HKDSE English

Module 4 Mass Media

Standards of media ethics

Task 1: Lead-in and recap

Exercise 1

Exercise 2

1
Exercise 3

Task 2: Reading and summarising

Read the text below about the five important principles of media ethics and underline the
details and comments you think are more important than the others. The difficult
vocabulary items are explained in a separate sheet.
1. Independence
[1] The BBC’s obligation to its audiences means journalists have to be able to show the
independence of their decision-making and do all they can to eliminate doubt about it. Senior
editors offer advice.
[2] Because of the BBC’s obligations to its audiences, journalists have to be able to show the
independence of their decision-making and do all they can to eliminate doubt about it. Simply thinking
that you’re independent minded, or aiming or intending to be, is never enough. Nor can it be guaranteed
to persuade everyone in your audience that you’re independent.

[3] Ask yourself: ‘How would this look to another person?’, or ‘If someone in the audience knew why I
was reporting this story this way, would they think I was independent?’ Check whether you are really
putting enough distance between yourself and possible influences on you.

[4] And if you have to deal with brands and products - for example, as a business journalist - is it
absolutely clear that you’re reporting on that product rather than promoting it?

[5] It’s also worth remembering that charities, think-tanks and NGOs (non-governmental organisations)
often compete with each other for funding, support particular ideological perspectives and promote their
own solutions, all of which may be vigorously contested.

[6] Similarly, academics aren’t necessarily impartial.

[7] As with anything else, journalists need to demonstrate that they’ve 1probed the story, collected the
facts and presented them free of influence or pressure.

[8] "You can’t be objective if you aren’t independent"

2
Politics

[9] The coverage of politics often gets 2fraught. Journalists accept that. But it brings challenges as 3spin
doctors and PR people seek to persuade or put pressure on producers, reporters or their editors over how
they should tell a story or where it should be positioned in a running order.

[10] Sometimes, they may not want you to tell the story at all.

[11] Making a judgment on the story fairly, independently and based on the facts isn’t always the defence
it should be. But it’s the best place to start.

[12] It’s worth thinking about some of the more usual 4gambits from spin doctors. Then it may help to ask
yourself some 5pertinent questions to test your decision-making and independence.

[13] ‘It’s not a story’ or ‘It’s a great story - I can’t understand why you you’re not covering it.’

[14] Deciding whether something is a story is an art, not a science. There are lots or reasons why
something is a story one day and not another. It’s a matter of news judgment.

[15] But it’s worth getting into the habit of asking yourself: ‘Why aren’t we covering that?’

[16] ‘You’ve misquoted/got the facts wrong/taken it out of context.’

[17] If you’ve made a mistake, correct it as soon as possible. It’s a sign of poor journalism, not
independence, to 6stick to your guns in the face of the evidence.

[18] Be open-minded. You may have 7inadvertently missed something.

[19] On the other hand, don’t give in to pressure as a matter of course. Look carefully at the facts: check
and cross-check, consider the quotes you used and the context you used them in.

[20] ‘You should have approached us for a comment.’

[21] Perhaps you should have done. But perhaps not. If you missed out a significant strand of argument,
your story was incomplete, probably not impartial and possibly inaccurate. But if it was adequately
reflected in script, a quote may not have been necessary.

[22] Of course, if you did make an approach and can prove it, say so.

[23] ‘You’ve bought your opponent’s agenda.’

[24] All political parties say this. Even if you’re sure you haven’t done so, it’s worth taking a step back to
ask yourself: ‘Is this angle really mine or am I inadvertently leaning one way or the other?’

3
Notes, notes, notes

[25] When you have an exchange with someone arguing you’ve got a story wrong, make a note of it as
soon as possible, recording who/what/where/when, and so on, and precisely the complaint. And flag it up
with a more senior colleague.

[26] Media’s reputation s based on its editorial integrity and independence. Audiences trust us and must
be confident that our editorial decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial
pressures or any personal interests.”

[27] It relates back to accuracy, fairness and 8impartiality. It’s about getting the story right in the public
interest, not in your interests as a journalist or programme-maker.

2. Accountability
[1] The BBC has a responsibility to deal openly and fairly with audiences. This means being
able to show good reason for the decisions you make and being consistent with the BBC’s
journalistic values and editorial guidelines. Senior editors offer advice.
[2] The BBC serves a broad range of audiences with different interests, different cultures and
backgrounds, and different levels of engagement with the big stories of the day. Their continuing trust in
what the BBC says and does is a crucial part of its relationship with them.

