The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression

8/11/2019 The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-importance-of-self-regulation-of-the-media-in-upholding-freedom-of-expression 1/21

SERIES

CI DebatesN . 9 – February 201 1

ISSN 21 76 -322 4

The Importance

of Self Regulation

of the Media in upholding

freedom of expression

Co mmunica t io n a nd Inf o rma t io n

Andrew Puddephatt



SERIES

CI DebatesN . 9 – February 2011

ISSN 21 76-3 224

The Importance

of Self Regulation

of the Media in upholding

freedom of expression

Co mmunica t io n a nd Inf o rma t io n

Andrew Puddephatt



© UNESCO 2011

Edit ing: Paulo Selveira

Cover and design : Ed son Fog a ça

The nu mber nine of Deb a te Series CI has been prepared in cooperat ion w ith Ford Fou nd at ion a s part

of t he Project Leg al f ramew ork for communica tions in Brazil : an a na lysis of the system in the ligh t o f

interna tiona l experience.

The a ut ho rs a re responsib le for th e select ion a nd presenta t ion of fa ct s conta ined in these art icles, a s

w ell a s the o pinions expressed in them, w hich are no t necessarily those of UNESCO nor commit the

Org a niza tion . The designa tions employed a nd the presenta tion of m a terial in this pub licat ion d o n o t

imply the expression o f a ny opinion w ha tsoever on the pa rt of UNESCO co ncerning the leg al status of

a ny country, territory, ci ty or area or of its a utho rities, or co ncerning the d elimita tion o f its frontiers

o r b o und aries.

BR/2011/PI/H/4

Brasilia Off iceSA S, Q uadra 5, Bloco H , Lote 6,Ed. C N Pq/IBIC T/U N ESC O , 9º andar70070-912, Brasília, DF, BrasilTel.: (55 61) 2106-3500

Fax: (55 61) 3322-4261E-m ail: grupoeditorial@ un esco.org.br

Office in BrazilPraia do Flam engo, 154 - 8º andar22210-030 - Rio de Janeiro, RJ

ford-rio@ fordfound .orgw w w .fordfoun d.org

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.fordfound.org/

http://www.fordfound.org/





T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Forew ord.....................................................................................................................................................7

Introduction –the im portance of freedom of expression ...............................................................................9

H ow freedom of expression is supported –the U N ESC O fram ew ork.............................................................9

M edia independence –w hat is the role of the state? ..................................................................................10

The m edia as a platform and a social actor.................................................................................................11

W hat is self regulation and its advantages? ................................................................................................12

Journalists codes of conduct.......................................................................................................................12

Editorial independence...............................................................................................................................13

Professional guidelines...............................................................................................................................14

Im plem enting standards.............................................................................................................................14

The G lobal Reporting Initiative....................................................................................................................15

Role of internet as digital platform and im plications for self regulation .......................................................16

C onclusion .................................................................................................................................................16

A bout the author.......................................................................................................................................18

A ppendix...................................................................................................................................................19



7

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

F O R E W O R D

The freedom of expression is a pivotal com ponent

of our individual developm ent –as hum an beings

and as “political anim als” –and to im prove and

radicalize dem ocracies.

The invention of the press therefore constitutes

the turning point for the debates about freedom

of expression. G uaranteeing each individual's right

to freely seek, receive or im part inform ation w hile

interacting w ith other individuals ceased to be

enough. It w as necessary to go beyond, upholding

this right allied by an interm ediary that radically

m agnified the outreach of opinions, inform ation and

ideas: the m ass m edia.U nder this perspective, m any foundational pillars

of the contem po rary debate on h um an rights

(the G lorious, A m erican and French Revolutions;

the w ritings of John M ilton, A lexis of Tocqueville

an d John Stuart M ill, am ong o thers) dedicated

substantial attention to freedom of expression and

its links to the m ass m edia.

The idea of a free, independent, plural, and

diversified m edia has becom e the ideal to be

achieved in order to fully ensure the right to seek,receive and im part inform ation. Finding the

appropriate form at for State participation in this

equation of fostering m edia system s endow ed w ith

these characteristics have quickly constituted one of

the m ost relevant pieces of the puzzle.

This challenge becam e particularly com plex w hen

broadcasting took over the system 's leading role

in the beginning of the 20th C entury. The possible

hypothesis that each legitim ate interest from the

different social groups m ight have been voiced in

their ow n new spapers did not prove to be true in

relation to television and radio. The electrom agnetic

spectrum is a finite public resource and needs to

be reg ulated, at least as far as freq uen cies are

concerned.

Therefore, m edia regulation started its developm ent

hand in hand w ith gu aranteeing, prom oting ,

and protecting freedom of expression. In fact, the

ultim ate goal for regulating m edia should be to

protect and deepen this fundam ental right.

For this reason, the m ost im portant international

instrum ents on hum an rights (the U nited N ations

C harter; the U niversal D eclaration of H um an Rights;

the International C ovenant on C ivil an d PoliticalRights; the C onventions on the Rights of the C hild,

on the Protection and Prom otion of D iversity and

C ultural Expressions, on the Elim ination of A ll Form s

of Racial D iscrim ination, and on the Rights of

Persons w ith D isabilities) address to the m atter

in different perspectives. The sam e holds true for

regional hum an rights instrum ents and for legal

instrum ents of the w orld's m ost consolidated and

longevous dem ocracies.

The internal “division of labor” of the U nitedN ations System has delegated to U N ESC O the

responsibility of w orking through international

cooperation to guarantee that freedom of expression

is effectively ensured through a free, plural,

independent and diversified m edia system , am ong

others. To fulfill this m andate the O rganization has

availed itself of different strategies. O ne of the m ost

recent and com prehensive ones is the delivery of a

set of indicators to assess m edia developm ent in

various nations (See:Media Development Indicators:

a framew ork f or assessing media development ).



8

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

In light of the elem ents proposed by the Media

Development Indicators , U N ESC O in Brazil, in

partnership w ith Ford Foundation, decided to offer

a high-level technical contribution to the discussion

that Brazilian society has to a greater or lesser extent

been w aging over its m edia system , at least since itsC onstituent A ssem bly. A m ong the highlights over

the last years’discussions are: the final form at of

the Social C om m unication C hapter in the Brazilian

C onstitution, regulation of the articles in the C hild

and A dolescent Statute on relations betw een

children and the m edia, the creation of the Social

C om m unication C ouncil, the opening of the sector

to foreign capital, the cancelling of the Press Law , the

definition of digital television as w ell as paid

audiovisual services m odel, and a new regulatory

fram ew ork for com m unication.

