Journalist Code of Ethics Report

ABSTRACT: 

This report was commissioned by the Australian Journalist’s Association to evaluate the effectiveness of the Code of Ethics as a means for maintaining standards for the reporting of news. This was achieved in the Discussion through an analysis of two reports covering the same news story. The news story was on the Indian cricket tour of Australian and the reports were: “TOUR HIT FOR SIX”, by Jon Pierik, published by the Courier Mail on the 8^th of January 2008, and “Indian cricket tour in doubt as a nation erupts in fury” by Alex Brown that was published by The Age on the same date. The reports were analysed and judged according to the contemporary language theory and from the evidence in the Discussion, the report concluded that the Code of Ethics was a flawed and ineffective guideline for the journalistic profession. Based on these conclusions the report recommended that amendments be made to the Code in terms of language choices and disciplinary action.

1.0  INTRODUCTION

            1.1 Background of the Study

            1.2 Purpose of the Study

            1.3 Scope of the Study

2.0  DISCUSSION

2.1 Selection of Language

            2.2 Selection of Context

            2.3 Organisation of Material

3.0 CONCLUSIONS

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 REFERENCE LIST

6.0  BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.0  APPENDIX

1.0  INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDY:    

The notion of a journalistic Code of Ethics in Australia was first proposed by the renowned war historian C.E.W Bean in 1932. Bean felt that to guarantee the integrity of the profession, it was necessary that a “Code of Honour” be enforced amongst journalists.  This was intended to ensure that responsible and honest journalism would be adhered to by the media. For “if the public becomes convinced that journalism will not accept accountability… then gradually the media will be perceived as illegitimate, as lacking credibility, [and] as being unworthy of trust.” (Chadwick, P. 1999)  Despite considerable opposition by union executive members from the Australian Journalist’s Association, the Code was finally implemented in 1944.

           

The original 1944 Code of Ethics (Appendix A) was a simple document of a mere eight clauses that has since been adapted twice to cater for the needs and expectations of a rapidly changing society. These revisions of the Code, first made in 1984 (Appendix B) and more recently modified in 1996, (Appendix C) have sparked criticism due to their increasingly abstract and complex natures. Questions have been raised in regards to the viability of their application in modern media outlets, and its ability to effectively maintain the standards for the reporting of news. For, while justified changes have been made to the Code, such as the removal of racist and sexist notation, it still appears that with each adaptation of the Code, the definitions of truth, accuracy and fairness continue to become even more vague and indistinct.

Despite this ambiguity, the Code of Ethics’ power resides in its ability to bring members of the Australian Journalist’s Association before a tribunal by their colleagues, if it is believed that they have breached the Code. Members of the public “can lodge a complaint with the Judiciary Committee”, (Australian News Commentary. 2006) should they feel that a journalist has grossly misled them in an article. However, only members of the union are predisposed to undergo disciplinary action, as other journalists have not accepted the Code, and therefore cannot be held liable for their actions by the Australian Journalist’s Association.

The Code of Ethics that the Australian Journalist’s Association decided upon was based on a moralistic platform of inherent beliefs and values, which manifest themselves in the three basic concepts of truth, objectivity and fairness. These formed the “foundation on which its specific ethical requirements are based.” (Allen, M. 2001) This view becomes evident in the Code through the use of language utilizing terms such as “report and interpret honestly” and “use fair, responsible and honest means.” The Code is intended to act as a guide for the profession to protect the integrity of its members, and preserve the public’s faith in the validity of their work.

Although the language choices mobilized in the original Code of Ethics maintain that the duty of a reporter is to “report and interpret news with scrupulous honesty,” modern literary theories hold the view that it is impossible for a text to be completely neutral. The contemporary language theory asserts that the language of an author will always reflect on his social and cultural experiences. For, while news reports are taken to be a mirror image of real life, events are actually “filtered through the author’s consciousness.” (Queensland Studies Authority. 2004) Inevitably, the language choices that the author makes will determine which discourses and cultural assumptions in the text are mobilised, while others are marginalised or silenced. Since a “text is made out of fragments surrounded by blanks or gaps, readers are encouraged to fill in these gaps according to the prompts established by the text.” (Queensland Studies Authority. 2004) Therefore representations are partial and limited, benefiting certain individuals and disadvantaging others. The Code of Ethics of today needs to reflect on this dilemma, and refine its stance on how the truth should be consciously represented by the author.

