Should journalists be members of political parties/interest groups?

gaf1983

Should journalists be members of political parties/interest groups? (Apart from, of course, organisations representing their profession such as the National Union of Journalists.)

Does the NUJ have any guidelines on the matter?

Do you think that if a journalist is a member of a political party or interest group that there is a conflict of interest at stake which can compromise the journalist's integrity?

In the interests of balanced, objective reporting, is it better for journalists to be so detached from the society they report on that they themselves play no active role in civil society?

zenith

There's no such thing as truly objective reporting: fair and balanced is probably the best that you can hope for.

That's subjective, of course: and you're probably only ever going to think that the reporters that agree with you are actually fair. So, in the long run, with reporters being a mixed bag like the rest of population, it probably evens out.

This'll mean that there will always be blackguards that run their sinister schemes against you, and bastions of truth and light that should be given medals.

We should be critical of our media, and point out bias, but I think objectivity is a pipe dream.

I also think that journos are entitled to have bias, in their private and - to some extent - in their professional lives.

Were you expecting them to swear an oath or something?

flogen

It would be naive to think that any journalist does or should not have a political persuasion or point of view and there's an argument for them wearing that on their sleeve so people can be fully informed of their perspective and bias when reading their work.

My own opinion is that journalists should do what they can to avoid involvement in activism when it comes to areas of their expertise but that's not often possible.

They can't be stopped from having their own opinion - all that's important is that they try to keep that out of their approach to work.

evil-monkey

flogen wrote: »

It would be naive to think that any journalist does or should not have a political persuasion or point of view

They can't be stopped from having their own opinion - all that's important is that they try to keep that out of their approach to work.

+1

lostexpectation

the main news reporters shouldn't

santosubito

lostexpectation wrote: »

the main news reporters shouldn't

Yes. And reporters should be made to declare any interests they have in a story:so, for example, a business corr should be made to delcare at the foot of his or her article if he or she has shares in any companies she's writing about.

monument

Should journalists be members of political parties/interest groups?

No, they should not be members. Being a supporter is one thing, but being a member is crossing the line.

Does the NUJ have any guidelines on the matter?

No. And the NUJ them self stray in and out of non-journalism, or at least some in the union try to push non-journalism issues.

In the interests of balanced, objective reporting, is it better for journalists to be so detached from the society they report on that they themselves play no active role in civil society?

In asking this question in the context of a post on membership of political parties/interest groups, would you not be implying that anybody who is not a member of a political party or interest group is "detached from the society" and "play no active role in civil society"?

santosubito wrote: »

Yes. And reporters should be made to declare any interests they have in a story:so, for example, a business corr should be made to delcare at the foot of his or her article if he or she has shares in any companies she's writing about.

I think the recently added regulations legally require such interests to be published on articles recommending shares. But that hardly goes far enough.

evil-monkey

i don't know about all this. a journalist should have the same political freedom as any of us - as long as it doesn't interfere with their work.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

i don't know about all this. a journalist should have the same political freedom as any of us - as long as it doesn't interfere with their work.

So, it's ok if a news reporter / editor / sub on the local paper also is elected to a town council?

flogen

monument wrote: »

So, it's ok if a news reporter / editor / sub on the local paper also is elected to a town council?

Journalists doubling as politicians (and vice versa) is hardly an alien concept - sure The Sunday Independent is littered with such dual-jobbing people.

I don't think it's necessarily right but at least you can see their political leanings quite clearly.

Ideally they should be capable of being as unbias as possible in their work. If they can't do that at least they can be honest about the bias they have.

monument

flogen wrote: »

Journalists doubling as politicians (and vice versa) is hardly an alien concept - sure The Sunday Independent is littered with such dual-jobbing people.

First off, the Sunday Indo is if anything the anti-standard-bearer of Irish journalism, so I quite frankly don't give a **** if the Government's head of PR were the paper's editor. The paper has been going down hill, but when an editor is so disconnected with his paper's editorials, as the current one is, it's a sign of where the paper is going. And, yes, this is a subjective subject we're talking about, but my question is not about what is or is not happening, I asked is it right.

So, again I'll ask: Is it ok if a news reporter / editor / sub on the local paper also is elected to a town council?

flogen

monument wrote: »

First off, the Sunday Indo is if anything the anti-standard-bearer of Irish journalism, so I quite frankly don't give a **** if the Government's head of PR were the paper's editor. The paper has been going down hill, but when an editor is so disconnected with his paper's editorials, as the current one is, it's a sign of where the paper is going. And, yes, this is a subjective subject we're talking about, but my question is not about what is or is not happening, I asked is it right.

So, again I'll ask: Is it ok if a news reporter / editor / sub on the local paper also is elected to a town council?

If you read my posts in this thread you'll see my opinion on this already.

However my point is that it's only if their political leanings or affiliation have an impact on their work that it would become an actual problem. That can happen if you're a member of a party or an elected representative; it can also happen if you're not.

So I think it's a moot point to debate about political party membership in journalism when the focus should be on what way the articles rather than the journalist leans.