In this sense, w e offer to the key players involved

in building the different aspects of a regulatory policy

for the m edia sector a three-article-series of studies

that m ay be useful to decision-m aking processes,

w hich w ill need to be taking place in the com ing years.

Upon request to UNESC O international consultants

Toby M endel and Eve Salom on, w ho have together

w orked on sim ilar issues in m ore than 60 countries,

have signed tw o texts of this series:

1.The Regulatory Environment for Broadcasting:

an International Best Practice Survey for Brazilian

Stakeholders . The autho rs discuss how m edia

regulation is addressed in the international arena

and in 1 0 dem ocracies (C anada, C hile, France,

G erm any, Jam aica, M alaysia, South A frica, Thailand,

U nited Kingdom and U nite States) as com pared to

the Brazilian status quo. To do so they build upon

the follow ing central axes: Independent Regulatory

A uthorities, C oncessions, C ontent Regulation and

Self-regulation, Public Broadcasters, C om m unity

Broadcasters and O w nership regulation. A ftereach them atic session, they have discussed m ajor

recom m endations for the Brazilian case.

2. Freedom of Expression and Broadcasting

Regulation defends that regulatory policy m ust focus

on strengthening freedom of expression.

In addition, the U N ESC O international consultant

A ndrew Puddephatt w eaves a discussion on The

Im portance of Self Regulation of the M edia in

U pholding Freedom of Expression. It is this article

that our esteem ed readers hold in hands.

Finally, w e w ould like to highlight that a particular

discussion about internet regulation w as not

included in these studies. This is an ongoing debate

for the U N System ; therefore regulatory international

standards are not clearly defined. H ow ever, w e

believe that the general principles of freedom of

expression, of a transparent and independent

regulatory policy and of a fully protection of hum an

rights should also be a central com ponent of the

debate about internet.

W e hope the three above m entioned articles w ill

provide an effective reference tool to support the

ongoing debate on the m atter in the Brazilian public

sphere.

Enjoy your reading!



The Importance of Self Regulation of theMedia in upholding freedom of expression

Andrew Puddephatt

1.Development as Freedom , A m artya Sen, O U P 1999.

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

9

Introduct ion – the importa nceof f reedom of expression

Freedom of expression has long been regarded as

a fundam ental right, one w hich is im portant in itself

and also helps to defend other rights and freedom s.

There are three reasons w hy freedom of expression is

so crucial. Firstly it is a hum an need to be ourselves

and have our ow n identity, and the ability to express

ourselves in w ords, m usic, dance or any other form

of expression is cen tral to the realisation of our

hum anity. Secondly it is a foundation for other rights

and freedom s as w ithout freedom of expression it is

not possible to organise, inform , alert, or m obilise in

defence of hum an rights. Thirdly, as Am artya Sen has

persuasively argued it’s the pre condition of social and

econom ic developm ent as transparent and open

com m unications are necessary to ensure econom ic

and social developm ent that benefits everyone1.

The im portance of the right to freedom of

expression is reflected by its w idespread protection

in international law at the global and regional level.

The right is protected in all significant international

and regional hum an rights treaties, including A rticle

19 of the U niversal D eclaration of H um an Rights

(U D H R) and A rticle 19 of the International C ovenant

on C ivil and Political Rights (IC CPR). It is also protected

in regional treaties: by A rticle 13 of the A m erican

C onvention on H um an Rights; by A rticle 9 of the

A frican C harter (elaborated by a specific declaration

agreed in O ctober 2002); and A rticle 11 of the

European C onvention on H um an Rights (EC H R). Itssignificance is uncontested.

If it is to be fully realized, how ever, freedom of

expression requires a public dim ension—a m eans of

com m unication—in order to facilitate the exchange

of opinions, ideas and inform ation. It follow s that free

expression activists have focused a great deal of

attention on the structure and regulation of the

m edia environm ent, for it is these that provide the

principal platform s for public expression, from books

and new spapers to the broadcast m edia.

How freedom of expression issupported – t he UNESCO framew ork

Free expression has alw ays required a m eans of

com m unication to be effective, otherw ise com m unication

is confined to those w e can im m ediately speak w ith.

A m egaphone goes farther than a hum an voice, a

radio transm itter even further. These platform s have

changed over the centuries, from w all paintings

to print, through radio to analogue television. This

m eans that the m edia m ust have the freedom to

provide the m eans of inform ation exchange, debate

and opinion that is necessary to enable us to realise

our freedom of expression in the fullest sense. It is

inevitable therefore that free expression activists have

alw ays concerned them selves w ith the operations

of the m edia and its ability to function free from

repression and governm ent control.

M uch attention has been paid to the norm s and

standards that freedom of expression requires in the



10

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

traditional m edia w orld. The consensus is that a

m edia environm ent capable of supporting free

expression w ill have a num ber of characteristics: it

w ill be a diverse m edia environm ent, part public, part

private and part com m unity; a plurality of different

m edia outlets; and a system that is broadly self-regulating w ith the exception of broadcast m edia

(w here spectrum has been lim ited and a regulatory

body allocates bandw idth). M edia professional w ill

have sufficient training to understand and im plem ent

the dem ands of their profession and there w ill be

adequate access to the m eans of the com m unication

for people as a w hole. This fram ew ork is elaborated

in detail in U N ESC O’s M edia D evelopm ent Indicators2

adopted by U N ESC O in 2008. The analysis sets out

five m ajor categories of indicators that can be used

to analyse the m edia developm ent of a country.

Each category is broken dow n into a num ber of

com ponent issues w hich in turn contain a series of

broad indicators.

Med ia independence – w ha t is the

role of t he sta te?

In the past m any advocates have argued for

m inim al state interferen ce in the m ed ia as the

necessary condition for a m edia environm ent that

can support dem ocracy. This argum ent has particularcurrency in the U nited States w ith its First Am endm ent

statem ent that “C ongress shall m ake no law …

abridging freedom of speech or the press...”3 O thers,

including U N ESC O have argued that the construction

of a m od ern m edia en viron m ent capable o f

supporting dem ocracy and good governance m ay

require a proactive role by the state –in providing

infrastructure, funding a public broadcaster, ensuring

the right kind of regulatory environm ent. N orris and

Zinnbauer4 argue that independent journalism , as a

potential check on the abuse of pow er, is a necessary

but not sufficient m eans of strengthening good

governance and prom oting hum an developm ent.

They suggest that these goals are achieved m ost

effectively under tw o further conditions. Firstly, in

societies w here channels of m ass com m unications are

free and independent of established interests; and

secondly, w here there is w idespread access to these

m edia. Both of these m ay require som e action by

the state.