1.2  PURPOSE:

The Australian Journalist’s Association has called for an appraisal into the viability of the Code of Ethics. The Code’s ability to act as an effective means of maintaining standards for the reporting of news is currently under scrutiny. The efficiency of the Code is under analysis based upon today’s contemporary language theories, and from these, recommendations for amendments to the Code will be expressed throughout this report. 

1.3 SCOPE:

The effectiveness of the Code of Ethics, including the notions of truth, objectivity and fairness as a moral guide for journalists will be evaluated using the contemporary language theory as the basis for this report. Journalist’s manipulation of textual features, such as silences and cultural assumptions to position their audience and so represent or misrepresent individuals or events will be assessed throughout this report.

To evaluate the efficiency of the current Code of Ethics, two similar newspaper articles will be compared and scrutinised against one another using the Code as a means to analyse the integrity of the author. Specifically, clauses I, II and IV of the Code will be focused on in the discussion under the headings of: Selection of Language, Selection of Context and Organisation of Material. These clauses are vital when trying to assess the viability of the Code in regard to the limitations that they place upon journalism. These limitations impact upon the journalist’s ability to mobilise discourses amongst the public owing to their language choices. From the evidence scrutinised from the texts in this report, conclusions will be drawn and recommendations made.

2.O DISCUSSION

Preamble:

The assumption underpinning the Code of Ethics that it is possible to report the truth in all its accuracy is problematic according to the contemporary language theory. This theory asserts that a text is never neutral as it merely presents a particular version of reality that is both partial and limited. There is no such thing as a foundational truth or reality; rather there is simply a variety of interpretations of an event. The concept of truth becomes even more ambiguous when the elusive nature of language is considered. Different interpretations of the text mobilise particular cultural assumptions amongst readers, and encourage the support of different value systems. When these factors are considered, it is evident that the guiding principles of the Code are flawed, undermining its effectiveness as a means for maintaining standards for the reporting of news. In particular, the ability of the journalist to position the reader through their choices for language selection, context and organisation will be investigated using two articles relating to the Indian Cricket Tour of Australia. The first article, (Article 1) written by Jon Pierik, was published by the Courier Mail on the 8^th of January 2008, and was entitled “TOUR HIT FOR SIX”. The alternate article (Article 2) was published by The Age on the same date and was entitled “Indian cricket tour in doubt as a nation erupts in fury” by Alex Brown.

2.1    Selection of Language:

The language choices utilized in a text mobilise certain discourses and the cultural assumptions associated with them, and marginalise or silence others. Journalists determine truth in their reporting through their language choices, which construct the text and are inexorably connected to cultural assumptions and values systems which serve the interests of some people and not others.

            2.1.1 Article 1:

Harbhajan Singh, the Indian player accused of racially abusing the Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds was labelled as the “star” of the Indian cricket team.  The cultural assumption encoded in this label positions the reader to believe that Singh is an essential player for India. In contrast, Symonds is constructed as “the only black man in the Australian side”. This label mobilises the discourse of racism, and privileges the view that Andrew Symonds has been singled out for being the “only black man”, which encourages the reader to sympathise with him. Singh is defended by the Indian Cricket Council, which threatens to cancel the Indian tour of Australian unless the charges against him are revoked. Utilizing figurative language, the article represents the Indian Cricket Council as “dramatically holding world cricket to ransom”. This mobilises the discourse of India hijacking the series because of “Harbhajan’s punishment”. The language choices in the article silence other discourses offering alternate representations of the event. The Australian Cricket Board is described as having “attempted to initiate peace talks”, which mobilises the discourse of Australia generously working to appease the Indians. While the value system encouraged by this discourse benefits the Australians, it also disadvantages the Indians.