Also you may have missed it by my use of the Sunday Independent was tongue-in-cheek.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

So, it's ok if a news reporter / editor / sub on the local paper also is elected to a town council?

why not?? as i said, journalists have the same right to political freedom as any of us. if they are bias, they aren't good at their job, which is another matter. should sports journalists be banned from club membership??

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

why not?? as i said, journalists have the same right to political freedom as any of us. if they are bias, they aren't good at their job, which is another matter.

There's a great saying in law -- For justice to be done, it has to be seen to be done. But the number of conflicts of interests in what I outlined would bring up is far too great to even bring such a saying into play.

And it's incorrect to say 'all of us' have the same political freedom, a number of jobs have restrictions on political freedom (the army being one). And beyond this other jobs restrict other freedoms.

should sports journalists be banned from club membership??

If it's directly related to what they will be reporting on, then yes. Otherwise the possibility of conflict of interests is too great. And that's no matter how good the journalist is, they are human at the end of the day.

i-digress

evil-monkey wrote: »

as i said, journalists have the same right to political freedom as any of us. if they are bias, they aren't good at their job, which is another matter.

In Australia I think, journalists are not allowed be members of political parties.

As to the 'rest of us' argument there are other careers, such as the defence forces and the Gardai, where being a member of a political organisation isn't permitted. It's to do with being partisan.

I know a few good journalists who can detatch themselves politically, others who can't. I don't generally think its a good idea though

bealbocht

well.. take Eoghan Harris for example.... , he didnt get his cushy Senat number by giving un-bias commentary.

All people have opinions... and journalists more so (it kinda goes with the terriortory if you think about it.. )

So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

And it's incorrect to say 'all of us' have the same political freedom, a number of jobs have restrictions on political freedom (the army being one).

Really, I wasn't aware of that. But I don't think they're comparable. The Army is state owned. Newspapers and most other media sources aren't, and so if they choose to hire people who are bias, that's their decision.

monument wrote: »

If it's directly related to what they will be reporting on, then yes. Otherwise the possibility of conflict of interests is too great. And that's no matter how good the journalist is, they are human at the end of the day.

you'll do very well to find a good GAA writer in the country who isn't the member of a club.

i-digress wrote: »

I know a few good journalists who can detatch themselves politically, others who can't.

The former of which are better at their job.

bealbocht wrote: »

So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting.

Exactly. If you think someone is bias, or if you disagree with their opinion, then disagree. It's called debate, democracy, and why shouldn't journalists be a part of it?? If you ask me the whole media is bias. The way they hound one politician and not the next is rampant in the industry. But you know who'll go after who, you know who'll be bias, and so you'll know who to listen to and who to disregard.

Sure look at Matt Cooper on Today Fm. He started a petition to get Croke Park opened up when the whole Rule42 thing was going on and nobody rapped him over it. Gave rise to some fairly heated discussion all right, but if that's a bad thing, then I don't mind being on the wrong side...journalists will be bias, as you said, they are only human. If they want to join a political party let them - but they still have to be good at their job. Editors of decent publications and stations etc aren't editors beacuse they won the job in a raffle; if someone on their payroll is bias they'll take action...

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

if someone on their payroll is bias they'll take action...

lol!

monument

Just two notes first...

I have been generalising a bit to this point -- being in a political party wouldn't be as important for a journalist who only reports say computer games, or GAA, or fashion, but it is for editors, subs, news reporters, pol cors etc.

I wouldn't exclude people like Garret Fitzgerald from writing regular columns, I simply would not call such people journalists.

well.. take Eoghan Harris for example.... , he didnt get his cushy Senat number by giving un-bias commentary.

Harris' writing may be great entertainment, but if you think it is even good journalism or good comment, you must be joking.

So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting.

Propaganda is, according to Cambridge, "information, ideas, opinions or images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions". So, all news is my no means "(kinda)" propaganda.

Really, I wasn't aware of that. But I don't think they're comparable. The Army is state owned. Newspapers and most other media sources aren't, and so if they choose to hire people who are bias, that's their decision.

So is it... "let's not have professional ethics depending on ownership of the group"?

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

So is it... "let's not have professional ethics depending on ownership of the group"?

no matter what they would like us to think otherwise, the ownership and editorial of a newspaper will always sway the beliefs of a media group. always. that's life.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

no matter what they would like us to think otherwise, the ownership and editorial of a newspaper will always sway the beliefs of a media group. always. that's life.

Ok, by what you're saying, you could also say: "Civil servants should not strive to have ethics or base policy on facts because their bosses, the politicians, do not have ethics or will influence their work".

You're justifying one possible wrong with another.

bealbocht

monument wrote: »

Ok, by what you're saying, you could also say: "Civil servants should not strive to have ethics or base policy on facts because their bosses, the politicians, do not have ethics or will influence their work".

You're justifying one possible wrong with another.

No that’s not what he is saying... I was not suggesting Eoghan Harris is a good journalist, and I know what propaganda means...

And if your interpretations of what was said in the last few posts, is anything to go by, I am sure I would be bewildered as to how you might interpret the news on a daily basis.

But to point you in the right/same direction... I was suggesting that Eoghan Harris got is seat in the Senat by saying nothing but nice things about Fianna Fail and Bertie for the last 10+ years. This is biased journalism and how you got your interpertation, of what I said, I really dont know.