U N ESC O ’s approach takes as its starting point

that any attem pt to m easure m edia developm entm ust em brace issues of both independence and

access as w ell as the absence of restrictions on the

m edia. W hat m atters is the extent to w hich all

sectors of society, especially those w ho are m ost

disadvantag ed or m arginalised, can access the

m edia to gain inform ation and m ake their voices

heard. Lim ited access to –or lack of engagem ent

w ith –the m edia is a function of poverty and poor

education. It m ay also be caused or exacerbated

by language, gender, age, ethnicity or the urban-

rural divide. W hatever the cause, it contributes to

an environ m ent that can un derm ine dem ocratic

developm ent.

H ow ever, the absence of state intervention on its

ow n is no guarantee of a rich m edia environm ent.

O n the contrary: to prom ote a m edia environm ent

characterised by pluralism and diversity, state

intervention is necessary. To guarantee pluralism

requires provisions for public broadcasting, com m ercial

broadcast and print m edia and com m unity-based

broadcast and print m edia. A s w ell as investm entin hum an resources, specifically in building the

professional capacity of m edia w orkers, both

journalists and m edia m anagers, through academ ic

and vocational training, ‘on-the-job’developm ent

and the developm ent of professional associations.

Infrastructure capacity is also crucial: prom oting

a diverse m edia environm ent requires m oney to

flow into supporting the m eans of com m unication,

including broadcast reception quality, the provision of

electricity supplies and access to telephones and theInternet, all of w hich m ay require state support. In

m any parts of the w orld there is little or no access to

the m eans of com m unication –in such environm ents,

form al freedom s m ean little.

To en sure m edia pluralism m ay require the

application of com petition law by the state to prevent

2.http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-U RL_ID =26032& U RL_D O =D O _TO PIC & U RL_SEC TIO N =201.htm l

3.http://w w w .law .cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htm l

4.N orris, Pippa and Dieter Zinnbauer (2002),Giving Voice to t he Voiceless: Good Governance, Human Development & Mass Communications,

UNDP Human Development Report Office (available at: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/background_papers/2002/N orris-Zinnbauer_2002.pdf)

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26032&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/background_papers/2002/Norris-Zinnbauer_2002.pdf




http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=26032&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html



m onopoly. In the past m any countries have sought

to prohibit a com pany from occupying a dom inant

a m arket share or cross m edia ow nership (w here a

com pany o w ns new spapers, television and radio

stations). This can be necessary to ensure freedom

of expression.In addition w here bandw idth –analogue spectrum

for the m ost part –it is accepted that there needs to

be a state m echanism to allocate that bandw idth.

“The m ain justification argued by governm ents

is that broadcasting uses spectrum , and spectrum

is a public resource, allocated to nations in ac-

cordance w ith com plex international agreem ents.

A s such, it is a scarce resource: there is only so

m uch spectrum available for broadcasting use in

each country. A nd therefore, because it is a

scarce resource, it is valuable. ... It is therefore

reasonable for the State, as the ow ner of spec-

trum , to place obligations on broadcasters w ho

use that resource.”5

Finally m any countries accept that w ere one form

of m edia is overw helm ingly pow erful and influential

in a dem ocracy the state m ay have a role in requiring

this dom inant m edia to display a degree of balance

in reporting. In the case of public service m edia

this requirem ent is particularly im portant to avoid

accusations of governm ent or factional political

control of the m edia6.

The other circum stances w here the state plays a

role, through its judicial arm , is in the regulation of

content in certain lim ited circum stances. Freedom of

expression is not an absolute right and it can be

restricted to protect the rights of others for exam ple

by prohibiting speech that incites violence or hatred

against a particular racial group; to protect children

from sexual exploitation or to protect the reputation

of individuals from false accusations. The accepted

practice is for such restrictions to be narrow ly defined

and only applied by the courts w here there is a clear

public interest in so doing.

The med ia a s a platfo rm a nd

a social acto r

W ith these exceptions how ever, the consensus is

that the state should stay out of regulating m edia

because of its im portance in supporting the hum an

right to freedom of expression. M edia outlets are

crucial to the exercise of freedom of expression

because they provide the public platform through

w hich this right is effectively exercised 7. The idea of

m edia as a platform for dem ocratic debate em braces

a w ide variety of overlapping m edia functions. M edia

outlets are channels through w hich citizens can

com m unicate w ith each other, acting as a facilitator

of inform ed debate betw een diverse social actors,

encouraging the non-violent resolution of disputes.

The m edia dissem inates stories, ideas and inform ation

and acts as a corrective to the “natural asym m etry of

inform ation”8 betw een governors and governed, and

betw een com peting private agents. The m edia can

also function as a w atchdog, prom oting governm ent

transparency and public scrutiny of those w ith pow er

through exposing corruption, m aladm inistration

and corporate w rongdoing, and thereby be a tool

to enhance econom ic efficiency. The m edia can be a

national voice, a m eans by w hich a society or a

country can learn about itself and build a sense of

com m unity and of shared values, a vehicle for cultural

expression and cultural cohesion w ithin nation states.

H ow ever the m edia m ay potentially fulfil any or

all of these functions, or none of them . In som e

contexts, the m edia m ay serve to reinforce the pow er

of vested interests and exacerbate social inequalities

by excluding critical or m arginalised voices. In m ore

11

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

5. U N ESC O , G uidelines for Broadcast Regulation, 2nd edition, w ritten by Eve Salom on (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/im ages/0018/001832/

183285e.pdf)

6. ibid

7. W hat follow s is a synthesis of various reports on the m edia and dem ocratic developm ent, including: A rticle 19 (2004),Freedom of

Expression and t he M edia , w ritten for the British C ouncil (w w w .britishcouncil.org/governance-foe-booklet.doc); Islam , Roum een

(2002), ‘Into the Looking G lass: w hat the m edia tell and w hy' in The Righ t to Tell: The Role of M ass Media in Economic Developm ent ,

W ashington, DC: The W orld Bank Institute (http://w w w -w ds.w orldbank.org/external/default/m ain?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&the-

SitePK=523679& m enuPK=64187510& searchM enuPK=64187283& siteNam e=W D S&entityID =000094946_02111404075733); G lobal

Forum for M edia D evelopm ent (2006); N orris Pippa and D ieter Zinnbauer (2002); U N ESC O -C entre for Peace and H um an Security,

