Ethical Issues In Press Relations

By all accounts, information is the hallmark of a democracy and this presupposition, therefore, implies that the relationship between the press and other sections of the society ought to be taken seriously.

Analysts argue that issues of ethics, culture and fundamental principles of reporting should not be treated with levity in everyday reportage and activities of the press.

In a recent inquiry report submitted to Britain’s House of Commons, Lord Justice Leveson noted that many editors, reporters and others, who worked for national and regional media organisations, always worked in the public interest, while entertaining their readers or audience as well.

He was, however, quick to add that the press should always strive to uphold its integrity while carrying out its operations.

In the report titled “An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press’’, Leveson stressed that the good practices and ethics of the press must always be upheld.

The aristocrat, however, stressed that the press should not bully their critics or utterly ignore their criticisms, particularly when such criticisms were constructive.

“There is a cultural tendency within parts of the press to resist or dismiss complaints almost as a matter of course.

“Securing an apology, a correction or other appropriate redress, even when there can be no argument, becomes drawn out and difficult,’’ he added.

All the same, Leveson noted that a general defensive approach had led to a situation in which some newspapers resorted to level high volume of extremely personal attacks on those who challenged them.

He said that such personal attacks could be damaging based on the audience enjoyed by the newspapers.

“Consequently, potential complainants sometimes do not complain, not because they do not have a valid complaint but because they do not have the energy for the inevitable fight, or because they are unwilling to expose their friends and families to hurt.

“This can hardly be described as a healthy state of affairs,” he added.

Nevertheless, Leveson underscored the need for a independent self-regulation mechanism, which would protect both the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, together with the rights and interests of individuals.

The aristocrat recommended the establishment of an independent regulatory body that would have the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals.

“That body should set standards, both through a code and in relation to governance and compliance,” he said.

On the relationship between the press and the police, Leveson said that reporting of crime and policing activities must be done collaboratively in a democratic country.

He said that the public must be kept aware of policing concerns, while the people must participate in the debate.

He underscored the need for the press to play a vital role in encouraging the public to engage in the criminal justice system by coming forward with evidence.

He, nonetheless, stressed that the press must facilitate the public assistance, while applauding instances when criminals are brought to justice as a result of such public support. “The press must also hold the police to account, acting as the eyes and ears of the public.

“It is, therefore, not surprising that these different roles and responsibilities which the police and the press have are capable of pulling in opposite directions: there needs to be a constructive tension and absolutely not a self-serving coziness.”

Leveson stressed that the issue of partnership in information sharing could never be over-emphasised.

He said that in the current circumstances, senior officers needed professional advice and support, while press departments should continue to play a vital role in managing the flow of information into the public domain.

“In addition to the general issues of the relationship between the press and the police, I have also considered how close the relationship has been by reference to a number of discrete issues such as ‘tip offs’, ‘taking media on operations’, ‘off-the-record’ briefings, leaks, whistle-blowing, entertainment.

“The list of topics is lengthy but the issues underlying each of these matters have been similar. The words `integrity’ and `perception’ are common refrains.

“Putting the matter at its lowest, if a police officer tips off a member of the press, the perception may well be that he or she has done so in exchange for past favours or the expectation of some future benefits.

“At its highest, the issue becomes one of integrity for the police officer, as his or her professional standing may be put under scrutiny,” he said.

Leveson , nonetheless, said that briefings ought to be designated as open, embargoed (in time) or non-reportable, adding that if there was a combination of these limits, the press should seek clarifications.

On press relations with politicians, Leveson reviewed concerns by politicians that some sections of the press often discredited their motives and distorted the policies which they wanted to promote.

He, however, stressed that available evidence suggested that politicians had conducted themselves in relation to the press in ways which had not served the public interest.

According to him, politicians have placed themselves in positions in which they could become vulnerable to influences which are either strange or vague. “There is thus no mechanism for holding them accountable, which is, of course, the usual responsibility of the press itself.

“The result has been to create what was, at least potentially, a perception of conflict with their responsibilities in relation to the conduct of public affairs.

“A number of clear opportunities to address this perception have been missed and there has been a persistent failure to respond more generally to public concerns about the culture, practices and ethics of the press.

“I have concluded that a combination of these factors has contributed to a lessening of public confidence in the conduct of public affairs, by giving rise to legitimate perceptions and concerns that politicians and the press have traded power and influence in ways which are contrary to the public interest and out of public sight,” he said.

Leveson said that these perceptions and concerns were particularly acute in relation to the politicians’ conduct of public policy issues with regard to the press itself.

Besides, Leveson argued that politicians were in a difficult position regarding lobbying from the press.

This, according to him, is because the press, apart from being powerful lobbyists in their own interests, also wield a powerful megaphone with considerable influence over the personal and political reputation of politicians.

“They are also highly skilled, at the level of some proprietors, editors and senior executives, at subtle and intuitive lobbying in the context of personal relationships and friendships.

“Politicians are further rendered vulnerable by the extent to which they may compromise their privacy, often to an ambiguous degree, in the cause of presenting an `authentic view’ of themselves to the public.

“This is a necessity in a more personal age of politics but it risks inviting further intrusion in the name of ‘exposing hypocrisy,” he added.

Leveson posited that the relationships within which lobbying could take place did not include the everyday relationships of journalism and politics.

He, however, said that such relationships included the relationships of policy makers (actual or potential) and those who stood to benefit directly from those policies.

“That is a limited category, comprising (on the one hand) a small number of relevant government decision-makers and those who credibly aspire to those positions from within governing parties or their rivals in opposition, and (on the other) the proprietors, title editors and executive decision-makers of the press,” he said.

Leveson argued that in these relationships, the boundaries between the conduct of government business, with its formalities and accountabilities, on the one hand, and informal ‘political’ or ‘personal’ interactions, on the other, were not clear and inevitably so.

He, nonetheless, stressed that there was a legitimate concern about the lack of transparency and accountability in relationships between the press, government and politicians.

Leveson, however, recommended that newspapers should publish compliance reports in their pages so as to ensure that their readers had easy access to the information.

He also suggested the establishment of a new regulatory body that should consider the creation of a benchmark that would enable members to establish a “recognised brand of trusted journalism”.

All in all, Leveson underscored the need to evolve a new ethical code and rules of engagement for the press concerning its relationship with the public, the politicians and the police.

Okoronkwo writes for the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)

Chijioke Okoronkwo