Self Regulation vs. Censorship

Published by Emil Abraham,

Every day, journalists working across all platforms of media make dozens of ethical decisions. Every stage of the act of journalism requires choices about content — headlines, words, pictures, video and audio clips. These decisions are not acts of self-censorship. When they are freely made by well-trained, free-thinking professionals they are the bedrock of journalism at its best.
Some people may disagree. Politicians and others may complain about the choices we make if they don’t portray them in a good light. Sometimes they feel they are victims of bias, rather than the subjects of fair reporting. But often their criticism is motivated solely by self-interest or reveals a poor understanding of the craft of journalism.
That’s why good systems of internal self-regulation inside journalism, such as those practised in India by The Hindu, for instance, are absolutely essential to defend and explain the way media and journalism work.
All good journalism is subject to editing, rewriting or other functional alteration in the name of style, taste, precision and clarity. This is not internal censorship, but the application of sound editorial judgement when the only limits are those posed by the journalist’s own knowledge, competence and creativity.
That’s the theory, but is that how it works in reality? In the competitive, breakneck pace of the modern newsroom, the pressure on journalists to deliver their stories faster and for different platforms has squeezed the ethical information space.
There is less time for editing, additional research, or confident fact-checking and verification. Fewer people are employed with the skill set and experience needed to maintain editorial standards. The scope for mistakes is widening, particularly as web content and social networks become increasingly important as sources of news and information.
All of these pressures on media undermine quality journalism by making it ever-more difficult for writers, broadcasters and editors. They have less time to apply good principles of professionalism and self-regulation.
But even if it is creaking, the structure of self-regulation in media remains at the heart of producing credible, trustworthy and timely journalism.
Self-censorship is a different matter. This is when journalism and media are driven not by editorial concerns, but by fear.
When a journalist or editor makes an editorial decision over a story and its contents that is motivated by the threat of reprisal – whether from the state, the police, the owner, or the advertiser – it is nothing to do with the principles of good journalism.
Internal threats are not unusual. Journalists regularly shape their stories to suit the company’s political or business interests. And it’s not a new phenomenon.
A detailed survey of journalists and news executives in the United States in 2000 uncovered widespread concern over commercial pressures. More than 40 per cent of journalists admitted shaping their stories to suit company interests.
As long as the audience knows who owns the media, people can make reasonable judgements about whether they can trust news reporting in areas where the owners have a business interest.
But this becomes a serious and sinister problem when there is an absence of transparency. In Turkey, for instance, the Ethical Journalism Network recently reported that the country’s major media outlets censored the news to maintain friendly political and business relations with the state.
There are, of course, more common and more dangerous threats. In many corners of the world – China, Iran, North Korea, for instance – journalists routinely censor themselves to avoid jail and persecution. In other countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and the Philippines, they do so to avoid assassination or physical violence.
When fear of retaliation stalks the newsroom there can be no press freedom or independent journalism. But sometimes journalism gets swept into the practice of self-censorship by misplaced notions of national interest and patriotism. Many of today’s stories from Ukraine and Russia, for instance, tell their own sorry tale of self-censorship as media on both sides have succumbed to political propaganda in the conflict over Crimea and the Russian breakaway movement in eastern Ukraine.
Self-censorship has also overwhelmed much of the independent media in Egypt, including media icons of the Arab Spring, which have shocked supporters outside the country by lining up to support the Cairo government’s assault on the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of them have remained shamefully silent over the prosecution and jailing of Al Jazeera journalists.
What makes these examples particularly tragic is that they often involve the willing participation of journalists and editors. In times of national emergency and crisis it is not uncommon or inappropriate for media to provide reassurance for their audience, but that should never be an excuse for propaganda or surrender of editorial independence.
We must always be alert to the dangers of the dead hand of politics in media. Independence in the newsroom is not an optional extra; it is the solid foundation of the craft of journalism.

What do we need self-reulation for:
  • Self-regulation benefits journalists. It adds to readers’ trust towards the media, as media is supervising its own mistakes. Readers have the oppor- tunity to critically assess whether the media ful ls the guidelines laid down by the ethical codes.This is particularly welcome in new democracies, most of which are also new to an independent press. At the same time it protects the right of journalists to be independent and to be judged for professional mistakes not by those in power but by their colleagues.
  • Self-regulation benefits readers. They can complain about articles for free – a legal process would be costly.The resolution of disputes is quicker than in court, and the mistakes are acknowledged publicly by the press.
  • Self-regulation adds to the independence of media, as the o enses jour- nalists commit are punished by their colleagues, not state o cials. When it comes to correcting factual errors or violations of personal rights by the press, satisfaction over the judgments of self-regulatory bodies lessens pressure on the judiciary system to sanction journalists.
  • Self-regulation lessens the power of the state over media: when media has the responsibility to adhere to good journalistic practice for the sake of itself, the state does not need to interfere in the media’s activities so energetically. Self-regulation thus secures the independence and quality of journalism. Self-regulation is not a question of self-censorship, but on the contrary of the endeavor to secure conditions that are bene cial to the realization of freedom of speech.
  • Self-regulation bene ts democracy. Democracy is about a shared culture of disputing in a rational and fair manner. Governments, even if freely elected, are participants in the political contest and therefore are not best-suited to enforce rationality and fairness. Media self-regulation is an e ort to impose democracy’s political culture, independent of political forces. It also advanc- es the transition from a government-owned, state-controlled press to one owned and controlled by civil society.


Sources:
  1. Aiden White, Ethical Journalism Network
  2. Karoliina Knuuti, Petri Kangas, Ville Koivisto, Aapo Laakso, Tuuli Oikarinen and Anna Tervahartiala, The Finnish Lifelong Learning Foundation – KVS. Yasmine Misk, Emad Alasfr and Nibal Thawabteh, Media Development Center of the Birzeit University – MDC