezwan-ul-Alam, UNICEF Bangladesh Journalists in all countries are now 'embedded', officially and unofficially, regardless of whether a "conscience clause" exists or not. Although the connotation of 'embedding' appears new in the context of the Iraq War, it has been proven in history that media will always safeguard the ruling system, even it goes against their conscience. After all it is the 'class media' that rule, the mass media is merely the shadow of it. |
|
| Rezwan-ul-Alam | 21 04 2004 08:57:59 |
| From Donnacha DeLong, Amnesty In the UK, a recent series of articles in The Daily Express reporting that 'hordes of Gypsies' are ready to 'flood in' to the country on 1 May provoked a strong reaction. The Minister for Europe, Denis McShane, called it a 'rancid hate campaign', with other MPs condemning it as 'obscene' and 'racist'. What is particularly striking about this, though, is that the newspaper's own journalists reported the stories to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). They sought help from the PCC to protect them by introducing a 'conscience clause' to protect those who resist pressure to produce stories they regard as racist. Editorial pressure and interference - such as the fact that the newspaper's editor, Peter Hill, admits that proprietor Richard Desmond contributes to editing the front pages - restricts the ability of journalists to write fair, balanced and truthful articles and stories. The fact that Peter Hill is a member of the very same PCC to which the journalists complained denies journalists adequate protection. The PCC ruled that it has no jurisdiction to respond to the journalists' call. The issue has now been taken up as a campaign by the NUJ and a group of Labour Party MPs. There is nothing wrong with having an editorial position; in fact, a range of newspapers with different stances on issues adds to the pluralism of the media. But editorial pressure on journalists to distort, hype and write things they know are untrue does the opposite. |
|
| Donnacha DeLong | 06 05 2004 16:05:15 |
Back to Forum Topics.