            2.1.2 Article 2:

The language choices utilized by the journalist in this article labelled the Indian Cricket Board as “incensed” and “discontent”. These verbs and adjectives were used to signal the preferred way for the reader to think about this participant’s feelings of anger and frustration over the issue. The reason for this discontent was attributed to the “ban on Harbhajan for allegedly calling Andrew Symonds a monkey”. The journalist’s decision to use the adverb “allegedly” encourages the reader to accept that the incident is nothing more than an unproven insinuation. This mobilises the discourse of a miscarriage of justice, because the player was banned for an incident that was nothing more than a “blatantly false and unfair slur on an Indian player”.  Despite Singh being found guilty of racial abuse by the match referee, the article did not label Singh as actually being guilty. This label and the cultural assumptions encoded within it were silenced as they would offer an alternate representation of the event that would be privilege the Australians. Instead he article states how the “integrity of the Australian players” has been called into question, which represents the Australian cricket team as being dishonest. This activates the cultural assumption of cheats and liars, which encourages the audience to accept that the Australians cricketers are not an honourable group. This view privileges the Indians, as it assesses how valid the verdict was when the match referee “took the word of Australia’s players over the Indians’ in handing down Harbhajan’s suspension”. Discourses offering alternate representations of the Australian players are silenced, and the audience is encouraged to ignore the prospect of the Australian players being good sports.

2.2       Selection of Context

The choices concerning the context of an article foregrounds aspects of the story and marginalises others by its placement in the newspaper, surrounding articles, headlines and pictures. This encourages the reader to adopt a certain a certain opinion about the issue, often before they have even examined the text itself.

            2.2.1 Article 1:

The front page of this newspaper was entirely dedicated to this article, in order to foreground its importance and draw the reader’s attention. The article’s title “TOUR HIT FOR SIX”, Is even larger than the name of the newspaper, and mobilises the cultural assumption through cricketing jargon that the tour has been placed in jeopardy. Composing almost the entire left hand side of the front page, alongside the title, is a large photo of the Indian Cricketer Harbhajan Singh, warily glancing over his shoulder with his bags. The caption below the photograph read: “Ban … Harbhajan Singh returns to the team hotel in Sydney yesterday”. By associating the word “ban” with this cricketer’s name, the reader is encouraged to mobilise the discourse of a banned sportsman. This view was reinforced in the text of the article, where it was stated that India had a “ban on one of its stars for racial abuse.”  The association between him being banned, and returning to his hotel privileges the view of his guilt instigating the end of the cricketing tour. The possibility of any other participants being responsible for the tour’s collapse is silenced. The reader is also positioned to attribute some of the blame to the Indian Cricket Council, for the symbol of this organisation on the front page has the statement “BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA” printed on it. The story continues over the next two pages of the newspaper, along with an opinion piece that states in large, bold font “ICC must stand firm over India’s blackmail tactics.” The proximity of this text to the main article foregrounds the Courier Mail’s discourse of India hijacking the series, and silences the alternate view that Australia is also responsible for the collapse of the series.

2.2.2 Article 2:

The title of this article utilizes large, bold font to foreground the issue and draw the reader’s attention. It states “Indian cricket tour in doubt as a nation erupts in fury”, Which mobilises the discourse of an entire country incensed with rage. The title omits to mention the actual country that has erupted in a fury, but this silence serves to entice the reader, as they are positioned to believe that an event of monumental importance has occurred. Underneath the title there is a large picture of the Indian cricketer Harbhajan Singh who is portrayed staring intently ahead while he is surrounded by a cluster of reporters. This privileges the view that he is at the centre of the controversy in this issue. Below the picture is a caption that states “Suspended Indian Spinner Harbhajan Singh leaves the team’s Sydney hotel”. This statement is emphasised through the literary technique of sibilance. An opinion piece situated next to the photo states in large font “Ponting ‘must be sacked’”, which positions the reader to accept the Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting as the key agitator in this issue. The placement of this article at the centre of the front page of the newspaper foregrounds the importance this issue towards the reader. The articles surrounding it have attained less space, and their position at the bottom and side columns are less favourable. The continuation of the text over on the next page is assigned less importance, due to its position along the right hand side of the page, yet it is situated near another article which is in the centre of the page describing the Indian’s discontent with the match.

2.3       Organisation of Material

The choices for the organisation of material in an article can foreground or marginalise discourses and privilege certain values. The headline, order of information, length given to information and sentence juxtaposition all play a part in positioning the reader as they are encouraged to assign meaning based on the emphasis inherent in the text. The author’s manipulation of the placement of information in an article impacts on the position the reader is encouraged to adopt, and the discourses the reader is positioned to ignore.