So for Harris to talk on the radio recenlty about being an "independent" senator is laughable. However he did point to another example of biased adgendas in the media, when he pointed out that RTE would not do a news piece on the issue of reducing public sector numbers/saleries.

This is an example of the "ownership and editorial " of RTE swaying their adgenda and choice of things to report.

monument

bealbocht wrote: »

... I was not suggesting Eoghan Harris is a good journalist, and I know what propaganda means...

I don't know how you missed the word 'if'?

On you're use of the word 'propaganda', you concluded "(kinda) all news is propaganda". So, yes, I quoted the dictionary meaning of the word to show you are wrong.

That is, unless you think all news often only gives one part of an argument, and is "broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions"?

No that’s not what he is saying...

... And if your interpretations of what was said in the last few posts, is anything to go by, I am sure I would be bewildered as to how you might interpret the news on a daily basis.

I know that's not what s/he was saying.

It's comparable to what he was saying. I was using comparable situations in an attempt to get the poster to think a second time about what they were saying. It appears that evil-monkey understands this, but rather than answering the question directly he widened the debate to influences.

But to point you in the right/same direction... I was suggesting that Eoghan Harris got is seat in the Senat by saying nothing but nice things about Fianna Fail and Bertie for the last 10+ years. This is biased journalism and how you got your interpertation, of what I said, I really dont know.

Again, I said: "but if you think it is even good journalism or good comment, you must be joking".

So for Harris to talk on the radio recenlty about being an "independent" senator is laughable.

From what what you're saying, I can't tell what exactly he said. He is an "independent senator" in that he is not in a party.

If he is influenced by others or not is another thing. But then again he is an appointed senator, so if he is voting in the government's favour even when he does not agree (or when people may see it as not 'right') then is is doing no worse that the many FF, Green, and other "independents" who do the same.

However he did point to another example of biased adgendas in the media, when he pointed out that RTE would not do a news piece on the issue of reducing public sector numbers/saleries.

This is an example of the "ownership and editorial " of RTE swaying their adgenda and choice of things to report.

What news regarding the issue of reducing public sector numbers/salaries has RTE not covered?

I heard him mention recently RTE did not cover something he said, would that have been what he was talking about? [If so, as the Sunday Times suggested, he should write to the Paymaster General stating he wants to take a pay cut, much more productive than complaining about RTE]

But again, as one problem or wrong does not excuse another, I don't see the point of bring up ownership influence.

bealbocht

"take Eoghan Harris for example.... , he didnt get his cushy Senat number by giving un-bias commentary"

Where in this comment do I suggest or refer to the quality of Harris as a journalist. ??? Your comment is irrelevant.


"So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting".

Focusing on the word "propaganda" is taking this comment out of context.

All forms of news broadcast are influenced by their ownership.
When the day comes you see The Sunday Independent do a positive piece on Sinn Fein, or Sky News do an Anti Murdoc piece or An Poblocht write something nice about the Magret Tatcher, or the BBC refer to the "enemy" in Afganastan as "rebels" and not as "Taliban" , then you can tell me that ownership does not influence the news. But it does, so in a thread about journalist political interests, ownership is relevant.


"That is, unless you think all news often only gives one part of an argument, and is "broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions"?

This is exactly what I think.. , it is done at different level , in different organisations... , but if you do not think, that Tony O'Reilly , a man who has crawled up the arse of the british empire to get the "sir" title, does not have a bias influence on his newspaper, then looking up definitions of the word propagand in a dictionary will not help you, understand the situation any better.

monument

bealbocht wrote: »

"take Eoghan Harris for example.... , he didnt get his cushy Senat number by giving un-bias commentary"

Where in this comment do I suggest or refer to the quality of Harris as a journalist. ??? Your comment is irrelevant.

Let's look back on your full post...

bealbocht wrote: »

well.. take Eoghan Harris for example.... , he didnt get his cushy Senat number by giving un-bias commentary.

All people have opinions... and journalists more so (it kinda goes with the terriortory if you think about it.. )

So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting.

Can I ask why exactly did you mention Harris?

(Yes, I can guess, but that would be prompting your answer)

bealbocht wrote: »

"So .. (kinda) all news is propaganda... , and it is up to you know which end of the stick you are getting".

Focusing on the word "propaganda" is taking this comment out of context.

No, its not. Propaganda is a very strong word by its definition along, it has further connotations which makes it even stronger.

bealbocht wrote: »

All forms of news broadcast are influenced by their ownership. When the day comes you see The Sunday Independent do a positive piece on Sinn Fein, or Sky News do an Anti Murdoc piece or An Poblocht write something nice about the Magret Tatcher, or the BBC refer to the "enemy" in Afganastan as "rebels" and not as "Taliban" , then you can tell me that ownership does not influence the news. But it does, so in a thread about journalist political interests, ownership is relevant.

Ownership is indirectly relevance.

The way I compared ownership problems (on one level) and the problem of staff's professional ethics (on another level) still stands. By bringing the subject of one ethics problem into a debate about another ethics problem, it looks as if you are justifying one wrong with another.

bealbocht wrote: »

"That is, unless you think all news often only gives one part of an argument, and is "broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions"?