Sciences Po -Paris (2006),Press Freedom and Poverty: an analysis of t he correlations betw een the freedom of the press and various

aspects of human security, poverty and governance , U N ESC O -C PH S Research Project, prepared by Anne-Sophie Novel (http://gem .scien-

ces-po.fr/content/publications/pdf/novel_pressfreedom _poverty__150606.pdf).8. Islam , Roum een (2002), 'Into the Looking G lass: w hat the m edia tell and w hy' in The Right to Tell: The Role of Mass Media in Economic

Development , W ashington, D C : The W orld Bank Institute (available at: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:XU O fPO iFZvUJ:

w w w .w orldbank.org/w bi/RighttoTell/righttotellO verview .pdf+right+to+ tell& hl=en& gl=uk& ct=clnk& cd= 1)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183285e.pdf


http://www.britishcouncil.org/governance-foe-booklet.doc

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&the-SitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187283&siteNa


http://gem.scien-ces-po.fr/content/publications/pdf/novel_pressfreedom_poverty__150606.pdf



http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:XUOfPOiFZvUJ:

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/RighttoTell/righttotellOverview.pdf+right+to+tell&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/RighttoTell/righttotellOverview.pdf+right+to+tell&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:XUOfPOiFZvUJ:






http://www.britishcouncil.org/governance-foe-booklet.doc





12

established dem ocracies, the role o f the m edia

has com e under attack from those w ho believe it is

underm ining dem ocracy through the trivial, anta-

gonistic and personalized nature of its coverage9.

A t its m ost extrem e, the m edia can prom ote conflict

and social divisiveness, particularly in a non-pluralisticm edia environm ent10.

W e think of the m edia as a place in w hich

journalists con vey ideas, inform ation an d stories

to the listener, view er or reader. If the view s they

present are representative of society as a w hole then

they are fulfilling our individual hum an rights, as

readers/consum ers, to freedom of expression. But this

representation is only part of w hat they do. The other

elem ent is their ow n view s and interests as journalists.

The m edia, in reporting events, creates a socialenvironm ent in w hich parties to the various debates

in society, including the journalists them selves

represent their ow n view s. The m edia thus becom es

an actor w hen it takes an editorial position, or w hen

the broadcast m edia focus on certain issues or take

a particular perspective. The idea that the journalist

sits outside of the events they are covering, sim ply

representing our rights to freedom of expression is

only part of the picture.

M edia constitute a space in w hich the debates

and issues of a society can be articulated but are

inevitably them selves actors in that conflict. To use

sociological term s the m edia are both structure and

agency. Policy m akers tend to focus on the m edia’s

role in constituting the public sphere of society –how

that can be fostered and nurtured in a w ay as to

perm it the expression of the fullest range of view s. By

public sphere is m eant that range of com m unication

outlets and m edia w hich enable a society to view the

representations of itself. To function properly a public

sphere m ust have free flow ing access to inform ation,

and enable the view s of ordinary citizens to be heard.

In the w ords of Jurgen H aberm as it is “a discursive

arena that is hom e to citizen debate, deliberation,

agreem ent and action”11. But it is also im portant to

understand the role of the m edia as a social actor in

itself, a partisan participant in the very debates that

in covers, shaping them by com m ission or om ission.

If the state has no role in requiring the m edia to act

in a responsible m anner in the coverage of events, to

ensure that it does not abuse the pow er it carries as

a structure by exploiting its role as an agency, how is

the m edia’s ow n accountability to be achieved? The

answ er has been self regulation. This is particularly

im portant in countries w here the m edia are linked toprom inent business interests of political parties.

What is self regulat ion a nd it s

a dvantages?

W hat do w e m ean by self regulation ? Self

regulation is com bination of standards setting out

the appropriate codes of behaviour for the m edia

that are necessary to support freedom of expression,

and processhow those behaviours w ill be m onitored

or held to account. The benefits of self regulation

are w ell reh earsed. Self reg ulation preserves

independence of the m edia and protects it from

partisan governm ent interference. It could be m ore

efficient as a system of regulation as the m edia

understand their ow n environm ent better than

governm ent (though they m ay use that know ledge

to further their ow n com m ercial interests rather

than the public interest). A s the m edia environm ent

becom es global (through the developm ent of the

internet and digital platform s) and questions of

jurisdiction becom e m ore com plex then selfregulation can fill the resulting gap. It is less costly

to governm ent because industry bears the cost and

can be m ore flexible than governm ent regulation. Self

regulation m ay also encourage greater com pliance

because of peer pressure (although there is also

evidence that regulation or the threat of regulation is

m ore likely to secure com pliance). Self regulation can

also drive up professional standards by requiring

organisations to think about and even develop their

ow n standards of behaviour.

Journalists codes of co nduct

For m any years self regulation w as deem ed to

be the professional responsibility of journalists

them selves and a variety of attem pts have taken

place to codify the responsibility of journalists,

often through the m edium of their professional

associations. W hile various existing codes have som e

differences, m ost share com m on elem ents including

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

9. Lloyd, John (2004) “W hat the M edia is doing to our politics”Constable.

10. Thom pson, M ark (1999) “Forging W ar: The M edia in Serbia, C roatia, Bosnia, and H erzegovina”London: U niversity of Luton press.

11.Villa, D ana R. "Postm odernism and the Public Sphere." A m erican Political Science Review , Vol. 86, No. 3 (Septem ber 1992).



the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity,

im partiality, fairness. The earliest attem pts to draft a

code of ethics seem to be the C ode of Journalistic

Ethics adopted by the first Pan-A m erican Press

C onference held in W ashing ton in 1926. It w as

adopted as policy by the Inter-A m erican PressA ssociation at a conference held in N ew York in

O ctober 1950.

The first International Federation of Journalists,

established in 1926 but dissolved after the Second

W orld W ar, took various steps aim ed at self-regulation

by the profession, including the establishm ent of

an International C ourt of H onour in The H ague in

1931 and the adoption of a professional code of

honour in 1939. Refounded in 1952, it developed a

professional ethical code for journalists and adopted

a declaration of journalists’duties in 1954, at its

Second C ongress12. Subsequently six journalists’

trade unions of the European C om m unity adopted

a D eclaration of D uties an d Rights of Journalists

in N ovem ber 197113. A range of national m edia

institutions have developed their ow n codes of

conduct, for exam ple the Sw iss Press C ouncil14.

These codes tend to focus upon certain accepted

principles –a respect for truth and for the right of

the public to truth; the right to fair com m ent and

criticism ; factual and objective reporting; the use offair m ethods to obtain inform ation; the w illingness to

correct m istakes; respecting the confidentiality of

sources. These draw upon w hat is usually regarded as

the essential elem ents of journalism –for exam ple as

sketched out by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel15

w hich they define as:

•Journalism ’s first obligation is to the truth.