            2.3.1 Articles 1:

The main emphasis of the article is the “what” factor, which negatively examines what India is doing to get its own way. This ties in with the Courier Mail’s discourse of India hijacking the cricket tour through an abuse of its power. The opening paragraph privileges the Australian cricket team as it negatively constructs the Indian Cricket Board as “threatening to abandon its half-completed tour”. This positions the reader to sympathise with the Australian Cricket Council, who as the body of the article goes on to elaborate, faces a “$50 million catastrophe thanks to India’s threat to abandon its tour.” By marginalising India’s reasons for bringing the tour into doubt, the article is able to construct the Indian Cricket Council as a despotic force in world cricket. This positions the reader to believe that India is responsible for placing the tour in jeopardy, thereby serving the interests of the Australian Cricket Council which is favourably represented. It is not until the end of the second page that the motives of the Indian Cricket Council are explained, thereby giving it the opportunity to mount a reply. It was stated how the Indians were enraged when one of its players was found guilty of racial abuse “despite there being no audio or visual evidence or third-party collaboration.” By positioning this information later in the article, the journalist was able to assign less importance to it to, thereby manipulating the reading that text offered. This is at odds with the final position offered in the article which emphasises how “India’s threat to abandon the Australian tour is not the first time they have held the game to ransom.”  This encourages the reader to view the influential Indian Cricket Board as manipulative and abusive of its power.

            2.3.2 Article 2:

The structure of the first paragraph utilized the who, what, when, where, why and how method to describe the contentious issue. Indian indignation over the controversial ban on one of its players was foregrounded, while the reasons for his suspension were marginalised. The opening paragraph stated how there was “an outpouring of fury across India.” This positioned the reader to believe that a grave injustice has occurred, which served the interests of the Indian Cricket Council by justifying their actions. The Indian’s were also privileged by the foregrounded material in body of the article, because the “why” question about their behaviour is developed. By focussing on the “Indian’s discontent”, the Indian threats to dissolve the tour are marginalised, which encourages the reader to accept that India’s actions are necessary to prevent a grave injustice occurring. The effect on the Australian Cricket Board in terms of monetary loss is marginalised as this would position the reader to accept an alternate reading of the text that would privilege the Australians. The final position offered to the audience in the last paragraph describes the Indian player’s final moments before the cancellation of the tour. This positions the reader to believe that the Indians were willing to honour their tour agreements before the situation became “totally unacceptable”, in the words of Sharad Pawar, the President of the Indian Cricket Board.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS:

The contemporary language theory was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Code of Ethics as a means for maintaining standards for the reporting of news. This report scrutinized the constructs of two news reports on the Indian cricket tour of Australia. By examining the journalist’s selection of language, context and organization of material, it was possible to evaluate effectiveness of the Code. Due to the analysis made in the Discussion of this report, it was established that the current Code of Ethics is ineffective in its current form, due to its susceptibility to manipulation by journalists.

The selection of language by a journalist in an article mobilizes particular discourses which construct representations about the issue, while silencing other discourses offering alternate representations. Linked to these language choices are the cultural assumptions, beliefs and values which influence the reader’s interpretation of the text according to their social and cultural backgrounds. The contemporary language theory states that “Culture and individuals are constructed through networks of affiliated language, symbol and discourse usages”. This highlights how a journalist can use language to shape the representation of participants in an article, thereby manipulating the reading of the text. Point 2.1 of the Discussion analysed this notion, stating that “Journalists determine truth in their reporting through their language choices”. (Lye, J. 1993) This is at odds with the simplistic view on truth expressed in the preamble of the Code of Ethics, which states how “Respect for truth and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism.” (Appendix C) The Code does not take into account the complex and elusive nature of language, which “always means more than it may be taken to mean in any one context”. (Lye, J. 1993) This perspective is problematic for Clause I of the Code of Ethics, which maintains that journalists must “report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.” (Appendix C) The concepts of truth, honesty and fairness upon which the Code bases itself are ambiguous because the meanings that readers make depend on the cultural assumptions that they draw on. However, the language that the author utilizes can manipulate the position the reader is invited to take up, by mobilizing discourses along with their associated cultural assumptions. This was examined in point 2.1.1 of the Discussion where it was deduced that “the cultural assumption encoded in this label positions the reader to believe that Singh is an essential player for India”. This demonstrates how the language choices of the author are able to close down and open up possibilities for the reader to think about the issue and the participants. The journalist is also able to manipulate the context of the article to construct representations which invite the audience to adopt a subjective position in relation to the text.