This is exactly what I think.. , it is done at different level , in different organisations... , but if you do not think, that Tony O'Reilly , a man who has crawled up the arse of the british empire to get the "sir" title, does not have a bias influence on his newspaper, then looking up definitions of the word propagand in a dictionary will not help you, understand the situation any better.

Ok, so lets get this straight, you think that all news stories, even say this batch of 'In Short' articles from today's Irish Times, is "published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions"?

Because you just said that's "This is exactly what I think".

In fact, it's -- to say the least -- bemusing that one second you say "Focusing on the word "propaganda" is taking this comment out of context" and then, when I define propaganda, you turn around an say "This is exactly what I think".

And, again, ownership influence (such as that by Tony O'Reilly) is another matter to the topic which is professional ethics and the conflict of interests that being a member of a political party or interest group opens up.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

Ok, by what you're saying, you could also say: "Civil servants should not strive to have ethics or base policy on facts because their bosses, the politicians, do not have ethics or will influence their work".

You're justifying one possible wrong with another.

No, what i'm saying is that people in the employ of the State have a duty to that State and therefore advancement due to political connections can be frowned upon. But in the case of say the media, the owner of a group has every right, absolutely every right, to hire someone with a political affiliation. If the owner of a newspaper came out tomorrow and said that his publication was going to say nothing but good for a certain party, and hired journalists affiliated to that party, he would be 100% within his right.

The fact is, a journalist is bound by no one but his paymaster - the same as most people in the private sector. And therefore, if his boss is ok with him being in a political party, why not? If you think a journalist is bias, take your business elsewhere; read another column, buy another paper, change channel, switch station - you aren't forced to listen to them.

Journalists are entitled to as much political freedom as anyone. If journalists can't join a party, why should a barman? They are both, in most cases, in the employ of the private sector.

Do they have a duty to be unbias? They have a duty to do their job well. Nothing more. Nothing less.

monument wrote: »

And, again, ownership influence (such as that by Tony O'Reilly) is another matter to the topic which is professional ethics and the conflict of interests that being a member of a political party or interest group opens up.

Tony O'Reilly can do whatever he likes with his company as long as it is lawful. Whatever he wants. If you don't like what that is - you can buy another paper. It's as simple as that. Plenty people don't like how a lot of businesses are run, but the fact is, if I owned a business, there'd only be one person tell me what to do with it. It's not a question of professional ethics - not all forms of media will be unbias. If that were the case, there'd be a lot of great movies never made, a lot of great books never written, and a lot of great articles never published. Bottom line; Tony O'Reilly can influence his newspaper as much as he likes. Why? It's his. If you don't like it - well, you could always set up your own one and put him out of business...

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

No, what i'm saying is that people in the employ of the State have a duty to that State and therefore advancement due to political connections can be frowned upon. But in the case of say the media, the owner of a group has every right, absolutely every right, to hire someone with a political affiliation. If the owner of a newspaper came out tomorrow and said that his publication was going to say nothing but good for a certain party, and hired journalists affiliated to that party, he would be 100% within his right.

The fact is, a journalist is bound by no one but his paymaster - the same as most people in the private sector. And therefore, if his boss is ok with him being in a political party, why not? If you think a journalist is bias, take your business elsewhere; read another column, buy another paper, change channel, switch station - you aren't forced to listen to them.

Journalists are entitled to as much political freedom as anyone. If journalists can't join a party, why should a barman? They are both, in most cases, in the employ of the private sector.

Do they have a duty to be unbias? They have a duty to do their job well. Nothing more. Nothing less.



Tony O'Reilly can do whatever he likes with his company as long as it is lawful. Whatever he wants. If you don't like what that is - you can buy another paper. It's as simple as that. Plenty people don't like how a lot of businesses are run, but the fact is, if I owned a business, there'd only be one person tell me what to do with it. It's not a question of professional ethics - not all forms of media will be unbias. If that were the case, there'd be a lot of great movies never made, a lot of great books never written, and a lot of great articles never published. Bottom line; Tony O'Reilly can influence his newspaper as much as he likes. Why? It's his. If you don't like it - well, you could always set up your own one and put him out of business...

Sorry, but I don’t think there's any point giving you a point-to-point reply on this, so I’ll shorten it…

I’d like to note again that I said: I wouldn't exclude people like Garret Fitzgerald from writing regular columns, I simply would not call such people journalists.

Your line of logic that: “a journalist is bound by no one but his paymaster - the same as most people in the private sector. And therefore, if his boss is ok with him being in a political party, why not?”… that could be easily extend to justifying a solder who is “just following orders” … But apparently if he or she were a “private sector” solder, its fine as long as the “paymaster” agrees.

evil-monkey wrote: »

If you think a journalist is bias, take your business elsewhere; read another column, buy another paper, change channel, switch station - you aren't forced to listen to them.