•Its first loyalty is to the citizens.

•Its essence is discipline of verification.

•Its practitioners m ust m aintain an independence

from those they cover.•It m ust serve as an independent m onitor of pow er.

•It m ust provide a forum for public criticism and

com prom ise.

•It m ust strive to m ake the new s significant,

interesting, and relevant.

•It m ust keep the new s com prehensive and

proportional.

•Its practitioners m ust be allow ed to exercise their

personal conscience.

The lim itation of codes of conduct is that they are

difficult to uphold. They are essentially professionalcodes adopted voluntarily by journalists but w ithout

sanction if breached . It w ould be possible for a

journalist association to expel a m em ber w ho

consciously breached such a code but that w ould not

necessarily prohibit them from w orking as journalists.

M oreover journalists often have little pow er w ithin

their organisations. D ecisions about w hat stories

to cover, how m uch budget is allocated to each story,

w hat prom inence is given are usually m ade by

editors or senior m anagers. M edia ow ners can use

their pow er to influence how new s is reported and

published and shape the priorities of the m edia

organisation. In such circum stances a journalist code

of ethics w ill be relatively pow erless.

Ed ito ria l independence

A longside journalists codes of ethics therefore it is

helpful to have guarantees of editorial independence

so that the journalist are able to operate free of direct

control of the com m ercial interests of the ow ners.

Editorial independence is taken to m ean the right

of journalists to decide w hat to cover, how to cover

it and w here to place the story in a new spaper,

m agazine or broadcast, regardless of the view s of the

ow ners. In m ost countries editorial independence is

undefined in that there are relatively few form al codes

specifying w hat it m ight m ean. A notable exception

is the agreem ent betw een the then National Association

of N orw egian N ew spapers (now the N orw egian

M edia Businesses’A ssociation) and the A ssociation

of N orw egian Editors. They adopted a declaration on

the rights and duties of the editors in 1953, w hich isknow n in N orw ay as the Redaktørplakaten or Editors’

Code16. This code includes the follow ing:

“The editor shall prom ote the freedom of opinion

and in accordance w ith the best of his/her abilities

and strive for w hat he/she feels serves society.

13

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

12.See A ppendix for the text of the code.

13.http://w w w .rjionline.org/m as/code-of-ethics/journalists-union-declaration

14.http://ethicnet.uta.fi/sw itzerland/declaration_of_the_duties_and_rights_of_a_journalist.

15.Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (A pril 24, 2007). "The Elem ents of Journalism ; W hat N ew speople Should Know and the Public Should

Expect, C om pletely Updated and Revised". journalism .org. Retrieved 18 O ctober 2010.16.http://w w w .inform aw orld.com /sm pp/content~db=all~content=a788048456~frm =titlelink

http://www.rjionline.org/mas/code-of-ethics/journalists-union-declaration

http://ethicnet.uta.fi/switzerland/declaration_of_the_duties_and_rights_of_a_journalist

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788048456~frm=titlelink

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a788048456~frm=titlelink

http://ethicnet.uta.fi/switzerland/declaration_of_the_duties_and_rights_of_a_journalist

http://www.rjionline.org/mas/code-of-ethics/journalists-union-declaration



14

Through his/her paper the editor shall prom ote

an im partial and free exchange of inform ation

and opinion.”

It also assum es that the editor is legally responsible

for the content of the m edia they edit. A lthough this

w as a voluntary agreem ent in recent years there hasbeen an attem pt to m ake it legally binding.

O ther codes of editorial independence, such

as the IFJ’s non binding code specify that editorial

independence includes the right of the editorial council

to be consulted on decisions, personnel policies,

the right of the journalist to refuse an assignm ent if

the assignm ent proves to breach journalists professional

ethics, the right to define editorial policy and content

of the paper/broadcasting station.

Professional g uidelines

A third elem ent of professional self regulation

is the professional guidelines adopted by m edia

organisations as a m atter of editorial policy. Perhaps

the best exam ple of this is the various guidelines

adopted by the BBC w hich are m eant to govern its

output. The overarching fram ew ork of the BBC

guidelines is a statem ent of values17:

“W e m ust therefore balance our presum ption

of freedom of expression w ith our responsibilities,

for exam ple to respect privacy, to be fair, to avoidunjustifiable offence and to provide appropriate

protection for our audiences from harm ”

There is a conscious balance here betw een

freedom and responsibility, a recognition that the

freedom of the m edia to operate independently

of governm ent control, has to sit alongside som e

responsibilities in the exercise of that freedom . There

are detailed guidelines that cover issues such as

accuracy, fairness, im partiality, privacy, the avoidance

of harm , the responsibilities of the m edia duringelections, conflicts of interest and the coverage of

sensitive issues such as conflict, young people,

religion, crim e and sexuality.

In the private sector the G uardian’s editorial code

states that its purpose is “to protect and foster the

bond of trust betw een the G uardian and its readers”.

The code is voluntary and does not form part of the

term s and conditions of the journalists –rather it is

m eant to define the culture of journalism at the

paper. The code covers professional practice and

issues such as conflicts of interest. How ever, adherence

to the Press Com plaints Com m ission C ode of Practice

(see below ) is w ritten into the term s of em ploym ent

of journalists at the G uardian.A nother exam ple of voluntary guidelines is that

draw n up by the N G O A rticle 19 w hich produced a

set of guidelines to govern election broad casting

particularly aim ed at em erging tran sitional

dem ocracies18.

Implementing sta nd a rd s

There are three interlocking aspects to

professional self regulation w hich reinforce each

other and w hich form a com prehensive approach to

professional self regulation:

•Journalists’codes of ethics

•Standards that ensure editorial independence

•M edia organisations ow n guidelines on the

coverage of events

•Inevitably this brings up questions of process –

how are these self adopted codes upheld –do they

rely solely upon the pow er of m oral exhortation

or can they be given force in som e w ay.

In m any sectors of com m ercial life, self regulationis entrusted to a body of industry professionals to

adm inister. Inside a m edia organisation the classic

approach is to have a m edia O m budsm an –em ployed

by the m edia com pany to receive and investigate

com plaints from new spaper readers or listeners or

view ers of radio and television stations about

accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in new s

coverage. They can recom m end appropriate rem edies

or responses to correct or clarify new s reports. O ne

of the earliest exam ples of such a position w as theA sahiShim bun new spaper in Tokyo w hich set up a

com m ittee in 1922 to receive and investigate reader

com plaints. The first new spaper om bu dsm an in

the U .S. w as appointed by the C ourier-Journal and

The Louisville Tim es in June 1967. N ew s om budsm en

today are found throughout N orth and South

A m erica, Europe, and parts of the M iddle East and

A sia. The O m budsm an of the G uardian new spaper in

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

17.http://w w w .bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-introduction/18.http://w w w .article19.org/pdfs/tools/electionbroadcastingtrans.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-introduction

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/tools/electionbroadcastingtrans.pdf

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/tools/electionbroadcastingtrans.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-introduction



the U K publishes a regular list of corrections and

clarifications that respond to com plaints upon

coverage in the new spaper and also has the pow er

to adjudicate m ore serious com plaints and change

the editorial policy19.

