Is neutrality possible during times of war?

The eyes of the world through the lens of a camera.

I’m regularly asked by people if what we do as journalists can change anything. Well it’s not our job to set out and change the world – we are there to witness and report the world’s events neutrally without fear or favour. At best our job is to inform people and let them know what is going on, which is a valuable part of the democratic process.

Wise words from Channel 4 News cameraman Stuart Webb. I’m intrigued to know that if journalists/cameramen film what they see in front of them, do they have to remain impartial. It is, after all – reality. I think during times of war it can be hard to remain impartial but one thing it can do is open our eyes up to those particular events and we can judge for ourselves.

All the pictures of atrocities in Bosnia didn’t stop the war there or end the genocide in Rwanda – but maybe the pictures and experience of Bosnia prompted the west to act quicker in Kosovo.

Stuart goes on to say in his blog that the media can play a vital role particularly when it comes to natural disasters and works vitally hard to get the best possible pictures to convey the mess of a particular situation.

But natural disasters are maybe one area where the media can have a very positive influence. People at home and around the world can only gauge how bad a disaster really is when the media all pitch up and show it.

The coverage becomes part of process which prompts people and governments to donate money and act. So when I cover a story like Haiti I always work as hard as I can to get the story out – I’m there to do my job but if what I do can help, then there is a responsibility to try even harder.

War and natural disasters are hard and dangerous enough places to work in without having to focus on getting your piece accurate and impartial. For me bearing witness, recording events and informing the public with the lens of a camera is just as important.

In the Line of Fire, won the International Current Affairs RTS Award in 2004. The film has some remarkable footage moments after a US bomb in Iraq – killing 16 and injuring 45. It provides a unique insight into the horrors of war. I recommend you watch it.

Another video featuring a cameraman – this time Brit Jeff Chagrin, who was shot while attempting to cover Afghanistan.

Political campaigns and the BBC’s stance

A Palestinian boy holds a Palestinian flag in the West Bank :Reuters

Tony Benn accused the BBC live on air of surrendering to the Israeli government, by refusing to air an appeal for the people of Gaza by the Disaster Emergency Committee. He proceeds in broadcasting the address himself. This begs the question of whether the BBC acted impartially by refusing to show the DEC appeal in the first place?

Caroline Thompson the chief operating officer for the BBC then said this on Radio 4′s Today programme:

We have to be very careful about when we broadcast these sorts of appeals. It’s important to remember that broadcasting appeals like this is a unique thing we do. We are essentially giving our airtime out to someone else to ask for the public to give money, and we have to be very clear about two things when we do it. Firstly, that the money will go to the people that it’s intended for, but secondly, that we can do it within our own editorial principles and without effecting and impinging on the audience’s perception of our impartiality. And clearly in conflicts as controversial as this that is a real issue for us.

I also found this extract from the BBC’s seesaw to wagon wheel report:

Impartiality is most obviously at risk in areas of sharp public controversy. But there is a less visible risk, demanding particular vigilance, when programmes purport to reflect a consensus for ‘the common good’, or become involved with campaigns. Campaigns always need particular care, particularly when they seem uncontroversial. The BBC has to take care it does not give political campaigns a free ride. But at the same time the BBC needs to be fully involved in major events that capture the national imagination.

From this I can kind of see where the BBC might be coming from. Not ‘giving political campaigns a free ride’. If they did then the BBC might be seen as exploiting their impartiality – fair enough. But Tony Benn does have a point though, the people of Gaza were in desperate need of aid at the time – and the BBC refused to show such an appeal. This for me seems wrong and ironically not very impartial indeed. The BBC’s treading a very fine line when it comes to campaigns. Do they stick to their broadcasting guns and remain impartial. Or, be human and help people in need. It’s a tough choice to make but I’m sure I know which option I would go for. How about you?

Watch the BBC News 24 interview with Tony Benn below:

Impartiality a hindrance?

According to Ofcom and its discussion document: New News, Future News and the challenges for television news…

Impartiality, if applied across the board, may come to be seen as a possible hindrance to a truly diverse news supply and will, in any case, be increasingly difficult to enforce. It may be that the requirement can be focussed on key PSB channels in the post DSO (digital-switch-over) future, thereby encouraging a greater diversity of voice elsewhere.