Is the topic here on this thread journalists’ ethics? But if you don’t think journalists should have ethics, just please say so. Furthermore, your post reeks of the “private sector” should have no ethics, which is very, very funny in the current climate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to have little or not understanding of professional ethics regarding journalism, so here’s a sample bit of reading…

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=25
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=174
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/theguardian/story/0,,906788,00.html
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
http://www.presscouncil.ie/v2/presscouncil/portal.php?content=_includes/codeofpractice.php
http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

Your line of logic that: “a journalist is bound by no one but his paymaster - the same as most people in the private sector. And therefore, if his boss is ok with him being in a political party, why not?”… that could be easily extend to justifying a solder who is “just following orders” … But apparently if he or she were a “private sector” solder, its fine as long as the “paymaster” agrees.

how many private sector soldiers do you know?? my point is, the state have no influence over the private media, thus, membership of a party is different to that of a member of the Defense Forces. ie; they can't gain from it.

monument wrote: »

Is the topic here on this thread journalists’ ethics? But if you don’t think journalists should have ethics, just please say so. Furthermore, your post reeks of the “private sector” should have no ethics, which is very, very funny in the current climate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to have little or not understanding of professional ethics regarding journalism, so here’s a sample bit of reading…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly is unethical about a journalist writing about a political party that they support?? sports journalists have many a time shown their delight at their home county winning or what not...

Serenity Now!

evil-monkey wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly is unethical about a journalist writing about a political party that they support?? sports journalists have many a time shown their delight at their home county winning or what not...

It then becomes an editorial piece. Nothing wrong with that of course but it is then automatically labelled as opinion.
A journalist writing a news-piece about their own party lacks credibility and there are few sub-eds out there who will go down that road if trying to lead a publication that lives on a reputation of fair reporting.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

how many private sector soldiers do you know??

"Private sector soldiers" [sic] is a nice way of saying mercenaries. And as a group, they wouldn't be a great group of people to talk about when it comes to professional ethics.

But again, you are mixing up the issues of professional ethics and ownership. It's like saying mercenaries should not have ethics just because they are in the private sector, they should.

my point is, the state have no influence over the private media,

That's nonsense. And it's simply not true.

thus, membership of a party is different to that of a member of the Defense Forces. ie; they can't gain from it.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please rephrase it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly is unethical about a journalist writing about a political party that they support??

Where has it been said such is wrong?

It has been said that on a professional ethics level, the conflict of interest is too great if a journalist is a member of a political party. Supporting a group and being a member are quite different.

Call me an idealist, but at the end of the day a journalists' loyalty should be to journalism, and to the truth. Party membership splits and clouds loyalty. Sure, there will be those who have that split loyalty without being members, but saying party membership is ok is saying such split loyalty is ok.

sports journalists have many a time shown their delight at their home county winning or what not...

Again, as I said above:

being in a political party wouldn't be as important for a journalist who only reports say computer games, or GAA, or fashion, but it is for editors, subs, news reporters, pol cors etc.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please rephrase it?

It makes perfect sense - read it again. What it means is, a member of the Defence Forces could benefit from membership of a government party, as this party is essentially their paymaster - they decide who rises through the ranks. This is not the case in the private media.

monument wrote: »

Call me an idealist, but at the end of the day a journalists' loyalty should be to journalism, and to the truth.

Yes, you are an idealist.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

It makes perfect sense - read it again. What it means is, a member of the Defence Forces could benefit from membership of a government party, as this party is essentially their paymaster - they decide who rises through the ranks. This is not the case in the private media.

For the Defence Forces the main conflict of interest is between loyalty to a party and to the State. This actually more so comes into play with parties outside government. You look to be fundamentally misunderstanding the main issue.

There's the same kind of conflict of interest with journalists' loyalty to a party and to their jobs.

evil-monkey wrote: »

Yes, you are an idealist.

Do you understand the ideas of professional ethics and conflict of interest, OR do you just not care?

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

You look to be fundamentally misunderstanding the main issue.

I do not misunderstand the issue by any means, and would appreciate if you'd stop claiming I do. I'd prefer proper rebuttals rather than this constant undermining of my intelligence.

monument wrote: »

There's the same kind of conflict of interest with journalists' loyalty to a party and to their jobs.

Yes, there is a conflict. But, as I have already pointed out, the severity of this conflict is, in many cases, judged by the group's owner. And, as also pointed out earlier, a good journalist will not allow this conflict to interfere in their work. Should teachers be banned from political affiliation so that their students get an unbias opinion??

monument wrote: »

Do you understand the ideas of professional ethics and conflict of interest, OR do you just not care?

I completely understand them (once again I'd like to point out, if I don't understand something I will let you know), my point is, I disagree with you on what they are and believe that journalists have every right to political freedom. Some will let this political freedom interfere with their jobs, others won't...that's the difference...

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

I do not misunderstand the issue by any means, and would appreciate if you'd stop claiming I do. I'd prefer proper rebuttals rather than this constant undermining of my intelligence.

You said:

It makes perfect sense - read it again. What it means is, a member of the Defence Forces could benefit from membership of a government party, as this party is essentially their paymaster - they decide who rises through the ranks. This is not the case in the private media.

But this is not the main issue for a ban on joining parties, so I said:

For the Defence Forces the main conflict of interest is between loyalty to a party and to the State. This actually more so comes into play with parties outside government. You look to be fundamentally misunderstanding the main issue.