C om plaints m echanism can also be set up at theindustry level, com plem enting the process w ithin

the m edia organisation. M any countries have press

or m edia councils representing the m edia industry

and established w ith the aim of both defending their

interests and im proving professional standards. In the

U K, the governm ent threatened to regulate the

m edia’s conduct after several high profile abuses of

accepted journalist standards. To avoid regulation the

new spaper industry established a Press Com plaints

C om m ission and C ode of Practice20 to allow

m em bers of the public to bring a com plaint against

a publication that had signed up to the C ode of

C onduct. The C ode covers the usual areas –accuracy,

respect for privacy, non harassm ent, reporting of

young people, sexuality, crim e and so on. The

C om m ission has no legal pow ers –all new spapers

and m agazines voluntarily contribute to the costs

of, and agree to abide by the findings of the

C om m ission. In recent years about 9 out of 10

com plaints have been resolved to the com plainants

satisfaction; although the M ediaW ise Trust, set up tocam paign for “victim s of m edia abuse”, has claim ed

that ordinary journalists voices, and those of the

general public, are insufficiently represented on the

C om m ission and that its rulings tend to favour the

pow erful rather than the poor21.

The G lob a l Repo rting Initia tive

In recent years a m ore com prehensive approach

is being developed through the G lobal Reporting

Initiative. The G RI is probably the w orld’s m ost

com m on standard that ensures com panies publicly

report on all aspects of their econom ic, environm ental,

and social perform ance. The G RI seeks to m ake this

“sustainability”a routine part of the com pany activity

m uch like their finan cial reporting. A ccording to

the G RI22

“Sustainability reports based on the G RI Fram ew ork

can b e used to dem onstrate organizational

com m itm ent to sustainable developm ent, to

com pare organizational perform ance over tim e,

and to m easure organization al perform ance

w ith respect to law s, norm s, standards and

voluntary initiatives.”

The assum ption behind the G RI is that greater

transparency w ill act as an incentive to im prove

stan dards across the fields of en vironm en tal

sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

The m ost recent figures published by the G RI show

that over 1000 organisations used G RI guidelines in

their reporting in 2008 23.

G RI is currently developing sustainability reporting

guidelines for the m edia sector in partnership w ith

Ibero-A m erican N ew Journalism Foundation, the

A vina Foundation and the Program for Journalism

Stud ies of Javeriana U niversity in C olum bia. The

guidelines are being draw n up by a range of m edia

organisations and global stakeholders. A m ong the

partners involved in the production of the guidelines

are the A ustralian Broadcasting C orporation, the

BBC , Bertelsm ann, G estevision Telecinco from

Spain, an N G O alliance the G lobal Forum for M edia

D evelopm ent, G rupo C larin from A rgentina, the

International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), The

G uardian new spaper from the U nited Kingdom , TN T

Broadcasting N etw ork from the Russian Federation,

Transparency International, Vivendi in France and

W arner Bros. Entertainm ent Inc. from the U SA 24.

U sing the U N ESC O m edia fram ew ork indicators,

the draft indicators w ill spell out the responsibilities

of m edia organisations to support freedom of

expression, ensure transparency of ow nership and

provide access to com m unications. Scheduled for

public launch in late 2011 they could provide auseful supplem ent to other form s of self regulation

by spelling out the obligations of m edia com panies

them selves, as distinct from their journalist or

editors.

15

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

19.See http://w w w .guardian.co.uk/new s/2006/m ay/25/leadersandreply.m ainsection?IN TC M P=SRC H for an exam ple

20.http://w w w .pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.htm l

21.http://w w w .m ediaw ise.org.uk/

22.http://w w w .globalreporting.org/A boutG RI/W hatIsGRI/

23.http://w w w .globalreporting.org/N R/rdonlyres/E8B6ED 9E-1A 29-4154-A 6D A -F14E6F71A 2C 9/3830/G RI_Year_In_Review _241209.pdf24.http://w w w .globalreporting.org/ReportingFram ew ork/SectorSupplem ents/M edia/#M SS3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/25/leadersandreply.mainsection?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

http://www.mediawise.org.uk/

http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI

http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8B6ED9E-1A29-4154-A6DA-F14E6F71A2C9/3830/GRI_Year_In_Review_241209.pdf

http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/SectorSupplements/Media/#MSS3

http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/SectorSupplements/Media/#MSS3

http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/E8B6ED9E-1A29-4154-A6DA-F14E6F71A2C9/3830/GRI_Year_In_Review_241209.pdf

http://www.globalreporting.org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI

http://www.mediawise.org.uk/

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/25/leadersandreply.mainsection?INTCMP=SRCH



16

Role of internet a s d ig ita l pla tf orm

a nd implica tions fo r self regulation

The com m unications environm ent has been

transform ed by the ability to turn different kinds of

inform ation, w hether voice, sound, im age or textinto digital code, accessible by a range of devices

from the personal com puter to the m obile phone.

The em ergence of the internet has transform ed

com m unication capacity from som ething essentially

local (be it a locality or a country) into a m edium that

is truly global.

In their first incarnation, the internet and w eb

w ere hailed as offering a new global, boundless space

able to evade traditional censorship. John G ilm ore,

a libertarian activist and founder of the Electronic

Frontier Foundation (w hose nam e suggests its

perspective), w as quoted in Tim e m agazine as saying

“The N et interprets censorship as dam age and routes

around it”.25 Today, of course, the net has becom e a

m ore contested, enclosed and nationalized space, but

both the libertarian possibilities and the new form s of

dom ination and control have recast the challenge to

freedom of expression in the m odern era.

W hat are the characteristics of this space that

im pact upon free expression rights? A s a netw ork of

netw orks, the internet is an international platform

w hich has no overarching jurisdiction. N o single entity

governs the totality of the internet: governance is

provided by different com ponents and institutions

operating in very different jurisdictions. A program

can be m ade in the U kraine, uploaded onto a U .S.

server, and dow nloaded in G hana.

