IE 'code of conduct' needs clarity
The newspaper's guidelines to its journalists violate the individual's right to association.
Some of the conditions laid down are simply perplexing, feels GEETA SESHU.
An email circular from the Indian Express editor to his staff has sought to lay down a number of noble guidelines by way of a code of conduct to staffers but, in the process, is it violative of privacy and of the journalist’s right to freedom of association?
The Indian Express code of ethicscircular (copy with this writer), as it is called, exhorts staffers to “avoid becoming participants in partisan causes” and seek permission even for signing a petition for a neighbourhood bus-stop! Besides, it also says that all shares bought must be held at least for a year and all family shareholdings should be disclosed in a sealed envelope to the Managing Editor!
Both are problematic clauses and while the first raises fundamental questions about the rights of journalists to associate with or advocate different causes, the second – about disclosing information not merely about the staffer’s investments, but also that of the staffer’s family, is perplexing. Surely, the families of the staffers have an independent right to invest and maintain their own portfolios, independent of their familial relationship with the journalist?
Mint and Business Standard have their own codes of ethics, and lately, DNA has formulated a code for advertising. The Press Council, of course, has a set of guidelines relating to content and briefly on guidelines for financial journalists and acceptance of favours from the State, such as accommodation, travel tickets, etc.
It appears that the Indian Express circular, signed by Executive Editor Unni Rajen Shanker, is prompted by “an incident of reported conflict of interest”. Journalists in the newspaper disclose that the circular is a follow-up of the one issued last year following a breach of ethics, but it is unclear whether some new transgression prompted this present exercise. However, now this forms part of the service contracts for journalists of the newspaper group.
The circular says that the Indian Express disapproves of its writers entering into business contracts and takes this seriously, adding that “avoiding all conflict-of-interest situations--even the potential of one--is the key to the newspaper's credibility”.
The “committed” journalist
Two paragraphs are germane to the issue of causes journalists may espouse. Here is an extract from the circular: “We avoid becoming participants in partisan causes -- whether through politics, advocacy groups or public demonstrations -- that could seem to compromise our independence. This does not, however, limit our commitment to advocate causes via editorials that, in our view, pursue journalism of courage. In such cases, special care must be taken to demonstrate our independence from other participants in these causes.
No journalist from The Express Group will sign any public petition unless the newspaper itself decides to be a signatory. Even when a petition seems minor, like one asking for a bus-stop in a neighbourhood, any participation has to be cleared by the Managing Editor.”
Whoa! So journalists can be activists, only if it is a cause their management espouses? Apart from the fact that this is grossly violative of the right to freedom of expression and of freedom of association (Art. 19 (1) (a) and (1) (c)), it also gives a new spin to journalism 24x7, assuming that today’s journalist are expected to have little or no persona apart from their work-related identity.
What about causes journalists may support on media ethics? What if journalists espouse causes against paid news or join forums that protest attacks on the media or sign public petitions against a media management’s refusal to implement the recommendations of the statutory wage board for newspaper employees? (The current one – the Majithia wage board is being stridently contested by newspaper managements in the Supreme Court.)
Freebies: should one draw the line and where?
Here’s what the circular says about “freebies”.
As a principle, acceptance of expensive gifts is to be discouraged. While inexpensive gifts are fine, any gifts of inappropriate nature must be immediately brought to the attention of the Managing Editor. As a general rule, journalists should not accept free invites to events not free to the public. The only exceptions are the obvious ones -- a clearly labeled press box ticket or a dinner invite. Items that are received for review -- books, personal technology products, CDs, and DVDs etc -- cannot be resold, are the property of The Express Group and should not be taken away.
In all commercial transactions, journalists will not seek discounts which are not available to the general public or arranged via a block deal with the Express Group.
Readers expect our Group Publications to review art, books, cultural events, restaurants, and films with complete objectivity. The reporter or the critic concerned will not accept any hospitality or gift that gives the slightest impression of a favour. Any necessary expenses incurred by the reporter/critic for coverage or review will be reimbursed after necessary verifications and approvals. And, if not, the name of the sponsor will be clearly mentioned in the piece.
The “gifts” that journalists receive is a bane of the profession. Earlier (ahem! 20-25 years ago) the gifts were in range of cheap pens, notepads, or folders. A few senior journalists were privy to foreign liquor, briefcases, dry fruit boxes (during Diwali), and of course, the famous Vimal suit pieces that were thrown to the press-box after Reliance Annual General Meetings, apart from the privileged who got themselves housing from the chief minister’s quotas.
“Ethical” editors (and there have been quite a few) have, in the past, tried to grapple with this. Suman Dubey, who was briefly editor in Indian Express in the 80s, tried to get reporters to disclose, at the bottom line of their reports, the freebie they were offered or accepted. But this practice was quietly dropped after a while.
But unless editors understand that there are no half-measures in the giving or taking of gifts, this practice will never be completely eliminated. Allowing for so-called inexpensive gifts, or allowing journalists gifts and trips from sponsors – even if full disclosure is maintained – simply won’t work.
The “code of ethics” circular, as it is termed, is clearly an important document, raising several uncomfortable and crucial issues about “partisan” sympathies creeping into “independent” journalistic work, about advocacy in writings and in reportage, and about developing of vested interests both in writing as well as in leveraging the information one is privileged to come by in the course of one’s work for personal gains.
But perhaps the document should have been debated upon within the establishment and definitely even within the larger journalistic community too. It would certainly have benefitted from some clarity. The formulation of a code of ethics is not an easy task but it is by no means an impossible one.