I am not trying to "undermine" your intelligence, I am just disagreeing with you.

Yes, there is a conflict. But, as I have already pointed out, the severity of this conflict is, in many cases, judged by the group's owner.

You have yet to explain how this is so. So I'll ask: Should mercenaries have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

And, as also pointed out earlier, a good journalist will not allow this conflict to interfere in their work. ...

I completely understand them (once again I'd like to point out, if I don't understand something I will let you know), my point is, I disagree with you on what they are and believe that journalists have every right to political freedom. Some will let this political freedom interfere with their jobs, others won't...that's the difference...

A good TD would need no rules. That is not a reason for not having rules.

And on my view of your posts showing a misunderstanding of the issues... you said: "my point is, the state have no influence over the private media" ... if this is a view of yours (which has no bases in fact) then it's understandable how you have come to your views about ownership being connected to professional ethics.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

I am not trying to "undermine" your intelligence

I refer you to the following...

monument wrote: »

Sorry, but I don’t think there's any point giving you a point-to-point reply on this, so I’ll shorten it…

monument wrote: »

you appear to have little or not understanding of professional ethics regarding journalism, so here’s a sample bit of reading…

monument wrote: »

You look to be fundamentally misunderstanding the main issue.

monument wrote: »

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please rephrase it?

monument wrote: »

Do you understand

Just on the last one; for the umpteenth time...if I do not understand something, I will ask you to explain it to me...


Anyway, back to the point at hand...

monument wrote: »

And on my view of your posts showing a misunderstanding of the issues... you said: "my point is, the state have no influence over the private media" ... if this is a view of yours (which has no bases in fact) then it's understandable how you have come to your views about ownership being connected to professional ethics.

Exactly how does the State control the private media in this country??

And please answer my question about teachers. Should they be banned from political affiliation, in case they would give their students a biased view?? Some of which are of course quite young, and far more easily influenced than those members of the population who would in fact be reading/listening to biased journalists.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

I refer you to the following...

Just on the last one; for the umpteenth time...if I do not understand something, I will ask you to explain it to me...

I said "I’ll shorten it" as I thought it would be more worth while than to give a point-to-point reply. This – like your other examples – were not attacks on your intelligence. I am just disagreeing with you and in some cases simply asking questing.

You might not like my style, if so, your choices are: [1] live with it, [2] stop posting or, [3] if you think I’m breaking the rules, you can report me.

BTW, I’m not giving a point-to-point reply here as I’ll just end up repeating what I have already said.

Exactly how does the State control the private media in this country??

Just a few examples: Libel and defamation laws, ownership restrictions, the BCI, the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland, etc, etc, etc.

And please answer my question about teachers. Should they be banned from political affiliation, in case they would give their students a biased view?? Some of which are of course quite young, and far more easily influenced than those members of the population who would in fact be reading/listening to biased journalists.

Unless things have changed recently, teachers are suppose to stick very close to the curriculum. And history is the only subject this type of bias could be a worry in primary school (again, unless things have changed?). Parents are also a check and balance (in cases they are not, bad parenting is a different topic). Journalists on the other hand have a blank sheet rather than a curriculum, so it's quite different.

Now, could you please answer this question I have already asked? I'll also post your comment to show the context of my question...

Yes, there is a conflict. But, as I have already pointed out, the severity of this conflict is, in many cases, judged by the group's owner.

You have yet to explain how this is so. So I'll ask: Should mercenaries have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

Ken Griffin

monument wrote: »

I think the recently added regulations legally require such interests to be published on articles recommending shares. But that hardly goes far enough.

It's extremely rare for me to post here but I just thought that I may as well clarify this point:

The new regulations do not involve the declaration of journalist's interests in shares.

They involve the placement of a disclaimer to the effect that nothing in the article should be taken as a recommendation or endorsement of the stocks being discussed. Presumably, it is designed so that people seek independent advice before they invest.

You can see the full text of the disclaimer each week on the market watch section of the Tribune business section.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

Just a few examples: Libel and defamation laws, ownership restrictions, the BCI, the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council of Ireland, etc, etc, etc.?

You believe that these things are the State controlling the press?? These things are in place saw that the press act lawfully - not so that the State can control them. If the State controlled the media, why exactly is it always so critical of the Government?? Surely they should exert some of this control and angle for a few more positive spins...

monument wrote: »

Unless things have changed recently, teachers are suppose to stick very close to the curriculum. And history is the only subject this type of bias could be a worry in primary school (again, unless things have changed?). Parents are also a check and balance (in cases they are not, bad parenting is a different topic). Journalists on the other hand have a blank sheet rather than a curriculum, so it's quite different..?

I certainly don't know what school you went to, but where I went, teachers did not always stick 100% rigidly to the curriculum; from primary to third level. I did have a teacher in Leaving Cert all right who refused to call Hitler evil. He was adament that calling someone evil while teaching was bias - but he, like you, must have been an idealist...

monument wrote: »

So I'll ask: Should mercenaries have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

I don't think mercanaries, or private sector soldiers as you put it, really consider ethics at all. You see I am finding it hard to grasp what it is that you deem as unethical. What exactly is unethical about a journalist belonging to a political party?? As I said, if they are good at their job, it won't matter. What is unethical imho, is someone being denied political freedom when it doesn't interfere with their job; which in the case of a good journalist, it won't.

