Ethics, spin and the media

Ethics in journalism are on everybody's minds these days. We have had a spate of references to them, practically from all quarters of the media. Why is it, then, that they remain not quite what they should be?

Ethics are foremost in the objectives of the Institute of Journalists. Recently the Institute restructured its ethics board. Not that it had been working badly, but the time had come for change.

The chairmanship of the board went to Kevin Aquilina, whose years of service at the Broadcasting Authority make him eminently qualified for the role. He has a strong supporting cast.

Recommendations on the need to maintain sound ethics were at the heart of the report drawn up for the Leader of the Opposition by a group of experts selected by him to review the whole spectrum of his party's media.

On his part, the Prime Minister had strong and straight words to say about the need for ethical behaviour in journalism. He was speaking at a well-attended event organised by the Tumas Foundation for Education in Journalism, which is itself tightly focused on helping the journalistic sector to improve in all its spheres, foremost among them that of ethics.

So, why have not all these initiatives converged to make for a domestic journalism which is second to none when it comes to ethics? There are gaps in training and style, little doubt about that. But the largely unethical state of much of our journalism is the fault of the political media in our midst.

That sector of the media is as wide flung and developed as it can be. Each of the two main political parties has a formidable array of journalistic vehicles, straddling the press and the sound, visual and electronic media in equal measure.

The non-written sector in particular is a glaring example of what journalism should not be at all about.

The principle that facts are sacred is regularly ignored in the news bulletins. What is presented as news is, more often than not, spin which paints the other side as totally black and one's side as lily white.

The unethical spin is so overdone that it is ridiculous. In recent months there has been some easing off in personal attacks, not least when it comes to reporting some failure, misdemeanour or alleged crime of someone related to individuals in politics.

That is a relief long in the making and it at least shows that the various speeches and reports touching on ethics were not made completely in vain. Yet when it comes to respect for the basic truth, it simply does not exist. The bias is crudely open, whereas well-known if undeclared fellow travellers of the two main parties present their own bias which is very thinly hidden, if that.

If we truly want our journalism to have ethics at its core, there needs to be a fundamental reform in the way political media report the news and present commentaries and discussion programmes. Ironically, in distorting reality without pause, the political media are not seeing beyond their collective noses.

The political media, as I see it, should have two objectives. One is to inform their readers and listeners, who should be presumed to be mostly made up of party grassroots or sympathisers, of party policies and positions as they evolve. The other - more important according to my own belief and experience - is to penetrate. To give non-party listeners something to chew and think about.

Penetration at the margin of voters is the name of the game of politics. It is what makes support for a party at election time grow.

Such support is not attracted by wild spin, by portraits always in black and white and never in sepia. The same holds when party grassroots and sympathisers regurgitate the distorted line fed to them by their party's media.

Simple conclusion - the political media do not serve the fundamental objective which they should serve. They are largely a waste of time and money. They might keep supporters hot, but they do not add anything to the party's dish to make it more appetising.

Ethical journalism, then, is not only correct. It could also be profitable.