The international jurisdictional bodies such as

the Internet C orporation for A ssigned N am es and

N um bers (ICANN),26the International Telecom m unication

U nion (ITU ), and the W orld W ide W eb C onsortium

(W 3C ),27 like the national bodies w hich adm inister the

national dom ains, are concerned w ith the efficient

w orking of the system , its functionality, rather than

governing the environm ent in the w ay that regulators

govern broadcast m edia. C onsequently, there is a

jurisdictional vacuum over content on the w eb. If

there is a need for any state intervention it is not clear

how such authority should be appropriately applied

given that there is no m eans of regulating content

internationally, nor any consensus on the norm s that

need to be applied. A s a consequence a great deal ofem phasis has been placed upon the im portance of

self regulation on line.

H ow ever there are dangers in this approach. There

are no accepted self regulatory standards that have

been developed for the internet environm ent.

C onsequen tly self reg ulation –p rincipally b y

com panies, takes place in a vacuum w here it is

shaped by com m ercial interties or private pressure

from governm ents. For exam ple Internet Service

Providers (ISPs), w hich traditionally expected to bem ere conduits for the services they carry are being

asked to collect data on their users (for exam ple by

the EU D ata Retention D irective 2006/24/EC ) and

even m onitor brow sing histories through voluntary

agreem ents w ith governm ents that have no legal

scrutiny28. The lack of overt legal guidance and

understandable w ariness about carrying controversial

m aterial leads to overzealous actions by ISPs

them selves and a w illingness to take dow n

controversial m aterial sim ply if som eone com plains29.

This results in w hat is, in effect, a b road regim e

of censorship that contrasts w ith the n arrow

interpretations of the law and careful application

of standards expected in the offline w orld. This

underlines the im portance of any system of self

regulation being undertaken in accordance w ith

transparent and clear norm s.

Co nclusion

In sum m ary it is im portant to recognise the dual

character of the m edia and its im plications. Firstly it

is a site w hich perm its the free exchange of ideas

and opinion necessary in a dem ocracy and w hich is

therefore deserving of the highest protection and

freedom from state interference. Secondly it is a social

actor in its ow n rights, w ho’s choices about w hether

or how to cover events and w hose editorial position

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

25.First quoted by Philip Elm er-D eW it, "First N ation in C yberspace", Tim e M agazine, 6 D ecem ber 1993.

26.http://w w w .icann.org/ IC A N N w as founded in 1998.

27.http://w w w .w 3.org/ Founded in 1994, W 3C is adm inistered by a consortium of research institutions and universities.

28.The Slide from “self regulation” to corporate censorship , European D igital Rights, Joe M acN am ee, 2010.29.ibid

http://www.icann.org/

http://www.w3.org/

http://www.w3.org/

http://www.icann.org/



can also shape events and in that w ay is required

to act in a socially responsible fashion. It is this dual

character that m akes an effective form of self

regulation so essential.

Self regulation is not a sim ple m atter how ever; it

places requirem ents upon every level of the m ediaorganisation, on the journalist them selves, on their

editors and m anagers, on the approach of the m edia

organisation to the production of content and the

overall behaviour of the m edia com pany. The fast

evolving nature of online m edia, and the com plex

jurisdictional questions throw n up by a globalised

environm ent, place self regulation at the heart of the

evolving m edia landscape.

There are tw o overarching principles if w e accept

that self regulation is the necessary alternative to state

control of the m edia. Firstly all m edia actors,

professional or business have obligations to uphold in

exchange for the freedom of state interference that

they rightly claim . These obligations should be

centred on the need to protect and prom ote freedom

of expression. Secondly, all such obligations should be

m ade explicit and transparent and be the subject of

regular reporting in the public sphere. Both conditions

are essential if self-regulation is to protect freedom of

expression and not just the interests of com panies

them selves.

17

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s



18 A ndrew Puddephatt is Director of G lobal Partners

and A ssociates, an organization that prom otes good

governance, dem ocracy and hum an. H e is chair of

C A A D A an organisation that challenges dom estic

violence in the U K, organisation and also C hair of the

D anish based International M edia Support. H e is on

the board of a new pan-European organization the

European C ouncil on Foreign Relations and w as

form erly D irector of the international free expression

organisation A rticle 19.

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R



IFJ Code of Ethics

1. General Principles:

1.1 The International Federation of Journalists

representing m ore than 450,000 journalists in over

100 countries, believes that professional journalists,

organised in free and independent trade unions, play

a key role in the creation and m aintenance of a

dem ocratic m edia culture.

1.2 The IFJ believes that dem ocracy depends upon

the extension of freedom of expression and social

justice w orldw ide. The IFJ insists that dem ocracy

depends upon an understanding of the special and

particular role of the m edia in dem ocratic society.1.3 The IFJ believes that m edia m ust respect the

professional and ethical principles of press freedom

upon w hich the freedom of expression and opinion

relies.

The IFJ defines press freedom as:

“that freedom from restraint w hich is essential

to enable journalists, editors, publishers and

broadcasters to advance the public interest by

publishing, broadcasting or circulating facts and

opinions w ithout w hich a dem ocratic electoratecannot m ake responsible judgm ents.”

The IFJ believes this freedom can only be

expressed w hen there exists:

a) A free, independent and m edia reflecting diversity

of opinion;

b) A free flow of inform ation enabling full dem ocratic

exchange in all com m unities, w hether they be

based on geography, ethnic origins, shared values

or com m on language;

c) Statutory defence and protection of citizens’rights

to freedom of inform ation and the right to know ;

d) Respect for the professional status and

independent role of journalists.

1.4 The IFJ considers that the treatm ent of new s

and inform ation as a com m odity m ust not override

or interfere w ith the duty of journalists to inform their

audience and that m edia m ust be adm inistered

according to the highest standards of transparency

and openness.

1.5 The IFJ believes in the coexistence of public

service and private broadcasting in order to protect

independence, pluralism and variety in program m ing

to the enrichm ent of all sections of society.

1.6 The IFJ affirm s that responsibility for ethicalconduct and m aintenance of the highest standards in

journalism rests w ith m edia professionals.

1.7 The IFJ strongly believes that the law should

not interfere in m atters w hich are the proper

responsibility o f w orking journalists: nam ely, the

preparation, selection and transm ission of inform ation.

2. Access to the profession

2.1 A ccess to the profession should be free. The

professional level of future journalists should be as

high as possible.2.2 Trainee journalists m ust undergo proper

training under conditions agreed by publishers and

journalists’unions.