[3] The BBC maintains their trust by:

• Reporting clearly and directly

• Not 9talking down to audiences

• Explaining what has happened and why it matters, in a way that informs and engages audiences

• Expecting to 10account for editorial decisions and choices to audiences

• Openly 11acknowledging mistakes and encouraging a culture which is willing to learn from them.

[4] Being accountable to an audience doesn’t mean being led by it or just covering the stories the
audiences want to see, hear or read. Nor does it mean 12ducking the difficult decisions.

[5] It means that you need to be able to show you had good reasons for making the decision that you did
and that those reasons are consistent with the BBC’s journalistic values and guidelines.

[6] You should be prepared to explain why you’ve chosen that lead story, written that headline, included
specific shots or interview clips and not used others.

Audiences

[7] In a complex and increasingly interdependent world, what happens in Pakistan or Iran can make a
very real difference to life in the UK or vice versa. UK-based journalists have a responsibility to keep
their audiences in touch with the world as it is.

4
[8] A BBC journalist wants audiences to go on treating them as a trusted guide. That means sometimes
surprising an audience with a story or information outside their normal daily experience.

[9] "By far the most important accountability we have is towards the audience, and it’s
when we lose sight of that that we get into trouble"

Complaints

[10] Accountability isn’t just about responding – or not responding - to complaints. You shouldn’t see
complaints as a nuisance. Nor should you believe that it’s a sign of weakness if you’ve got something
wrong.

[11] If you receive a complaint it’s important to deal with it according to the complaints procedure that is
in place.

[12] As a BBC journalist you should be prepared to listen to your audience, understand why they might
want you to explain what you’ve done and, if you have made a mistake, acknowledge it and be willing to
learn from it.

[13] Dealing with complaints properly and openly is an important part of building and maintaining trust.

Mistakes

[14] However hard you strive to be accurate, fair and impartial, you will get things wrong from time to
time. It might be a judgment made against the clock, a clip that doesn’t quite capture the essence of what
was said or meant, or an inference made against a deadline. Or it might be plain ignorance.

[15] If you make a mistake, you should correct it as soon as you become aware of it – particularly in live
and continuous news or on a website.

[16] Audiences understand that stories often emerge piece by piece and that sometimes the first 13accounts
of a story may be imperfect.

[17] Websites, digitally held content and interlinked stories mean that much journalism, including pages
with mistakes on them, remains easily accessible forever - so mistakes must be acknowledged and fixed.

[18] Journalists, like everyone else, learn from mistakes. If you fail to acknowledge and account for them,
you won’t learn from them.

5
3. Impartiality
[1] The BBC’sCharter and Agreement requires BBC journalism to be impartial. The way the
BBC does this 14differentiates it from other news sources and is part of the contract with
audiences. BBC editors talk about viewing a story from all angles.
[2] Impartiality is not the same as objectivity or balance or neutrality, although it contains elements of all
three. Nor is it the same as simply being fair – although it is unlikely you will be impartial without being
fair-minded. At its simplest it means not taking sides.

[3] Impartiality is about providing a 15breadth of view.

[4] It requires a journalist to actively seek out and weigh up the relevant arguments on any issue and to
present them appropriately without 16preconceptions or bias.

[5] That does not rule out reporting what is controversial; nor does it prohibit fair, evidence-based
judgements.

Due impartiality

[6] The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines set out the principles and practices that cover the BBC’s commitment
to 17due impartiality. They also explain that the term ‘due’ means there is no absolute test of impartiality.
It can mean different things depending on the subject and nature of the output, and the expectations and
understanding of the audience.

[7] Impartiality is about enabling the national debate – assuring that people, over time or the course of a
debate, will hear all significant opinions and have access to the information they need to make an
informed choice.

Audiences

[8] Audiences turn to the BBC to help them to make sense of events through disinterested analysis and by
hearing a range of relevant facts, views and opinions.

[9] At times that range will include those who think the unthinkable; even those who say what you might
think is the unsayable. Their voices are often heard in the digital universe. Impartiality means making sure
that all the other voices are heard too.
18
[10] "Even in the world of showbusiness there are sometimes two or more sides to a
story"

6
Reporting around the world

[11] Being an impartial witness to events does not mean being mealy mouthed about them. Due
impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or 19detachment from fundamental
democratic values.

