It’s not rocket science

Journalism ethics is neither nuclear physics nor brain surgery. Ethical compliance is not as complex or as difficult as suggested by the practice of some journalists who, among other habits, are predictably biased for this or that individual, group or agency, or who succumb to corruption and conflicts of interest.

The principles of journalism ethics are no more than basic human values restated (tell the truth; be fair; be compassionate; be sensitive to the suffering of others; listen to your conscience; guard and defend your freedom).

The central irony about journalism is that while it is usually regarded as no more than a craft rather than a profession, it is a calling that involves the exercise of power. It includes the capacity to shape perceptions of the world as well as responses to it. It is also a job and a career path. But it is more than a means of putting food on the table and paying the rent.

Journalism is one of the means human beings have devised to explain and understand the world by providing information through news and other reports; commenting on issues of public concern through opinion pieces; and looking into the meaning of events and issues through analyses.

It is thus in the same league of human effort to make sense of the human condition and its environments as religion, science, and the arts. The success of each of these attempts at explaining the world varies, but journalism, because its mandate is providing information and interpreting it, has over time served, if somewhat unevenly, the basic human need for understanding the world.

Understanding the world enables people to cope with it, and, if necessary, to change it. But through unethical conduct, and/or the non-observance of its own values as a discipline, journalism can also prevent understanding. It can help keep people ignorant, so as to keep the powerful unaccountable; it can help preserve an unjust order; it can hold back change; etc. Unethical conduct undermines the potential of the press and the media to provide human beings the information and interpretation they need in a world of extreme complexity.

The mother of all ethical issues in the Philippine press and media is the commercial character of media ownership which creates a fundamental conflict of interest between the public service function of the press and owner business and political interests. This pattern has held since the US colonial period.

The irony is that ethical compliance is difficult in the situation that prevails in the Philippine press and media, but is absolutely essential precisely because of those circumstances. Among the factors that can make ethical practice in journalism possible despite the fundamental conflict of interest between the political and economic interests of media ownership and the public service function of the press are practitioner willingness and capacity to observe ethical standards, and the state of  development of media practice.

We’ve seen how some practitioners have resisted the lure of corruption and defied owner interests during such periods of political upheaval as the impeachment of former President Joseph Estrada, the many scandals generated by the Macapagal-Arroyo regime, and the current  outrage over the abuse of the pork barrel system.

But mostly unremarked are the many instances of practitioner determination to uphold ethical standards in reporting and commenting on relatively low profile events and issues, primarily because these efforts have consisted of NOT succumbing to bribery in exchange for favorable coverage, of NOT stereotyping women and indigenous people, or of NOT basing their reports on a single, self-serving source or AVOIDING conflicts of interest.

Of equal significance are the many instances in which journalists have resisted the use of the power inherent in journalism practice to advance their personal or familial interests at the expense of the public’s right to fair, balanced and unbiased reports, comment and analysis.

What avoiding conflicts of interest entails should be clear enough, and avoiding such conflicts when they involve one’s family is even clearer and much simpler. The journalist whose parent, aunt or uncle, or brother or sister is in the news cannot write about it, much less defend it, without first, inviting suspicions that he has put familial interests above those of the public, and second, without seriously damaging his credibility.

Non- disclosure of the relationship makes the offense susceptible to suspicions of deception: i.e., was the journalist deliberately concealing the connection to make it seem that he’s merely reporting or commenting without favor on a member of his family who’s in the news?

But while disclosure of one’s ties with one’s kin who’s in the news does mitigate the offense, it is in the end also self-defeating. Once the relationship is revealed, the inevitable conclusion is that the journalist is reporting favorably on, or defending the particular member of his family involved, precisely because of his familial ties. The ensuing damage to the journalist’s credibility isn’t worth the offense, no matter how much the journalist may think his reputation is enough for his readers/viewers/listeners to accept his report or comment at face value.

But what is of even greater concern is the effect of such demonstrations of conflict of interest on the press and the media’s already diminishing credibility: it undermines the stewardship function, or the duty of each journalist to protect free expression and the free press through responsible practice.

Responsible practice in those instances when a member of one’s family is in the news or involved in a controversy demands that the journalism recuse himself from reporting or comment. It’s an ethical and simple enough alternative to what can otherwise be an extremely problematic decision and its inevitable consequences. It’s not nuclear physics, brain surgery or rocket science.