See full Ofcom report here

OFCOM and Section 5 of the Broadcasting Code

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code -

Section Five: Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions

Channel 4 on Impartiality

The 2005 Broadcasting Code

Ten principles…

number 5… Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions

Principles:

• To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
• To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.

Impartiality taught from young age to journo’s at Reuters

‘We expect that you will act in the best interests of Thomson Reuters and avoid conflicts of interest by making reasoned and impartial decisions’ – Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Reuters

Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting.

Take no side, tell all sides

As Reuters journalists, we never identify with any side in an issue, a conflict or a dispute. Our text and visual stories need to reflect all sides, not just one. This leads to better journalism because it requires us to stop at each stage of newsgathering and ask ourselves “What do I know?” and “What do I need to know?”

The 10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism

• Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
• Always correct an error openly
• Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
• Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager
• Always respect privileged information
• Always protect their sources from the authorities
• Always guard against putting their opinion in a news story
• Never fabricate or plagiarise
• Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
• Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe

Source: Reuters Handbook for Journalism Freedom from Bias and Standards and Values

 

The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles

The Trust Principles are:

1. That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;
2. That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
3. That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;
4. That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
5. That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

Source: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles

British politics gets a facelift – for TV

Can TV be used to their advantage in the run-up to the General Election?

We learned late last year that all three main political parties in British politics will have the opportunity to take part in three-live televised debates in the run up to the 2010 General Election.

This is a landmark decision by the politicians and the broadcasters alike and a first of its kind for this country.

Labour’s Gordon Brown, Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have all agreed to appear on these three live televised debates. The first is to be shown on ITV, the second will be on Sky and the third on the BBC.

The programmes will be broadcast in peak-time during the General Election campaign and will be around an hour and a half long in front of a selected audience.

Though is this something the British people really need? Could it be the pivotal turning point for British politics, which is seeing declining popularity?

Politics is in a drastic need of change. Voter turnout has been in decline since 1992, with the elections in 2001 and 2005 having the lowest voter turnout in over 60 years.

Many will argue that this is a blessing for free speech – having a live political televised debate. But is it really?

Having politicians speaking freely and head-to-head against each other is no different to when they are doing it the House of Commons, so why should it be any different on TV. Will the issues raised in these debates become diluted for the TV audience? Or will it be the same monotonous, speech-making regurgitation we have all become so used to.

Let’s hope these debates won’t be turned into a form of entertainment for the broadcasters – hoping to clutch those ‘all so important’ viewing figures. This must also not turn into some public relations-fest either creating a political fiasco.

Politicians today are becoming much savvier at portraying their image in the right particular way in the media. Sadly politics is becoming more interested in image, not policies. How you look is becoming more important than education, health or welfare.

David Cameron is very confident and slick with his image in the media and has very adept televisual skills – an asset for any politician. Tony Blair for Labour also had a very good PR image – until his downfall.

This looks very familiar to the media’s relationship with politics in the United States. These live televised debates between Labour, the Conservative and the Liberal Democrats are very similar to those that have for so long helped establish the result of American presidential races.

As we saw in the United States presidential election, the media played a massive role before and after Mr Obama’s victory. Maybe this was partly because he was the first black president of the United States. But the media storm was a significant factor in his inauguration.

Everywhere you looked Obama’s face was somewhere. Social networking sites also played a role – with Obama’s facebook page generating millions of friends, forgetting not to mention blogs among other things. This helped Obama spread his message to a wider audience than say the newspapers – or even broadcasters.

How about the other legitimate political parties though, don’t they have a say? For example, The Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and UKIP. Would it be democratic and impartial not to let them raise issues in front of a national audience.

And if these live debates do bring in a massive audience, how likely is the performance of the politician likely to affect the viewers voting decision?

Whichever way you look at it, this is partial democracy – as not everybody is getting a say, but how possible is it to listen to everybody – not very realistic at all.

For a start at least the broadcasters are trying to enhance the image of politics and with these debates we can judge for ourselves.