[12] Good journalism in the field can sometimes be about 20bearing witness to events that others may
wish to hide or ignore. The reporting of the plight of the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1991 by the late
Charles Wheeler is one such example. The BBC foreign correspondent was genuinely affected by what he
saw, but his reporting was a 21scrupulously accurate account of what he had witnessed.

[13] At the end of the same decade, Fergal Keane’s reports from Rwanda reflected his personal witness to
a 22savage genocide.

[14] Both correspondents formed their judgements after a careful and impartial assessment of the events
that confronted them.

Impartial judgements

[15] Impartiality includes the space to make a judgement. You can tell your audience where a particular
argument sits in a current debate, or point out that a particular view is a minority one.

[16] The important point is that you arrive at your judgement impartially, after ensuring you have a proper
understanding of the differing views on the questions. The judgement must be based on evidence and
your reporting should include an account of that evidence.

[17] You should always be prepared to account for your judgement and explain why it is an impartial one.

Diverse thinking

[18] At times impartiality can also mean challenging your own assumptions or those of your team or
contributors. It means reflecting a breadth and diversity of opinion and ensuring the BBC gives due
weight to the many and diverse areas of argument.

[19] Being impartial doesn’t mean only finding the most starkly opposing views and putting them head to
head in an interview. It requires testing both the strengths and weaknesses of any argument.

[20] It also involves getting the tone right, especially in long interviews. The same question – the same
words – can come across as an impartial 23query or an 24opinionated pre-judgement, simply by tone of
voice.

Impartiality over time

[21] Impartiality on complex issues can be achieved over time, and that means editorial judgements must
be consistent. You must look back at what you’ve done before and what you’re planning to do in the
future.

[22] Any single piece of output – particularly a news item in a bulletin – should be fair. However, with a
breaking or developing story it may take some time before it’s possible to achieve impartiality.

[23] Some stories, such as with wars or election campaigns, unfold over weeks or months. It’s the
responsibility of the editor in charge of a particular section of output to ensure that over time all
significant and relevant voices have been heard.

7
4. Truth and accuracy
[1] BBC journalists need to not only get the objective, 25verifiable ‘facts’ right but accurately
report the opinions expressed by those who they report. Senior editors talk about the daily
challenge of ensuring every report and programme is accurate and truthful.
[2] You have an implied contract with your audiences. You’re asking them to trust you to check that what
you’re saying is true and that your overall account isn’t misleading.

[3] At times you may be asking members of the audience to share their experience or 26expertise with you
through social media. You, as the journalist, are the 27curator of the news and information gathered and
shared in this way and you have a responsibility not to mislead.

[4] The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines 28set out the principles and practices that cover the Corporation’s
commitment to due accuracy. They also explain that the term ‘due’ means there is no absolute test of
accuracy; it can mean different things depending on the subject and nature of the output, and the
expectations and understanding of the audience.

[5] Accuracy isn’t the same as truth - it’s possible to give an entirely accurate account of an untruth.

[6] "People come to us to find out what things mean, find out the significance of things
and, in many cases, find out the truth of things"
Fact and opinion

[7] Traditionally, journalism is said to distinguish ‘fact’ from ‘opinion’. To the extent that the distinction
remains - or ever existed - it’s one that captures the two main traditions of journalism that go back
centuries. There’s the journalism of verification and the journalism of advocacy. Both are valid but each
serves a different role from the other.

Accuracy and verification

[8] Whatever your view is on ‘truth’ and the line between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’, accuracy is a simple
enough idea.

[9] Accuracy means not only getting the objectively verifiable ‘facts’ right - names, places, dates of birth,
quotes, the results of sporting fixtures - but accurately reporting opinions expressed by those who you
report.

[10] So, if you write or say ‘the Mayor of London told an audience of tourism professionals that London
is the artistic and cultural powerhouse of the UK’, you have two possible levels of inaccuracy. It’s
possible the verifiable ‘facts’ are wrong and that you’ve misreported the opinion expressed.

[11] Is the ‘Mayor of London’ the correct title? Are you sure it wasn’t the Lord Mayor of London?

[12] Have you checked they actually did deliver the speech and that you haven’t just got the hand-out or
the press release?

[13] Journalists can get simple facts like this wrong - yet doing so is the quickest and surest way to
29
undermine trust and your own reputation.

