United Arab Emirates Newspapers Violate Codes of Ethics

Newspapers of UAE in Abu Dhabi continue to publish police provided pictures of defendants in a case that has not yet reached the court. This means that there has been no final verdict. The code in violation is that the newspapers do have to give the public the right to information, but they have to do it responsibly. The code bans the publishing of names and pictures of suspects before a final court ruling. The article states that the editors-in-chief have signed the code of ethics of most papers, meaning that the newspapers are aware and agreed with the code.

The newspaper that published the pictures is in complete violation of the code of ethics. This can be an issue for the Journalists Association if they provide a code and people sign it and do not really take it seriously. What is the point of the codes is they are not followed? The newspaper should retract the pictures or issue some kind of apology. This leaves a bad example to the trustworthiness of the media if this goes unpunished. The editors signed the code of ethics and this should mean that they fully adopt all the rules and should be aware of them. The pictures may bee good for the public to know but if they defendants are proven innocent, the public may still criticism them and see them as criminals. The reputation of the defendant could be falsely ruined by this newspaper. The bottom line was that the newspaper was aware of the codes and deliberately violated one of them. It is good that another journalist recognized the issue and brought it to attention.

Newspapers 'violating code of ethics'

In Inquiry, ABC News Clears Work of a Fired Consultant

By BRIAN STELTER

Published: October 23, 2007

ABC News said yesterday that it had ended an investigation into a consultant whom it fired for falsifying his résumé and concluded that the reporting he had contributed to the network was sound.

In response to the incident, ABC will make changes to its system of hiring consultants, reviewing claims of prior employment and academic credentials more thoroughly, David L. Westin, the president of ABC News, wrote in a memorandum yesterday. Also, the network's news practices unit will be involved in all hiring decisions and reporting situations involving consultants, he wrote.


The changes stem from the case of Alexis Debat, a terrorism analyst who had been on the payroll of ABC as a consultant since 2001. Mr. Debat was suspended in May and fired in June after questions were raised about the legitimacy of his résumé; the network determined at the time that his claim of having earned a doctorate at the Sorbonne was false.

Three months later, after a French news Web site reported that an interview Mr. Debat had purportedly conducted with Senator Barack Obama was not authentic, ABC began a second review, combing through the news reports in which Mr. Debat had played a role to see if they contained any falsehoods. That investigation found no instances of false reporting, ABC said, but did uncover four details about operations and meetings in Pakistan that could not be confirmed.

''None of these discrepancies would rise to the level of a formal, on-air retraction because none of them was material to the substance of our report,'' Mr. Westin wrote.

ABC, which is part of the Walt Disney Company, and other television news organizations pay dozens of experts to serve as consultants on subjects.

''You're hiring these people not because they are skilled journalists, but precisely because of their subject expertise,'' said Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. ''I think it would seem obvious that a network would verify that the expertise is genuine.''


After reviewing this article, I was extremely appauled. Yes, this genetlemen lied on his resume. Lying should not be accepted and it is ethically wrong. However, he was doing an excellent job as a reporter. After six years of working wuth ABC, now his reporting is a problem? I agree with Rosenstiel, people should get hired by their
subject of expertise. I think it is too late in the game for this reporter. In my opinion, he should not have been fired.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0DB1F38F930A15753C1A9619C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/E/Ethics

Ethics or Not? That is the question!

Response to the ethical questions from Professor Fox

1. As a responsible journalists, one should turn the offer down. However, if the reporter was a critic then this would be a different situation. As a journalist, we have a ethical responsibility to be fair and just. We should not be able to be bought or sold for any price. As a critic, it would be our job to report on the accommodations of a hotel but as a journalists that is not our job.

2. This reporter should reject the free gift or donate it to someone else. They were at the Convention Center to report on the job fair. They were not there to be entered into a raffle. It would not be a smart ethical decision to keep that free gift.

3. As an editor, I would have the advantage of sampling the promotional items. I believe I would have to listen to the music, watch the movies, and even wear a few t-shirts as part of the job. An editor’s position is different than a journalist’s position. As an editor, I have the freedom to report on my opinion and my views.

Journalists Ordered To Reveal Source By High Court

In Ireland last week, the editor of the Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy, and her public affairs correspondent Colm Keena were ordered by the High Court to appear before the Mahon tribunal (also know as The Tribunal of Inquiry Into Certain Planning Matters and Payments) to reveal the identity of a source. The source in question provided information that the Mahon tribunal was investigating payments made to Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern in 1993. The Irish Times ran the story in September of 2006.

The Mahon tribunal sought the help of the High Court after Kennedy and Keena would not comply with their initial request to identify the name of their source. The journalists have been warned that if they do not comply with the courts orders, they will be found in contempt and may face jail time. Kennedy has already been criticized by the court for destroying the documents sent to her regarding payments made to Bertie Ahern.

The National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI) said that the ruling is a threat to the practices of all journalists because protecting one's sources is a central principle of journalism.

I agree with the decision made by Kennedy and Keena to not reveal the name of their source. By deciding to print the article, they made a promise to their source that they would keep their identity a secret. Any trouble that comes from the article is their responsibility now, because they could have easily chosen to disregard the information given to them.

I also don't belive the court should have the authority to force them to reveal the name of their source. There are countless stories printed everyday where sources ask not to be named for fear of punishment by their employers, etc. There would be no news if people had to worry about consequences for revealing information.

The Irish Times

The Boston Globe