The conscious decisions of the journalist in regard to the context of the article foreground certain aspects of the story while marginalizing others. This is manipulated by the journalist to encourage the reader to adopt a certain opinion about the issue. As Clause IV of the Code of ethics states, “Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence”. (Appendix C) However according to the contemporary language theory, this is an unrealistic expectation as “an individual exists as a nexus of social meanings and practices, psychic and ideological forces, and uses of language and other signs and symbols.” (Lye, J. 1993) Therefore a journalist is merely a product of their cultural and social situation and they portray ideologies through their choices in the article. The preamble of the Discussion examined this dilemma, stating that the contemporary language theory “asserts that a text is never neutral as it merely presents a particular version of reality that is both partial and limited.” The choices of the journalist when structuring an article reflect their personal interests and beliefs, as they encourage the support of different value systems. The ability of a journalist to utilize the context of an article to position the reader was examined in point 2.2.2 of the Discussion, where it was stated that “An opinion piece situated next to the photo states in large font “Ponting ‘must be sacked’”, which positions the reader to accept the Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting as the key agitator in this issue.” The belief of the journalist was reflected through his decisions for the context of the article. Another way that the journalist is able to manipulate the reading of a text is through the organisation of material in the article.

The organization of material in an article can be manipulated by the journalist to foreground or marginalize particular discourses and their associated cultural assumptions, which encourage the support of different value systems. This affects the way that the story is represented and the position that the audience is invited to take up. The Code of Ethics seeks to remedy this, by stating in Clause I “Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply”, (Appendix C) which is intended to ensure fair reporting by journalists. This was examined in point 2.3.1 of the Discussion where it was established that “It is not until the end of the second page that the motives of the Indian Cricket Council are explained, thereby giving it the opportunity to mount a reply.” By positioning this information later in the article, the journalist was able to assign less importance and thereby marginalize this discourse offering an alternate representation of the participant. However, because of the inclusion of the word “utmost” in the Clause, the journalist was able to manipulate this instruction to suit his own purpose. Another gray area in the Code is where Clause II states “Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics.” (Appendix C) Yet how is it possible to define emphasis on personal characteristics as “unnecessary”? It is simply left up to the discretion of the journalist. This was examined in point 2.1.1 of the discussion, where the issue of racism in the article was discussed: “This label mobilizes the discourse of racism, and privileges the view that Andrew Symonds has been singled out for being the “only black man”. The journalist emphasized the importance of this issue by foregrounding it at the beginning of the article.

In the light of contemporary language theories it is obvious that the current Code of Ethics is ineffective as its wording leaves too much to the discretion of the journalist. The notions of truth, objectivity and fairness, which form the foundation of the Code are ambiguous and flawed. The implementation of more stringent guidelines in the Code is required to ensure the ethical behaviour of the media, as well as firmer punishments for breaches of the Code. For, as the report that instigated the revision of the Code of Ethics in 1996 stated: “Journalists must learn to do ethics, not just enshrine them.” (Allen, M. 2001)

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The current Code of Ethics is merely an invitation for journalists to engage in ethical practices based upon their interpretation of the Code applied in specific circumstances. Based on the results of this investigation, it is recommended that less versatile language be utilized throughout the Code. The Australian Journalist’s Association Code of Ethics requires the introduction of more stringent guidelines to prevent breaches of the Code in order to maintain standards for the reporting of news.

This report recommends the following amendments to the Code of Ethics:

The removal of ambiguous language from the Code that is open to interpretation and manipulation by the journalist:

ü  The preamble of the Code should read: “Respect for the participants in a  story and the public’s right to information are fundamental principles of journalism.”

ü  Clause I should state “Report and interpret accurately from both perspectives of the story. Do not suppress facts or emphasise them. Give opportunity for reply.”

ü  Clause II of the Code should read: “Do not place emphasis on personal characteristics”

ü  Clause IV of the Code should state: “Do not allow personal ideologies to influence your accuracy.”

The introduction of more rigid enforcement of the Code of Ethics is required to promote high standards for the reporting of news. Stronger guidelines are required to deter journalists from constructing inaccurate representations in their reports.

