The first attempts to articulate the rights and responsibilities of journalists were made more than 150 years ago at a time of confrontation between The Times of London and the British government.

...to perform its duties with entire independence, the press can enter into no close or binding relations with the statesmen of the day, nor can it surrender its permanent interest to the convenience of the power of any government

In order to achieve these objectives, he argued, the press has to be free “to investigate truth and apply it on fixed principles to the affairs of the world.”

In 1930 at its Berlin Congress the International Federation of Journalists agreed to establish an International Court of Honour to monitor ethical conduct and to curb the use of media to promote hatred, war and propaganda.

In 1933, newspaper publishers created their own international organisation and prepared a statement which challenged the publication of “false news.”

Years later, the IFJ began to campaign for the adoption professional standards- those are still accepted today. Most important was the adoption of the IFJ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists agreed in 1954 in France.

The code is short and has been updated only once (in 1986), but it contains reference to all of the key values and aspirations of journalism. It has been adopted by all IFJ unions and associations of journalists at national level.

The role of law in the newsroom is a tricky one. Journalists rightly resist judicial interference in editorial matters, but the support of the courts is welcome, particularly when it exposes violations of free expression or to highlight the public importance of journalism.

Courts can help to redress the balance between investigative journalism and powerful groups in society. Without some form of legal protection, and the protective pressure of colleagues, journalists are likely to come under pressure.

Nearly 100 countries have adopted specific legal provision for journalists to protect their sources, either in the general laws or within constitutional protections for free speech.

In countries without any legal cover, journalists are more often coerced to divulge their sources. But in many democratic states exceptions that undermine the right to protect sources are extended on the back of concerns about national security.

The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, have over the years provided important support in the fight for press freedom. Although the Court has been a defender of the principle of protecting sources, it has always made it clear that this protection is not absolute.

In recent rulings, it appears to have weakened its resolve, and begun to take a worrying interest in the professionalism of journalists, an important topic, but not one that should be dealt with by the courts.

Journalists in their daily work often have cause to use subterfuge when investigating crooks and hypocrites in public life.

Subterfuge should surely be used sparingly because it can too easily be abused, and because there is a fine line between subterfuge and entrapment.

The use of clandestine listening devices and video cameras on the off-chance of discovering wrong-doing — “fishing” for stories — can never be justified. Plying people with drinks or encouraging them to commit acts of mischief is not investigative journalism.

Entrapment may delight readers or viewers and bring in revenue for cash-starved networks, but when the details come to light they damage public trust.

Deceptive journalism is not harmful practice per se, providing that those taking part understand they must be able to explain their actions. Deception can only be justified if it is genuinely aimed at exposing corruption and the people who practice it.

In 2007, The Observer, and German TV network WDR went undercover to film the hardships faced by young workers in New Delhi where unscrupulous subcontractors practically enslaved children, working in Gap clothing factories.

Many stories like this could not be told without an element of deceit on the part of journalists. But good investigators understand that subterfuge is never entered into lightly — all journalists and their media must be ready to justify their actions.

They must have a strategy for disclosure to the public and all parties involved, and must remain dedicated to the principle of honest dealing.

Privacy rules are an important check on the use of power because they ensure that people are free to exercise some control over their own personal information.

• People have the right to know, and to correct, information which is being kept about them,
• People have the right to know what is happening to their personal information when they are cooperating with a business and to make decisions about how it is used,
• And in a democracy, people have the right and the obligation to hold their government and the private sector to the highest standards of care with the information they gather.

Journalists and media need to face up to the challenge in distinguishing what is private and what is not. This means they must consider what people outside the newsroom will tolerate as information about people’s lives that is reasonable to make public.

In all cases where privacy is in danger of violation, a journalist should be considering the nature of someone’s place in society, their reputation, and their position in public life.

Do they have status because of their public position — such as that enjoyed by politicians, judges, and others in elected office who exercise power and who, for reasons of democracy and accountability, suffer a loss of privacy?

Do they have the status of celebrity, as film stars, pop singers, sporting icons, or business leaders, many of whom invite publicity and rely on it for their continued success and, in the process forfeit their right to privacy?

There will always be tension between privacy and media, certainly in the context of celebrities. Journalists must be transparent in balancing privacy and the need for legitimate disclosure.

In the UK, the National Union of Journalists Ethics Code says the following about privacy: “Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.”

