Media watchdog needs sharp teeth and must hack it independently

IN this country, nearly all of those who work either on a full-time or a freelance basis as journalists are members of the National Union of Journalists. The NUJ has a code of conduct for journalists.

In light of recent events I went looking for this important document and I found it on the NUJ website. I was a bit taken aback to realise that it runs to just about three A4 pages.

The first paragraph says: "A journalist has a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards."

However, the code of conduct does not explain or define what these professional and ethical standards are and there is little guidance on this point in the overall code.

Paragraph 12 of the code of conduct provides that: "Subject to the justification by over-riding considerations of the public interest, a journalist shall do nothing which entails intrusion into private grief and distress."

However, again the code contains no explanation or definition of what amounts to an over-riding consideration of the public interest or what is an acceptable intrusion. Apparently, it is left to the individual journalist or the editor to decide on this point.

Ethics, of course, is often a matter of instinct. However, most other professions set out the obligations more comprehensively in their codes of conduct and have checks and balances to ensure that basic standards are complied with.

We have, in general, been blessed in Ireland with good and ethical journalism. However, things are changing in some parts of the Fourth Estate, changing utterly. As the editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, admitted on the Dunphy show last Friday, Irish journalism has entered a new phase of viciousness and declining standards.

We got an interesting insight into one journalist's instinct for ethics in an interview on Tuesday's Morning Ireland. The Star newspaper's crime reporter, when asked if he had any ethical concerns about his front page report on a robbery suffered by the Attorney General's wife, came out with a classic line: "I get nervous when I hear people starting to talking about ethics".

Apparently, left to its own devises, the collective journalistic ethical mind of the Star decided that there were overriding considerations of the public interest which justified intrusion on this distress.

The reality is that the Star's view of what is or isn't ethical can't be second-guessed anywhere or by anyone. It might surprise some readers to know that the journalistic code of conduct is purely aspirational. The NUJ can, and does, repeatedly call for high ethical standards in the profession, but it is largely toothless.

Journalism is unique among the professions in that there is no mechanism by which a member of the public can complain to the professional body that a journalist has breached the code of conduct. Although a colleague can complain a journalist to the NUJ's ethics committee, a member of the public can't do so. No appeal board or ombudsman exists to adjudicate on whether a journalist has been inaccurate, or intrusive or unfair.

Unless a member of the public has actually being libelled - and is prepared to suffer the time, mental distress and financial risk involved in taking defamation proceedings - they have no comeback when a wrong is done to them in a journalist's report.

Journalists have lead the posse in demanding openness, transparency and accountability from all other sectors. However, the journalistic profession itself remains largely unaccountable. There is no journalistic equivalent of being brought in front of the medical council or being struck off the register. A journalist who has breached the ethical code faces no real sanction.

Journalists aren't even subject to the glare of the media. I have tried to remember occasions on which a journalist was publicly criticised by the profession for the way he or she reported a story.

The NUJ did criticise Mary Ellen Synon's comments about special athletes some years ago but I cannot think of another occasion when this happened. As you would expect, the need for accuracy in reporting is emphasised repeatedly in the NUJ's code of conduct, but even the most blatant failures to comply with this requirement are ignored by the journalistic profession.

The absence of accountability in journalism is illustrated by two high profile instances where national newspapers ran front-page stories which were completely inaccurate.

The first occurred a couple of years ago when a Sunday broadsheet alleged that a senior government minister had received a bribe. The details of the story were such that it was clear it was meant to refer to Bertie Ahern. In a subsequent libel action taken by the Taoiseach against the person who alleged the bribe (but not against the newspaper), the evidence showed that each and every detail of the story was inaccurate. A full withdrawal and apology was published by the newspaper the weekend after the libel case was heard. More recently, another national newspaper ran a completely inaccurate front-page story about Michael Lowry's legal representation at the Moriarty tribunal. The following day the newspaper was forced to publish a full apology for the inaccurate story.

In the apology, it admitted that any real attempt to check the facts before publication would have promptly established that the story was inaccurate.

I cite these two examples not because such inaccuracies are widespread, but because I don't recall any journalistic comment or statement from the profession about these lapses. While the verdict in Bertie Ahern's case was widely reported there was nothing from the profession itself about the implications or lessons to be learnt from these inaccurate story.

In the last few weeks, some journalists have admitted privately that the furore over the celebrity wedding in France wasn't Irish journalism's finest hour. Some in the profession also feel that the coverage of the death of a baby as a result of a circumcision operation crossed a line in some instances.

Earlier this week, to its credit, the NUJ criticised the publication of details of a hurling star's private life and warned against a trend towards "cheque book" journalism.

Of course ethics in journalism can't just be a matter for journalists alone. The media proprietors also have an important role. The National Newspapers of Ireland opposes Government proposals for a statutory press council. Along with the NUJ, the newspaper proprietors are now offering self-regulation instead.

However, the media has had long enough to regulate itself, and has delayed doing so as it awaits libel law reform.

While a press council fully appointed by government may not be the answer, there has to be some external regulation of the media. Like all other professions, real accountability in journalism requires public involvement and should be on a statutory basis. What is sauce for the other 'gooses' should be sauce for the media gander.