The media in Nagaland State exists in challenging conditions where the government has no opposition, corruption is rampant, widespread and systemic and is supported by culture of impunity and a silent majority. In addition, our day to day existence is impeded, as you know all too well, by the inadequacy of the basic public infrastructure – the road systems, water, electricity supply, basic health care and quality education – which are all in urgent need of sincere intervention. All these factors contribute to breaking down social cohesion.
Today I have been entrusted the responsibility to share a few thoughts on the ethics and values, standards of professional journalism that are being asked of the media in the midst of all these pressing challenges.
Dr Henrik Örnebring, Professor of Media and Communications, Karlstad University, Sweden in his working paper entitled “The two professionalisms of journalism: Journalism and the changing context of work” informs us that “journalists seem to be perpetually concerned with the decline of their occupation. Journalism used to be good, but now it is bad.” He points out that a narrative of decline is at the heart of many journalists’ accounts of journalism and says that these narratives cannot be easily discounted.
Dr. Henrik identifies two broad reasons for the decline of journalism. One version holds that journalism is declining because journalists themselves are increasingly ignoring their professional role, along with having a weakened commitment to the journalistic professionalism.
The other version states that journalistic professionalism is under assault from the outside, as it is continuously being constricted by profit-hungry media corporations, government spin doctors, the convergence of media technologies [social media], and so on.
The first version points to internal factors in which journalists as a collective are to blame for the decline of their profession. The second version points to external factors where the decline of journalism is the result of pressures coming from outside journalism as a professional collective.
Regardless of the reason for this decline and regardless of which factor is dominant or may have more impact, Dr Henrik says that both explanations give great weight to the notion of professionalism as a counterforce.
Given the creative tension between the internal and external factors, it is essential for journalists to develop self‐understanding and self-definition in the fluid and ever-changing working conditions and situation.
The sense of self-understanding, self-awareness and self-definition invariably prompts the need to revisit the question of ethics and professionalism in journalism.
When we think of ethics and professionalism it seems impossible to keep them apart. There is a constant interplay between these two that evolves to form a praxis as they overlap and influence each other in both thought and action.
Ethics and professionalism is the framework of our understanding upon which we carry out our choices in thought and action. As journalists, ethics in journalism is based on our professional conduct, morality and our ability to report the truth. Our integrity only grows stronger as our professional behavior is demonstrated consistently.
Consequently, the ethical decisions we make as journalists deeply affect the quality of our work, our credibility with the public, and eventually they influence policy makers, public institutions and the people in general. However, when we do not adhere to these fundamental principles, it can lead to misrepresenting the facts or misleading members of the public.
Ethics at its simplest is what is right or wrong, good or bad, respectful and humane. In other words, our ethics constitute the principles that govern our decisions and determine the choices we make to guide our thoughts and actions. They provide the framework, the parameters for honest, dependable, sensitive and authentic reporting.
Generally speaking, professionalism is observed in a person’s conduct and behavior in the work environment, while maintaining objectivity in the midst of difficult situations that arouse personal feelings.
However, in the interplay between professionalism and ethics, the meaning has a far deeper implication. Professionalism is manifested in the behavior, the act of carrying out the ethical choices we have made and is demonstrated through our work, which is displayed in behavior and action. In essence, this interplay between ethics and professionalism is the deciding factor in the outcomes we produce.
Today, this occasion of National Press Day, is an opportunity for media practitioners to discuss media in Nagaland and to critically engage in a discourse on professionalism and ethics in journalism. In our common search to raise the standard of journalism in Nagaland we need to examine ethics and professionalism in journalism. Considering its vast terrain, I will focus on four areas: (1) the competing notions of professionalism which are: organizational professionalism or occupational professional, (2) Negotiating journalism: between business and vocation, (3) The social role of journalists in these changing times, and (4) A peace lens for journalism.
Roger Dickinson made an incisive observation that while early research on journalism as a profession placed the journalist at the centre of inquiry, later studies developed into a more general social critique of the media that did not attempt to understand journalism as an occupation, despite the analytical weight given to work roles and work routines.
For me, this distinction raises the need to identity and question the competing notions of professionalism, which according to Julia Evetts are: organizational professionalism or occupational professionalism.
Julia Evetts helps us to understand these competing notions of professionalism. She says, “Organizational professionalism is a discourse of control used increasingly by managers [owners] in work organizations.” According to Julia, “it incorporates rational-legal forms of decision-making, hierarchical structures of authority, the standardization of work practices, accountability, target-setting and performance review and is based on occupational training and certification.”
On the other hand, “Occupational professionalism involves a discourse constructed within professional groups themselves that involves discretionary decision-making in complex cases, collegial authority, the occupational control of the work and is based on trust in the practitioner by both clients and employers. It is operationalised and controlled by practitioners themselves and is based on shared education and training, a strong socialization process, work culture and occupational identity, and codes of ethics that are monitored and operationalized by professional institutes and associations.”
Simply put, the employer and the employee, the media house and the journalist have different ideas and expectations about what professionalism means. For the employer, being professional may mean complying with regulations, accepting standardized work practices, reaching performance targets, and so on.
Professionalism, as understood by the journalist, may, in some cases, be in outright opposition to professionalism as defined by the media house. Journalists focus on responsible autonomy, compliance with a code of ethics decided by professional groups rather than the media organization.