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

You believe that these things are the State controlling the press?? These things are in place saw that the press act lawfully - not so that the State can control them. If the State controlled the media, why exactly is it always so critical of the Government?? Surely they should exert some of this control and angle for a few more positive spins...

It's not strict control. But the media is controlled. Laws are controls. The media is expected to "act lawfully" here, and so are the media in different states. Some have a lot more freedom, others very much so a lot less.

evil-monkey wrote: »

I certainly don't know what school you went to, but where I went, teachers did not always stick 100% rigidly to the curriculum; from primary to third level. I did have a teacher in Leaving Cert all right who refused to call Hitler evil. He was adament that calling someone evil while teaching was bias - but he, like you, must have been an idealist...

In an debate about ethics the status qua is not a justification.

evil-monkey wrote: »

I don't think mercanaries, or private sector soldiers as you put it, really consider ethics at all.

First, just to be clear you asked:"how many private sector soldiers do you know??" and I replied: "'Private sector soldiers' [sic] is a nice way of saying mercenaries". So, I don't know what you're talking about when you say "or private sector soldiers as you put it."

In any case you're not answering the question I asked. You're telling me what you think is happening (ie you think they don't really consider ethics at all). I asked what you think should happen. Could you please answer that...

Should mercenaries have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

evil-monkey wrote: »

You see I am finding it hard to grasp what it is that you deem as unethical. What exactly is unethical about a journalist belonging to a political party?? As I said, if they are good at their job, it won't matter. What is unethical imho, is someone being denied political freedom when it doesn't interfere with their job; which in the case of a good journalist, it won't.

As has been mentioned before it's not that its unethical, it's that it opens up too many conflicts of interests. Rules like this are made not just because something is directly unethical, but to limited the chances of conflicts of interests happening.

evil-monkey

monument wrote: »

It's not strict control. But the media is controlled. Laws are controls. The media is expected to "act lawfully" here, and so are the media in different states. Some have a lot more freedom, others very much so a lot less.

:rolleyes: This point, in no way, justifies your claims that the State controls the private media in Ireland. If the State does in fact control the media, why is the media always bashing the Government?? Surely they should do something about this if they do in fact control it...

monument wrote: »

Should mercenaries have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

Once again I would like to reiterate that mercenaries and journalists are not comparable...not any that I know of any way...

monument wrote: »

As has been mentioned before it's not that its unethical, it's that it opens up too many conflicts of interests. Rules like this are made not just because something is directly unethical, but to limited the chances of conflicts of interests happening.

And as has also been mentioned before, if a journalist suffers from conflict of interest they are bad at their job...

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

:rolleyes: This point, in no way, justifies your claims that the State controls the private media in Ireland. If the State does in fact control the media, why is the media always bashing the Government?? Surely they should do something about this if they do in fact control it...

I very clearly started what I said with: "It's not strict control" and quallfied this as saying: "But the media is controlled. Laws are controls. The media is expected to 'act lawfully' here, and so are the media in different states. Some have a lot more freedom, others very much so a lot less".

How can you not understand that? How can you not understand there are different levels of control?

evil-monkey wrote: »

Once again I would like to reiterate that mercenaries and journalists are not comparable...not any that I know of any way...

I did not ask you were they comparable. You haven't answered the question I asked. So, I am again asking your view on what should be, not what is... could you please answer the question... First, as you look to be having problems dealing with the question, if you prefer by all means replace 'mercenaries' with, say, 'teachers' and answer the same question...

Should [insert profession here] have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

evil-monkey wrote: »

And as has also been mentioned before, if a journalist suffers from conflict of interest they are bad at their job...

That's more nonsense.

A "conflict of interest" is not just something suffered. It is a potential. And where a journalist is a member of a party and is also likely write or edit articles or images related to that party, or other parties, the conflict is very clear.

evil-monkey

Ok...I'm getting very tired of you talking you way around everything with "do you understand", "do you understand"...

When you have a greater grasp of how this industry works, come back to me, and maybe then you might actually make it as a journalist...

And loose the air of pretention around you, if you ever want to make it as a journalist, this will have to go...

monument

evil-monkey wrote: »

Ok...I'm getting very tired of you talking you way around everything with "do you understand", "do you understand"...

You got it totally wrong about what I said about control of the media, if you understand fully what I said how did you get it so wrong? What were you doing? Were you twisting what I said? Or what? Please explain.

Or even explain what is wrong with me asking how did you think I meant full control, when I had already made it clear I did not.

evil-monkey wrote: »

When you have a greater grasp of how this industry works, come back to me, and maybe then you might actually make it as a journalist...

And loose the air of pretention around you, if you ever want to make it as a journalist, this will have to go...

I'd love to give you some advice. But I fear I may offend you. Because I seam to have offended you by simply asking honest questions.

flogen

monument wrote: »

A "conflict of interest" is not just something suffered. It is a potential. And where a journalist is a member of a party and is also likely write or edit articles or images related to that party, or other parties, the conflict is very clear.