It is that last consideration, ‘what constitutes the public interest?’ which defines the rights of journalists to ask questions, file stories and make fair comment about individuals.

Going into the war zone, requires journalists to make a clear ethical choice about how they intend to do their work.

Maintaining independence and working outside the protective arm of the military carries additional risks, which is why journalists should prepare themselves diligently for the task.

Regrettably, many journalists head to war ill-prepared for the challenge. Many have little or no hostile environment training and are unaware of the conditions they can expect to face or of their legal rights and responsibilities.

Few journalists, for instance, are aware that international law governing armed conflict, recognises that reporters play a special role in times of war.

The Geneva Conventions offer special protections to journalists and media staff. All combatants, whether engaged in full-blown shooting wars, civil strife or lowlevel territorial disputes, should be reminded of it.

The link between safety and ethics may not be immediately obvious, but the same factors that pressure inexperience and poorly prepared freelancers to enter battle zones, also encourage journalists to present the news the way their paymasters want to hear it.

The news becomes what sells best, and certainly at the start of a conflict, accounts of the horrors of war and pictures of dead soldiers are not what television executives want to air.

Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff should be read by all journalists who want to prepare to report from in conflict.

Other Resources:

Ethical Reporting on People Affected by Trauma: A teaching DVD, from the DART Center, for working journalists and students to learn ethical, sensitive and accurate reporting of victims and survivors of trauma. Families, struck by real life tragedy, tell us in their words how best to ethically treat survivors who become the focus of media attention.

James Rodgers: Former BBC correspondent, speaks to the Ethical Journalism Network about ethically reporting in conflict.

The BBC Academy has produced several articles and resources on ethical reporting in conflict. Click here.

There are many complaints that media coverage of religious affairs is unbalanced and unfair.

Recent research confirms that news coverage of the attacks on the World Trade Centre still contributes to a distorted media image of Islam as associated with terrorism.

For example almost half of all statements about Islam have been negative in the American ABC, CBS and NBC network news.

Journalists need to navigate with care around racism and extremism to avoid stirring up intolerance, and to report fairly the mosaic of languages, religion, cultures and different historical perspectives that shape modern society. It is an issue at the heart of the Ethical Journalism Initiative.

In Europe, the Middle East and Asia regional conflicts based upon communities divided by language, religion or ethnicity provide the backdrop for a news agenda dominated by images of violence and apparently senseless confrontation.

The need for journalism to provide balanced, inclusive and informed coverage has never been tougher or more important.

Resources:

Centre for Religious Literacy in Journalism: http://www.lapidomedia.com

Caroline Wyatt, BBC, talks about the ethics of being a religious affairs correspondent: https://player.vimeo.com/video/154183034

No matter what the platform, the primary mission of journalism is to provide information that gives meaning and context to the events that shape our lives, our communities, our world.

In doing so, we hold powerful interests accountable and remain true to our mission of public service through fair and accurate reporting. But in an age in which new forms of communication are emerging, we must adapt and grow to meet this challenge if we are to remain relevant.

Our journalistic mission carries with it the responsibility to reach audiences in formats that extend beyond the printed word. We must capitalize on emerging technologies to provide an even deeper news experience through multimedia and interactivity.

We must embrace the fact that the public wants to choose the ways in which they are informed and to sculpt the conversations of the day. By failing to accept this new reality, we run the risk of losing our credibility and vital role in creating an informed populace.

In a world with multiple sources of information, much of it indistinguishable one from another, credibility is our most precious asset. Credibility is earned over time by continually delivering on promises of accuracy, transparency and fairness. (Source: Poynter)

It is more than 40 years since laws began to be introduced penalising discrimination against women and providing for the allocation of basic political and social rights, equal pay and employment rights.

But prejudices do not disappear at the dictate of lawmakers, and battles for equality are still being fought in every country.

The fact that television, film and popular magazines and the online world continue to provide images of women that are outdated and unfair is an indication of economic interests as well as age-old customs at work.

Gender is often put to the margins when the time comes to establish priorities for work. One of the problems is that equality is a continuing campaign.

It is not likely to be achieved any time soon anywhere, but it will not be achieved at all unless journalists and their unions are conscious of the importance of bringing the question into the mainstream of their affairs.

Despite advances in national legislation, unions became distracted by other issues in recent years and took their foot off the accelerator, slowing the process of social change.

As a result, the crisis of discrimination, both within media content and in media operations, continues to undermine journalistic standards and sap the confidence of women working in the industry.