Friends, we need to ask ourselves whether this describes the media environment here in Nagaland. I feel this is an issue that requires our immediate attention and the collective will to engage in a dialogue so that journalism in Nagaland can become vibrant.
Dr Henrik reminds us that, “Journalism is and always has been part of a business enterprise – and journalists have always been aware of this.” Nonetheless, many assert that the present economic context of journalism is widely different from the past due to its commercialization. This includes a more competitive media market, the changing relationship between news media (primarily newspapers/print media) and political parties, sensational news using tabloids, and individualizing journalism as a way of being more consumer-friendly. In essence the business component of media houses is exerting more power and influence over journalism as a profession, to the detriment of journalistic quality and independence. In other words, Dr Henrik is pointing out that organisational professionalism is weakening occupational professionalism. This is also our challenge in Nagaland and requires strengthening our occupational professionalism.
The growing commercialization of journalism needs to be addressed as it is silencing independent voices of journalists, as they give in to the pressure of special interests whether political or corporate. Consequently, as part of the process which includes accountability, of self-understanding, self-awareness and self-definition, journalists need to declare any political affiliations, financial arrangements or other information that might constitute a conflict of interest.
Likewise, transparency in financial relationships is fundamental to the credibility and professional dignity of the journalist. This means that it is unethical and wrong to pursue and accept any financial or material bonus whatsoever which compromises one’s credibility and dignity and which influences one’s independence and impartiality. Any actions of this nature only further the climate of corruption and impunity.
The healthy growth of journalism can only happen in an environment where the press can function independently and unobstructed allowing it to maintain journalist expression and professionalism. Under these conditions there is no place for state authoritarianism and the arbitrary functioning of media proprietors. It requires defending the journalist’s independence, and refusing to carry out assignments that are contrary to the principles of journalistic ethics. It could also mean refusing to edit news, commentary or article if their content does not correspond to facts.
It is by upholding the occupational professionalism that the journalist can hold accountable, and even challenge the ethos of the organisational professionalism and to ensure that journalism is not consumed by commercial interests.
Journalism is not just a profession, but is also a public social service that embraces rights, duties and obligations as a pillar of democracy.
Truth is the touchstone of journalism and getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. Journalists need to strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts and ensure that they have been checked and cross-checked. A vital aspect of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. For instance, when we commit factual errors we must correct them and sincerely express our regrets.
Fairness and Impartiality are imperative in order to attain high standards of professional journalism. All stories are multi-faceted and have at least two sides. While it may not always be possible to present every side in every piece, stories need to be balanced, not sensationalized. Similarly, objectivity is not always possible (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds public trust and confidence. This also means engaging with all people equally, without distinction of village, tribe, gender, religion, political views, economic situation or social position.
A professional and ethical framework requires shared responsibility. Journalists should do no harm and be aware of the consequences of our actions. We need to be aware that our words and images impact the lives of others. Very often we do not live with the consequences of our reports, but people do. This asks us to avoid presenting misleading information and sensational projection of events, since they can provoke reactive public opinion.
Reliable information is the heartbeat of journalism. This means that journalists need to respect, protect and uphold the trust that is placed upon us when people, sources, trust us by sharing and providing information.
The powerful role of journalism cannot be denied. Malcolm X put this power into perspective when he so eloquently observed: “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
Ironically, journalism is more widely recognized for both focusing on and escalating conflict than any positive impact on peacebuilding. History is replete with glaring cases where the media has been used to incite people toward violence.
For instance: Rwanda’s radio Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC) urged listeners to pick up machetes and take to the streets to kill what they called ‘the cockroaches.’ Also, among the defendants during the Nuremburg trials after World War II was one Julius Streicher, who although never held any official position within the Nazi party, was considered to be among the top individuals who bore the greatest responsibility for the holocaust. For close to twenty five years, Streicher as an Editor had “educated” the German people through propaganda which was primarily done through his newspaper.
Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for people to say that the impact of journalism on peacebuilding needs to be significant, given its influence on conflict. If it can be said that the journalism contributes in breeding violence and supporting forces that lead to violent conflict, it can also be said that journalism has the power to both prevent and stop violence and influence activities that promote peace. This is a question that needs to be determined by each media organization, and eventually it depends on the ethics and professionalism on which the media organisation is built.
Considering that today’s journalism continues to be challenged by the need to overcome a commercial paradigm, one cannot avoid raising the fundamental question of whether conflict-driven journalism sells more than peace-centered journalism.
Notwithstanding the challenges, it has become far more important for journalism in today’s troubling context to take a conscious and prudent stand on issues of war and peace.
The more serious question remains as to how the media in Nagaland can fulfill its critical role and function in a reality where public institutions are failing and the infrastructure is broken. Within this context, the media usually exists within top down system which only increases the gap between workers and employers as the two groups have different understandings of professionalism that often results in misunderstandings. Dialogue between and among the groups becomes even more essential here to clarify their expectations and make space for understanding and improving working relationships. Dialogue process will only strengthen the quality of journalism and our professionalism.
Again, it is absolutely essential for journalists in Nagaland to engage with these four areas if journalism is to find relevance.
The competing notions of professionalism: organizational professionalism or occupational professional
The social role of journalists in these changing times and a peace lens of journalism, is just a part in the area of professionalism and ethics in journalism.
I’ll end here by placing a question before the media community of Nagaland State:
What is our ethical and professional framework at a time in Nagaland State where truth is suppressed, mercy has been blinded, justice has been kidnapped and peace remains elusive?