[14] The same principle extends to reporting the opinion expressed in the speech.

8
[15] Accuracy in reporting opinion exists on two levels:

• First, ensuring that you quote or report the opinion accurately

• Second, ensuring that you correctly convey the broader meaning of the quote or opinion you report.

[16] It’s never acceptable to remove a significant qualification from a quote or to place it in a different
context.

[17] Or you may be working with members of your audience through social networking. You may be
asking them to lend you their experience and expertise. It’s not enough to argue that the socially
networked information you use as a journalist is ‘ 30authentic’ and therefore the ‘truth’ of it doesn’t matter,
or matters less.

Taking notes

[18] Accurate, reliable - and whenever possible contemporaneous - notes are essential.

[19]The accuracy of your notes isn’t limited to recording verbatim what a speaker says. Depending on
how you intend to use your notes, you will need to make sure you also record:

• The name, job title, description, age (if relevant) of the speaker

• The context in which the comments were made

• Details of dress, manner and so on that may provide important detail for your subsequent story.

[20] It’s important to keep records of research, including written and electronic 31correspondence,
background notes and other documents. Make sure they’re clear and accurate and keep them somewhere
safe.

[21] Much of a journalist’s raw material is now recorded, broadcast, tweeted or posted on the internet.
This of course means that not only can you check the accuracy of what you’re reporting but people in the
audience can too.

[22] It also means that, where the raw material isn’t openly available to everyone, you are asking your
audiences to place a very high level of trust in you and your ability to record accurately and report what
happened or what has been said.

Speed and accuracy

[23] Every journalist has to resolve the conflicting demands of speed and accuracy. For the BBC,
accuracy is more important than speed.

[24] If you’re working on a breaking news story it’s important to remember the first reports may often be
confused and misleading. Eyewitnesses may give you an account of an incident in all good faith but theirs
is only one viewpoint and they may be mistaken. That’s why it’s important to weigh the facts you have,
especially when events are 32unfolding quickly.

9
Dilemmas

[25] The demands of speed versus accuracy can led to difficult editorial choices - and there may be no
right answer.

[26] An important example - much discussed and debated - occurred in London on the morning of 7 July
2005, the day suicide bombers killed 52 people and injured 700 more.

[27] The authorities initially said the incidents on the London Underground were “thought to be power
surges”. The BBC, along with other news organisation, reported that. But soon after other outlets, but not
the BBC, began to report that the incidents were in fact a series of bombs.

[28] Should the BBC have followed other news organisations? Or was it right to wait until it had verified
the reports of bombs itself?

[29] The BBC has a reputation for trustworthiness in times of crisis. What would you have done?

[30] It is always a finely balanced judgment - and the pressures are even greater now that reports spread
so rapidly via social media.

5. The public interest

[1] The BBC carries out its journalism in the public interest. That means reporting and
providing information on matters of significance to a number of different audiences. Senior
editors discuss the issues.
[2] Of course, there isn’t one public or audience. There are many, with different interests at different
times.

[3] There’s another challenge, too. A story that’s in the interest of the public may not actually interest the
public. Or, it may not interest people when they’re in a position to do something about it.

[4] Back in 2005 or 2006 knowledge of what bankers were getting up to was definitely in the public
interest. But it was difficult to interest the public in it. Some journalists tried - but their efforts were
confined to the pages of specialist publications.

[5] The public was borrowing and spending at 33unprecedented levels; banks and investment houses were
finding ever more innovative ways to help that happen. And 34regulators lost track of what was really
going on.

[6] Two years later, it all crashed. Journalists and audiences alike were more interested in other things
while what became known as the ‘credit crunch’ was slowly developing into a matter of intense public
interest.

[7] Each news organisation will have different priorities, so will interpret the notion of public interest
differently. But there’s another reason why public interest is important to journalists: it can be used to
justify the apparently unjustifiable.

[8] "Before you resort to undercover filming, there needs to be some evidence of
wrongdoing that it’s absolutely in the public interest to expose"
[9] Journalists may sometimes 35breach an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy because it is in
the public interest to tell people what they are doing – they may be corrupt, or anti-social. Incompetent or
unethical doctors, plumbers - even journalists - can be a danger to the public.

[10] Indeed, the debate about the boundary between legitimate journalism and intrusion into the private
life of individuals, and what might be justified in the public interest, has rarely been so much in the public
eye or 36subject to a judge’s 37scrutiny.

10