When should journalists apply the public interest test to their journalism and what does it mean in terms of which stories are covered, how they are covered, and why? Understanding what is in the public interest is one of the basic skills of a journalist.
Bob Eggington, a journalist who has worked as a senior editor in print, radio, TV and online, says there are a number of simple questions all journalists must ask themselves as they embark on producing a piece of journalism, and warns that care is needed when journalists invoke the public interest test.
Applying the public interest test to journalism
Journalists often have to apply "the public interest test" before deciding whether to publish a particular story.
The first thing to do is to separate the public interest from the things the public are interested in.
All sorts of things tickle the public’s fancy - celebrities, sport, trivia, the weather and so on.
Nothing wrong with that, but the fact that the public may be interested in something has nothing to do with whether it is IN the public interest.
Wikipedia defines the public interest as "the "common well-being" or "general welfare."
The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and fully-functioning society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that.
It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process.
And if journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.
The first thing to do is to separate the public interest from the things the public are interested in.
Public service ethic
So there is a public service ethic at the heart all of serious journalism.
To fulfil this public service role, journalists must behave ethically.
They must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in a professional, ethical way.
This site's training modules on editorial ethics cover many of the issues involved.
But sometimes there are reasons to vary from standard, good practice, in order to bring an important subject to the public’s attention. This is where you apply "the public interest test".
For example, journalists should normally be honest about who and what they are. They should always give their names and say which news organisation they work for. You need to be straight yourself if you want straight answers from people.
To fulfil this public service role, journalists must behave ethically.
Deciding what is in the public interest
But sometimes they "go underground" to uncover serious crimes. This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided.
But if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.
Another common example is the private lives of public figures.
"If you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism"
Journalists should not normally intrude into people’s private lives - but there might be a case for doing so, if the public figure in question is behaving differently in private from what he or she is advocating in public.
In this case, media intrusion - normally an objectionable practice - exposes hypocrisy and dishonesty, in the wider public interest.
Things get more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so.
Some countries build "the public interest" into their legal systems.
For example, the UK has an Act of Parliament that protects "whistleblowers" who expose wrongdoing in their place of work.
So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is "in the public interest" it is highly advisable to know whether the legal framework will give you any protection, or not.
But the key question is always whether society will benefit more from the publication of the story than it will be damaged by irregular journalistic behaviour.
It will involve difficult and delicate judgements and each case must be considered on its own merits. If you get the decision wrong, you might well damage your own news organisation and do a disservice to the wider society.
The decision, therefore, is not one for the individual journalist. Always refer up. Because the stakes are so high, the decision must be taken by the Editor, or the highest available authority in your news organisation.
In some cases, media intrusion - normally an objectionable practice - exposes hypocrisy and dishonesty, in the wider public interest.
Some public interest justifications
If the decision IS taken to publish, it’s likely to be because the story would do one of these things:
Correct a significant wrong
Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety
Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about a big issue of the day
Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life
If you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.
Bob Eggington
Bob Eggington, a journalist who has worked as a senior editor in print, radio, TV and online, says there are a number of simple questions all journalists must ask themselves as they embark on producing a piece of journalism, and warns that care is needed when journalists invoke the public interest test.
Applying the public interest test to journalism
Journalists often have to apply "the public interest test" before deciding whether to publish a particular story.
The first thing to do is to separate the public interest from the things the public are interested in.
All sorts of things tickle the public’s fancy - celebrities, sport, trivia, the weather and so on.
Nothing wrong with that, but the fact that the public may be interested in something has nothing to do with whether it is IN the public interest.
Wikipedia defines the public interest as "the "common well-being" or "general welfare."
The public interest is in having a safe, healthy and fully-functioning society. In a democracy, journalism plays a central role in that.
It gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process.
And if journalists are good at their job, they hold governments and other institutions to account.
The first thing to do is to separate the public interest from the things the public are interested in.
Public service ethic
So there is a public service ethic at the heart all of serious journalism.
To fulfil this public service role, journalists must behave ethically.
They must build and retain the trust of their audiences by behaving in a professional, ethical way.
This site's training modules on editorial ethics cover many of the issues involved.
But sometimes there are reasons to vary from standard, good practice, in order to bring an important subject to the public’s attention. This is where you apply "the public interest test".
For example, journalists should normally be honest about who and what they are. They should always give their names and say which news organisation they work for. You need to be straight yourself if you want straight answers from people.
To fulfil this public service role, journalists must behave ethically.
Deciding what is in the public interest
But sometimes they "go underground" to uncover serious crimes. This is an act of deception, which is generally to be avoided.
But if it brings justice and an end to criminal activity, it may be justified in the wider public interest.
Another common example is the private lives of public figures.
"If you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism"
Journalists should not normally intrude into people’s private lives - but there might be a case for doing so, if the public figure in question is behaving differently in private from what he or she is advocating in public.
In this case, media intrusion - normally an objectionable practice - exposes hypocrisy and dishonesty, in the wider public interest.
Things get more difficult when the story in question may actually involve a journalist breaking the law, or encouraging someone else to do so.
Some countries build "the public interest" into their legal systems.
For example, the UK has an Act of Parliament that protects "whistleblowers" who expose wrongdoing in their place of work.
So if you want to publish a difficult or controversial item because it is "in the public interest" it is highly advisable to know whether the legal framework will give you any protection, or not.
But the key question is always whether society will benefit more from the publication of the story than it will be damaged by irregular journalistic behaviour.
It will involve difficult and delicate judgements and each case must be considered on its own merits. If you get the decision wrong, you might well damage your own news organisation and do a disservice to the wider society.
The decision, therefore, is not one for the individual journalist. Always refer up. Because the stakes are so high, the decision must be taken by the Editor, or the highest available authority in your news organisation.
In some cases, media intrusion - normally an objectionable practice - exposes hypocrisy and dishonesty, in the wider public interest.
Some public interest justifications
If the decision IS taken to publish, it’s likely to be because the story would do one of these things:
Correct a significant wrong
Bring to light information affecting public well-being and safety
Improve the public’s understanding of, and participation in, the debate about a big issue of the day
Lead to greater accountability and transparency in public life
If you get the public interest test right, you will be fulfilling the highest purpose of journalism.
Bob Eggington
The author, Bob Eggington, has been a journalist since 1969. He worked at the BBC for almost 30 years and was the Project Director responsible for launching BBC News Online in 1997.
http://www.mediahelpingmedia.org/training-resources/journalism-basics/360-applying-the-public-interest-test-to-journalism
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий