Nothing black and white about journalistic ethics
This week there’ve been two moments where journalistic ethics have been part of a big Australian story. In both cases, we’re talking about shades of grey rather than black and white or right and wrong, but overall, I think they come out okay.
First came Tuesday’s attack on The Australian’s reporting on the alleged terrorist plot.
Watching the press conference held by Victoria Police’s Simon Overland, the initial impression was that The Oz had done an extraordinarily reckless thing. It had, apparently gone to press with the story before planned raids and created a real risk that targets could be tipped off.
But then the shades of grey came in.
Tim, are you familiar with the Hutton Inquiry that took place in the UK?
Quite pertinent to this topic.
For those that don’t know about it, the story involved a claim that UK Govt officials ‘sexed-up’ a dossier with the intent of promoting reasons to go to war with Iraq. The most famous claim was that Saddam Hussein could launch an attack with WMDs within 45minutes.
It culminated in the tragic death of the source of the scandal, and former UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly.
(You’ll notice I don’t say suicide. Whether it was or not, personally I think The Independent had it right when they call the inquiry a whitewash.)
Tim
For what it’s worth, I think Steve Lewis got it right and you’ve got it wrong.
The MEAA’s Code of Ethics lays it down that “Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances. ” As I pointed out on Media Watch, other comparable codes do not. The Canadian Association of Journalists says: “Make it clear that if a source lies or misleads you, all agreements are off.”
I think this must be an essential conditon of any agreement to accept information on a confidential basis. Of course, even if information does turn out to be wrong, the journalist should not give up a source unless there’s a public interest in doing so, and it is beyond doubt that the deception was deliberate, not a well-intentioned error.
It is quite clear that Godwin Grech, having concocted what he now calls a ‘record of exchange’, passed it off to Lewis as a genuine email – one that could literally have led to the resignation of a Prime Minister. You can’t get much more seriously misleading than that.
If journalists allow sources to feel that their identity will be protected whatever mischeivous garbage they serve up, then the whole convention of confidential sources is imperilled.
In any case, Lewis only outed Grech after he had outed himself to The Australian.
And by the way, it’s publicly, not publically. We’re nitpickers at Media Watch!
Cheers
Jonathan Holmes
while I’m nit-picking, and before anyone else picks me up on it, it’s mischievous, not mischeivous