It is the recommendation of this report that these changes to the Code of Ethics be implemented as quickly as possible.
 5.0 REFERENCE:

Allen, M. (2001). Ethics in the Media. Referenced 2008

from Source

Alliance Online.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

Australian Journalist’s Code of Ethics. (2006). (online)

Available: Source

Australian News Commentary. (2006). Journalists Code of ethics. Referenced 2008

from Source

Breit, Rhonda. (2005). Journalistic Self-Regulation. Referenced 2008
from Source

Chadwick, P. (1999). Media and Accountability. Referenced 2008

from Source

Ford, P. (2008). Coevolution of Language and Theory of Mind. Referenced 2008

from Source

Lye, J. (1993). Contemporary Literary Theory. Referenced 2008

from Source

Lye, J. (2000). Some Characteristics of Contemporary Theory. Referenced 2008

from Source

Queensland Studies Authority. (2004). Reader Centred Approaches. Referenced 2008

from Source

Spurgin, T. (1997). The New Criticism. Referenced 2008
from Source

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Allen, M. (2001). Ethics in the Media. Referenced 2008

from Source

Alliance Online.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

Australian Journalist’s Code of Ethics.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

Australian News Commentary. (2006). Journalists Code of ethics. Referenced 2008

from Source

Chadwick, P. (1999). Media and Accountability. Referenced 2008

from Source

Queensland Studies Authority. (2004). Reader Centred Approaches. Referenced 2008

from Source

Lye, J. (1993). Contemporary Literary Theory. Referenced 2008

from Source

7.0

Appendix A

The 1944 AJA Code of Ethics

Source: Australian Journalist’s Code of Ethics.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

AJA Code of Ethics 1944
Each member of the Australian Journalists' Association is bound by its rules to observe this Code of Ethics in his employment: To report and interpret news with a scrupulous honesty. Not to suppress essential facts nor distort the truth by omission or wrong or improper emphasis. To respect all confidences received by him in the course of his calling. To observe at all times the fraternal obligations arising from his membership of the Association and not on any occasion to take unfair or improper advantage of a fellow member of the Association. Not to allow his personal interests to influence him in the discharge of his duties, nor to accept or offer any present, gift or consideration, or benefit or advantage of whatsoever kind that may have the effect of so benefiting him. To use only fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures and documents. Always to reveal his identity as a representative of the press before obtaining any personal interview for the purpose of using it for publication. To do his utmost to maintain full confidence in the integrity and dignity of the calling of a journalist.

Appendix B:

The 1984 AJA Code of Ethics

Source: Australian Journalist’s Code of Ethics.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

AJA Code of Ethics 1984-present : Current Code
Respect for truth and the public's right to know are overriding principles for all journalists. In pursuance of these principles journalists commit themselves to ethical and professional standards. All members of the AJA section engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information shall observe the following code of ethics in their professional activities. They acknowledge the jurisdiction of their professional colleagues in the AJA judiciary committees to adjudicate on issues connected with the code. 1.     They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant, available facts or by distorting by wrong or improper emphasis. 2.    They shall not place unnecessary emphasis on gender, race, sexual preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability. 3.    In all circumstances they shall respect all confidences received in the course of their calling. 4.    They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in the course of their professional duties. 5.    They shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall disclose any such offer. 6.    They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence them in their professional duties. 7.    They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, films, tapes and documents. 8.    They shall identify themselves and their employers before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. 9.    They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the right to resist compulsion to intrude on them. 10.  They shall do their utmost to correct any published or broadcast information found to be harmfully inaccurate.

Appendix C

The current AJA Code of Ethics

Source: Alliance Online.(2006). (online)

Available: Source

Media Alliance Code of Ethics

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to Honesty Fairness Independence Respect for the rights of others 1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply. 2.  Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability. 3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances. 4.  Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence. 5.  Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.  Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.  6.  Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. 7.  Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories. 8.  Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. 9.  Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate.  Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed. 10.  Do not plagiarise. 11.  Respect private grief and personal privacy.  Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude. 12.  Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors. Guidance Clause Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden. normal;">

If you feel an Alliance member is in breach of the code, you can lodge a complaint

Appendix D


Article 1: TOUR HIT FOR SIX

Source: Pierik, J. (2008). TOUR HIT FOR SIX.

Appendix E

Article 2: Indian cricket tour in doubt as a nation erupts in fury

Source: Brown, A. (2008).Indian cricket tour in doubt as a nation erupts in fury.