Beleaguered journalism can ADAPT, but not ethics

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL
Beleaguered journalism can ADAPT, but not ethics
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- As concerns are reviewed on reporters day, fundamental truths remain

Journalists marked Reporters Day this week with the usual reflection. The usual questions were asked, some related to the issue of freedom of the press and others about the financial decline of print journalism and the resultant weakening of ethical standards. The influence of the social media continued to be analysed.

And, as usual, the questions were easy to ask and difficult to answer. The relevance of journalism has been hanging by a thread for a few years now, or at least of journalism as we know it. This is the journalism that prides itself on unconditional independence and the courage to stand up against both direct and blatant harassment and also more subtle threats and soul-sapping temptations.

Maybe the key question is how to die with integrity. To soften the tone just a bit, the question is how journalists can maintain professional relevance and integrity in the face of all adversaries. Opinion-based journalism has been challenged by the fact that journalists are no longer the only ones offering "informed opinions". The same goes for "reflective journalism". And investigative journalism is under growing scrutiny, not because of its efficacy is in question but because of spreading suspicion that fewer investigative journalists are above bias.

Two developments in particular are making the life of journalists difficult, professionally and ethically. They are the social media, which have eaten into what used to be exclusively the reporter's job (as in fast and detailed coverage of the launch of every new Apple product by non-journalists), and the increasingly rough business aspect of journalism. The latter has prodded many journalists to cross ethical lines, knowingly, unknowingly or "out of necessity".

It’s a slippery slope. In order to stay relevant, many journalists end up following the very practices that undermine their profession. In order to survive financially, ethics might have to yield.

All is not lost, however. The social media still can't effectively screen substance from hearsay, fabrication or distortion. Access to authoritative sources remains difficult for those outside the journalistic profession. In other words, while more and more people are as informed as journalists, we still need reporters to be the "last line of defence" in a world flooded with information.

Journalism will not fade away anytime soon, even with "robots" now handling the simpler newsgathering and research and putting some impressive information online. But to stay relevant, a big price might have to be paid. The question is how journalists can draw a reasonable line. Today, "freedom" and "independence" take on post-modern meanings as journalists and news organisations struggle to stay afloat fiscally.

Political intimidation is one concern, but there is something equally worrisome, if not moreso. There are now more ways than ever to lose independence and freedom without knowing it. It's not easy to get around them nowadays, but everyone must try if journalism as we know it is to be fully protected.

It's widely held that journalists, in order to survive, must adapt to the brave new world. That is true in many aspects, but any such adaptation cannot affect the fundamental ethics that have always defined journalism. While the methodology of journalism has evolved, nothing has changed ethically. When it comes to independence, neutrality and the quest for truth, journalists must remain conservative. It's as simple as that.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Beleaguered-journalism-can-ADAPT-but-not-ethics-30255967.html

-- The Nation 2015-03-14

[Lupatria]

...but any such adaptation cannot affect the fundamental ethics that have always defined journalism.

What about the common practice to spare the rich and influential from any negative discovery of "investigative" journalism here?

In that, I don't see any fundamental ethics at all. What I see instead is advertorials by convenience editors.

[chainarong]

Freedom of speech, freedom of the media , these walk hand in hand , there is no freedom in Thailand and under the present Junta one can not see any improvement in the near future, investigating journalism is something that can not be done without waking up dead or even disappeared, with this fear in the back of the minds of any reporters one can not blame them for being less than enthusiastic , the Junta and the elite have the media by the balls no matter which way they move, knowing the truth would only get in the way.

[bangon04]

"The usual questions were asked, some related to the issue of freedom of the press and others about the financial decline of print journalism and the resultant weakening of ethical standards. The influence of the social media continued to be analysed."

I am sorry. Maybe I missed the years of effective investigative reporting in the Thai print media which resulted in the effective support for ethical standards in the circles of Thai government and big business and influential society.

All I see is a growing fashion for influential figures to be shamed into conciliatory action by a loss of face which is at least partly provoked by public opinion expressed through social media.

[WitawatWatawit]

I do believe a lot of journos try, and a lot more would like to try. But as the editorial rightly points out, there are too many ways to stifle free expression. The most obvious is how the defamation laws are held over their heads. Another is lack of independence of newsrooms from management. This is worse here than in the West, and it's bad enough there. A classic example is the Wall Street Journal. It's reputation for investigative journalism was second to none, but when Murdoch took it over, those glory days came to an end.

On a lesser level, but no less important, is the training of journalists. These days, they all come through journalism schools, and when they graduate, they believe they already know everything. The traditional training routes - starting as a copy boy and working your way up, or joining a regional newspaper (now there's a sad story) and beginning as a proofreader - are finished. (Murdoch started as a copy boy, and he was one of the last remaining genuine newspaper people to continue this practice.) So the people entering the profession now don't have the same level of ink in the blood - they might have the ethical standards, but there is more of a personal ambition in their raison d'etre for becoming a journalist. The result is less of a commitment to standards and little rapport with a community (and therefore not much compassion for it.) Here in Thailand , that is very obvious.

[FangFerang]

When the writer said "brave new world" he actually gave a three finger salute (minus two) to the junta.

Good for him!