Surely you appreciate that fact that party membership has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest, though.

A journalist could avoid party membership for sheer optics and still be as bias; likewise another journalist could be a party member but have the control and objectivity to keep their copy free of their political leanings.

While I'd tell anyone who asked my opinion to avoid political activity as a journalist* I'd quickly qualify it with broader advice on bias. Otherwise it would be a pretty shallow suggestion.

* Or any activity that could reasonably be seen to impact upon their capability to write neutrally about their area of expertise.

asdasd

This thread is nonsensical. Journalists are not State employees. They produce writings which can be read, or not read, by anybody who cares to read, or not read their copy.

Political parties are organizations separate from the state. Civic organizations produce newspapers, magazines etc. all the time. Political parties are civic organizations. Not only can politically aligned journalists and politicians write for papers, not only have they for centuries - sometimes it is only political members of a party who write for a publication. The SWP's newsletters for instance. Labour had a newspaper. The Irish Press was a Fianna Fail rag, so what? Then there is Boris Johnson and the Telegraph. Who cares? Free society. Free press. Freely associated people in civic groups called political parties ( who are, by the way, far more numerous than those political parties in the Dail) writing for a free press. Who would want to stop any of this. Why would we? It is not the States business, nor the business of the NUJ.

The only case where this is a problem is if the journalist is a State employee. Thats it. RTE members should not be party members. Thats all.

CDfm

IF they do write on political issues a discreet little tag saying they are a member of a party should be on the tagline.

RTE is different as it is the national broadcater and I dont think its journalists presenters should be party members.

There was a journalist Ted Nealon who was a TV presenter on a TV programme 7 days the precursor of Prime Time. He cant have been human if it didnt influence his coverage.

It was the case that newspapers had close political affiliations known to everyone. The Indo has always had a pro Fine Gael bias.The defunct Irish Press Fianna Fail etc.

lostexpectation

they can be member then have to write there member under every article they right mentioning that party.

monument

flogen wrote: »

Surely you appreciate that fact that party membership has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest, though.

A journalist could avoid party membership for sheer optics and still be as bias; likewise another journalist could be a party member but have the control and objectivity to keep their copy free of their political leanings.

I disagree that it has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest. To say it it ok for a journalist to be a member of a party is to condone such. While in all likelihood membership alone will create a conflict of interest -- ie the conflicting loyalty to journalism and/or the party.

And as in the case you outline if a journalist is remaining true to journalism, it is likely they are not being loyal, or even being disloyal, to their party. In which case they have no business being a member of such.

asdasd wrote: »

This thread is nonsensical. Journalists are not State employees. ... The only case where this is a problem is if the journalist is a State employee. Thats it. RTE members should not be party members. Thats all.

Should [insert profession here] have less (or even no) ethics just because they are in the private sector?

asdasd wrote: »

Who cares?

We're talking about professional ethics. If you disagree, fine. But if you don't care, why bother posting?

asdasd wrote: »

Who would want to stop any of this. Why would we?

Why? As said above, conflicting loyalty to journalism and/or a party.

asdasd wrote: »

Free society. Free press. ... It is not the States business, nor the business of the NUJ.

It is not strictly a free society, nor do we have a free press. Banding those terms about implies they are no restrictions, when there are. And if you were to ban party membership as a rule, it would be reasonably in line with current media restrictions.

In any case, while I'd not be against the idea, I am not advocating any of this be made law or even be inserted into guidelines. I'm mainly talking about the idea of personal professional ethics and what ethics I think journalists should follow.

flogen

monument wrote: »

I disagree that it has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest. To say it it ok for a journalist to be a member of a party is to condone such. While in all likelihood membership alone will create a conflict of interest -- ie the conflicting loyalty to journalism and/or the party.

You're assuming that you have to be a member of a party in order to be loyal to it.

I'm not condoning membership or saying it's OK - I'm just saying membership does not guarantee bias, while non-membership does not guarantee neutrality.

As a result any "ban" would be pure optics - the real focus should be on the journalist's output.

monument

flogen wrote: »

You're assuming that you have to be a member of a party in order to be loyal to it.

I'm not condoning membership or saying it's OK - I'm just saying membership does not guarantee bias, while non-membership does not guarantee neutrality.

As a result any "ban" would be pure optics - the real focus should be on the journalist's output.

No, I'm not assuming that you have to be a member of a party in order to be loyal to it. To say such is to assume I think such a ban (at personal, media group, or at state level) would solve all related bias, which I don't.

And I disagree a ban would be "pure optics," in the exact same vain that I disagree membership has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest.

flogen

monument wrote: »

No, I'm not assuming that you have to be a member of a party in order to be loyal to it. To say such is to assume I think such a ban (at personal, media group, or at state level) would solve all related bias, which I don't.

And I disagree a ban would be "pure optics," in the exact same vain that I disagree membership has no real bearings on a potential conflict of interest.

So can you explain why you think membership of a party impacts upon the potential conflict of interest?

If you have two journalists who are both strong supporters of Fianna Fáil, for example, in their voting patterns and personal beliefs, what difference does it make on their output if one is a paid-up member and the other is not?

How would a ban on membership have any impact upon the journalists' output?