Just another opinion…

The BBC, Question Time and the BNP

Back in October last year the BBC were heavily criticised for allowing Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader and Member of the European Parliament for North-West England, a panelist spot on Question Time.

The BBC staunchly defended its decision to allow Mr. Griffin on the programme, with the BBC Trust deciding not to hear any appeals before the programme was broadcast. Deciding, that ‘to do so would undermine the editorial independence of the BBC’. Sir Michael Lyons, BBC Trust Chairman said:

The BBC Trust is aware of the debate and public controversy on this issue and understands that this is a matter of considerable importance to many licence fee payers. We take our responsibilities in this area very seriously in line with the BBC’s constitutional arrangements.

The publically-funded BBC has no allegiance to any political party, and considers itself independent from any ‘party line’. For the BBC to commit to its editorial guidelines and to remain impartial, it has to broadcast the opinions of all legitimate political party’s within British politics. The BBC has a democratic right to do so, be it from the one end of the political spectrum such as Greenpeace, to the other, such as the BNP.

However the broadcasting of Question Time back in October, led to the BBC facing strong opposition from the public, who protested against the BNP leader outside the headquarters in London:

So would it be biased then if the BBC failed to allow Mr. Griffin to go on Question Time? If they didn’t allow him to appear on the programme then certainly, the BBC would have fallen foul on impartiality.

But where do the BBC draw the line between impartiality and propaganda? The protests against Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time were for appropriate reasons. The BNP have particular extremist views and Mr. Griffin routinely makes insinuate racial comments – the protests were against this. But by allowing the BNP a voice on Question Time, have the BBC done the BNP a favour by broadcasting racist and fascist opinion?

Nick Griffin, shortly after the show posted a video on the BNP official website claiming that the BBC were “bias” and that the BNP would put forward a “formal complaint” to the BBC about the handling of the show:

So the BBC acted correctly on issues of impartiality by allowing Nick Grffin to appear on Question Time, but by doing so have they muddied the waters between allowing all to speak freely and misinformation?

The Middle East – Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera: The Doha-based Pan-Arab news channel. REUTERS/Caren Firouz

Al Jazeera is the Qatar-based satellite news channel. It’s the largest provider of news in the Arabic world, being launched in 1996. It also has its very own English version of the news channel, plus a website – a first for the Middle East. It has seen a significant rise in prominence post-9/11, and has been highly controversial:

This Arab news channel is often portrayed in the West as a purveyor of anti-American bile that incites violence in Iraq, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

It has also been widely used to air terrorist rhetoric, particularly with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. For the Middle East this was groundbreaking. This type of free, independent media in a relatively conservative corner of the globe was something that hadn’t been seen before. Media restriction in powerful Middle Eastern states is still prevalent: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria to name but a few.

It is a phenomenon in the Arab world, a comparatively free, bold initiative in journalism.

Osama bin Laden broadcasting one of many messages through Al Jazeera

So what values, if any, does the news channel adhere to? Al Jazeera does in fact have in place a Code of Ethics.

…

1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.

2. Endeavour to get to the truth and declare it in our dispatches, programmes and news bulletins unequivocally in a manner which leaves no doubt about its validity and accuracy.

3. Treat our audiences with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture while giving full consideration to the feelings of victims of crime, war, persecution and disaster, their relatives and our viewers, and to individual privacy and public decorum.

4. Welcome fair and honest media competition without allowing it to affect adversely our standards of performance so that getting a “scoop” will not become an end in itself.

5. Present diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality.

6. Recognise diversity in human societies with all their races, cultures and beliefs and their values and intrinsic individualities in order to present unbiased and faithful reflection of them.

7. Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur.

8. Observe transparency in dealing with news and news sources while adhering to internationally established practices concerning the rights of these sources.

9. Distinguish between news material, opinion and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and propaganda.

10. Stand by colleagues in the profession and offer them support when required, particularly in light of the acts of aggression and harassment to which journalists are subjected at times. Cooperate with Arab and international journalistic unions and associations to defend freedom of the press.

…

Now just watch this video and see if it adheres to any of the above.