Journalists, go back to class

Let’s talk media ethics. Journalists are taught that not only should they strive to deliver the story to their news editor within the specified deadline, but that they should also present it as accurately and as objectively as possible. Independence, independence, independence. That is unfortunately, mostly theoretical. Situations in real newsrooms do not tend to be so radiant.

On paper, this would obviously mean that as a journalist reporting on a story, I cannot place my allegiance with any political party, the government, or any business – among others. I cannot write a story on corruption to express favouritism and assign guilt to any party. Is that even what journalists are there for?

When former Cape Argus journalist Ashley Smith admitted to pocketing tens of thousands of rands in bribes in exchange for writing positively about former Western Cape premier Ebrahim Rasool, I thought of just how foiled things can get when we leave the classroom. Apart from that, Smith admitted to acting as a paid media strategist and advisor to Rasool.

Smith’s exercise was sponsored by public funds. Mind you, this is all occurring in a country riddled with service delivery protests, as ordinary people struggle to access the most basic of services.

That goes against everything journalists should be. Newly formed media organisation Projourn (Professional Journalists’ Association of SA) agrees, having released a statement befittingly titled “chequebook journalism’ abhorrent and unacceptable.

The organisation even compared the unethical acts to journalists who accepted bribes to candy coat apartheid, which we all know there is nothing sweet about.

Projourn also lauded Cape Argus on its approach of the issue. The newspaper carried a story on the allegations against Smith who worked as a senior political journalist and fellow former employee Joe Aranes. Aranes was former political editor.

“The admission by the Cape Argus, in a rare front page leader, that it failed its readers in this matter, as well as the editor’s reaffirmation of the paper’s core values is to be commended,” Projourn said.

Brown resigned from the newspaper during a disciplinary inquiry into the allegations. His actions, Projourn says, have brought journalism in South Africa into disrepute.

“Not only do we support those stalwart journalists who resist the demands that they be partisan in their reportage, but we abhor those who cross the line and succumb to the temptations of “chequebook journalism.”

Non-journalists, too, have opinions. On many occasions, I have been party to conversations in which normal people were bashing journalists. They seem to view them as nonobjective and full of lies in their reporting. While I do not completely support the statement, I will not just toss it away. Journalists are, before all else, human. They have issues, opinions, flaws, and sometimes ulterior motives. Many times, these do reflect in their work – be it for a good or bad purpose.

Now, as the Fourth Estate of society, journalists have a duty to society. They cannot sign up to fail, as that would mean failing society itself. Go back to the theories which were taught in class.

I am easy to please, but could you answer your phone!

When excelling in my job largely depends on conducting telephonic interviews, it is always a frustrating obstacle when newsmakers and their media camps refuse my calls.

I am easy to please, really, but we journalists speak the language of deadlines. Subsequently, when sources and commentators are not reached ahead of the deadline, we become somewhat inefficient. A journalist who can’t get a story is as good as one without a job.

While it is true that these people have meetings to attend and other duties to complete, they in the same breath have other aspects of the job to satisfy, including communicating with the media. And I mean effectively and professionally.

New spokespeople almost always answer their phones in the beginning. Those who start off well in a new portfolio sometimes become tedious and non-responsive, making you wish to somehow travel to their destination, press the answer button on their behalf and then press the phone against their ear.

Some people are 'helpful' in to the extent that even before you even pick up the phone to dial their number you are 80 percent certain that they won't answer. I love days when the 20 percent reigns.

Sure, I understand just how much of a pain it must be when I call people as early as 6am to request a soundbite or interview. Do I have a choice? No! Some have even protested that I never again call them at that "ungodly" hour.

It is not as if they have a don’t-speak-to-the-media agenda, perhaps they just genuinely can't help when they are needed.

Without doubt, in overcoming these challenges, it is imperative to develop good working relationships with the people you need in order to be effective in your job.

That being said, not all news sources can be classified in the same depressing category.

Some people help make my job a bliss as well as a profound pleasure because they not only grant interviews, they execute them in a clear, concise and crisp manner - nothing ambiguous - to the delight of editors. Kudos to them.

Like many other professions, journalism comes with its challenges. This is just one of them, but don't be discouraged. I know I'm not :-).