2.3 A ppointm ents are restricted to qualified

journalists, that is, persons w ho have m inim um

professional qualifications agreed by journalists‘

unions and m edia organisations. Such qualified

journalists should be recognised as such in collective

agreem ents. Em ployers accept that is the duty of the

m edia in general and the em ployer in particular to

reflect the society it serves.

19

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s

A P P E N D IX



20

3. Clause of conscience

3.1 Journalists m ust have the right to act

acco rding to their conscience in the exercise of

journalism . In case of fundam ental change in the

political, philosophical or religious line of the

em ployer, a journalist m ay put an end to his or hercontract, w ithout notice, and be paid com pensation

equivalent to w hat he or she w ould have received

in case of term ination of his or her contract by the

em ployer.

3.2 N o journalist should be directed by an

em ployer or any person acting on behalf of the

em ployer to com m it any act or thing that the

journalist believes w ould breach his or her

professional ethics, w hether defined by a code of

ethics adopted by journalists collected at national

level or that w ould infringe the international C ode of

Principles for the C onduct of Journalism as adopted

by the IFJ. N o journalist can be disciplined in any w ay

for asserting his or her rights to act according their

conscience.

4. Editorial independence

4.1 C om m on m inim um standards of editorial

independence should apply in all m edia.

4.2 These m inim um standards m ust include:

•the Editorial staff represents the m oral andintellectual capital of publishing houses and

broadcasting station;

•the right of the editorial council to be consulted

on decisions w hich affect:

•appointm ent and dism issal of the editor-in-chief;

•definition of editorial policy and content of the

paper/broadcasting station;

•personnel policies;

•transfer/change of tasks of the journalists in the

editorial departm ent;•the right of the editorial council to be heard on

m atters of grievances concerning editorial policy;

•the right of the journalist to refuse an assignm ent

if the assignm ent proves to breach journalists

professional ethics as laid dow n in the union’s

code of conduct;

•the right of the editorial staff to prevent

interference of m anagem ent of third parties on

the editorial content;

•the right of journalists in Europe to equal pay and

equality in career developm ent.

•In case of grievances the editorial council, the

editor in-chief and m anagem ent hold bona fide

negotiations. Representatives of the journalists

associations and unions can be involved in the

negotiations in line w ith existing labour/press

legislation.5. Self-regulation and ethics of journalism:

5.1 The IFJ believes that codes of ethics or codes

of conduct m ust be draw n up by the professionals

them selves.

5.2 The IFJ C ode of C onduct, first adopted in

1954, provides a code of ethics adopted by all

national representative journalists organisations in

Europe. Therefore, the IFJ C ode of C onduct provides

the basis for a com m on understanding on ethical

issues through voluntary adoption of journalists

and publishers. In this area IFJ sees no active role

for national governm ents.

IFJ D eclaration of Principles on the C onduct of

Journalists

“This international D eclaration is proclaim ed as a

standard of professional conduct for journalists

engaged in gathering, transm itting, dissem inating

and com m enting on new s and inform ation in

describing events.

1. Respect for truth and for the right of the public

to truth is the first duty of the journalist.

2. In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall

at all tim es defend the principles of freedom in the

honest collection and publication of new s, and of the

right of fair com m ent and criticism .

3. The journalist shall report only in accordance

w ith facts of w hich he/she know s the origin. The

journalist shall not suppress essential inform ation or

falsify docum ents.

4. The journalist shall use only fair m ethods to

obtain new s, photographs and docum ents.

5. The journalist shall do the utm ost to rectify anypublished inform ation w hich is found to be harm fully

inaccurate.

6. The journalist shall observe professional secrecy

regarding the source of inform ation obtained in

confidence.

7. The journalist shall be aw are of the danger of

discrim ination being furthered by the m edia, and shall

do the utm ost to avoid facilitating such discrim ination

based on, am ong other things, race, sex, sexual

orientation, language, religion, political or other

opinions, and national or social origins.

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s



8. The journalist shall regard as grave professional

offences the follow ing:

•plagiarism ;

•m alicious m isrepresentation;

•calum ny, slander, libel, unfounded accusations;

•acceptance of a bribe in any form in considerationof either publication or

•suppression.

9. Journalists w orthy of the nam e shall deem it

their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated

above. W ithin the general law of each country the

journalist shall recognise in professional m atters the

jurisdiction of colleagues only, to the exclusion of

every kind of interference by governm ents or others.”

(A dopted by 1954 W orld C ongress of the IFJ.

A m ended by the 1986 W orld C ongress.)

21

S E R I E S

C I D e b a t e s



SERIES CI Debates

See t he previous numbers of th e series:

Series CI Debates, n. 1, 2009–The Police blogosphere in Brazil: from shooting to tw itter –

Silvia Ram os and A nabela Paiva (C oords.)

Available at: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/im ages/0018/001852/185252e.pdf>.

Series CI Debates, n. 2, 2010–Levantam ento inicial de necessidades e oportunidades de qualificação e capacitação

profissional na Fundação Padre A nchieta e na Em presa Brasil de C om unicação –João M arcelo Borges

Available at: <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/im ages/0018/001895/189599por.pdf>.

Series CI Debates, n. 3, 2010 – Indicadores da qualidade no jornalism o: políticas, padrões e preocupações de jornais e

revistas brasileiros –Rogério C hristofoletti


Series CI Debates, n. 4, 2010 – Jornalistas e suas visões sobre qualidade: teoria e pesquisa no contexto dos indicadores

de desenvolvim ento da m ídia da U N ESC O –Danilo Rothberg


Series CI Debates, n. 5, 2010 – Sistem a de gestão da qualidade aplicado ao jornalism o: um a abordagem inicial

Josenildo Luiz G uerra


Series CI Debates, n. 6, 2010–Q ualidade jornalística: ensaio para um a m atriz de indicadores.

Luiz A ugusto Egypto de C erqueira


Series CI Debates, n. 7, 2011 – O A m biente regulatório para a radiodifusão: um a pesquisa de m elhores práticas para os

atores-chave brasileiros.

Toby M endel and Eve Salom on

Series CI Debates, n. 8, 2011 – Liberdade de expressão e regulação da radiodifusãoToby M endel and Eve Salom on


http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001895/189599por.pdf













w w w.u nesco.org .br/bra silia SAUS Qua dra 5 - Bloco H - Lot e 6

Ed. CNPq /IBICT/UNESCO - 9º a nda r70070-912 - Bra sília - DF - Bra sil

Caixa Postal 08559

Tel. : + 55 (61) 2106 3511

Fa x: + 55 (61) 2106 3697

http://www.unesco.org.br/brasilia

http://www.unesco.org.br/brasilia

The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression

Documents

Transcript of The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression