Trust in the Press is essential in an ever changing society. Not only must the Press be trusted but it must be believed and must behave in an ethical manner. But what constitutes an ethical manner? Laws might be set

Authors Avatar

Mike Weston

“Trust in the Press is essential in an ever changing society. Not only must the Press be trusted but it must be believed and must behave in an ethical manner. But what constitutes “an ethical manner”?  Laws might be set to achieve certain outcomes and may not necessarily be ethical.  What is legal and demanded by law may not be considered ethical from a journalistic point of view.

With respect to your personal point of view of the above, discuss what you believe journalists have to do to maintain the trust and respect of the public.

 

The historian Thomas Babington Macaulay introduced the notion of the media as the Fourth Estate; the role of a watchdog that checks on abuses of power by government and professionals. Lord Hutchinson, QC defence council for the ABC Case regarding the Official Secrets Act 1989, said it is the task of the press to examine, probe, question and find out if there are mistakes to embarrass the government. With such a role of responsibility, it is vital that the public trust what the press tell them. Codes and laws are in place to make sure journalists act as a collective conscience. In practice this is difficult as individual consciences come into play, along with the obstacles of time, money and competition that face journalists in their profession.

One common rule among journalists is to never reveal your sources. If you do, your career will be tainted with mistrust. This journalistic ethical code secures a relationship with the public and provides protection. But there are laws that contravene this. Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 says courts have the right to demand that journalists reveal their source if disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says police investigating a “serious offence” can obtain an order requiring the journalist to submit evidence considered useful to the court. It is difficult to defy the law, especially when the consequence could be imprisonment or a fine. However, I would still try to keep my sources confidential; otherwise they could face a fine or imprisonment. I would find that difficult to live with because I am just as responsible for protecting my sources and for imparting the information. In these circumstances I would argue for freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. Trainee journalist Bill Goodwin appealed successfully with this argument after he was fined for refusing to hand over documents concerning engineering company Terra Ltd.  In another case the Guardian exposed their source Sarah Tisdall in 1984 under pressure from the courts. She leaked information about the delivery of cruise missiles to RAF Greenham Common and was jailed as a consequence. Where a source has taken the initiative and given a story to the press, especially in matters relating to national security, they must have recognised the risk and it is not unreasonable for them to take the consequences.

Join now!

There are legal reporting restrictions that a journalist can overturn. Section 39 and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 can be lifted if a juvenile has committed a serious crime and naming them would act as a deterrent to others. Journalists often cite public interest in their reasons for disagreeing with the law and this is an ethical way to maintain the trust and respect of the public. Yet the problem lies in defining public interest.

The Press Complaints Commission states that public interest includes:

  1. Detecting or exposing crime ...

This is a preview of the whole essay