Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Webdiary Ethics
MARGO NOTE: Webdiary's ethics remain the same, save that the Sydney Morning Heralds' ethics guidelines no longer apply. I have therefore deleted references to that document. I want you to trust Webdiary. Trust is the ideal at the core of all professional ethics codes, which are guidelines for conduct which aim to achieve that ideal. I'm a journalist bound by a code of ethics drafted to apply to traditional journalism. I've adapted the code to meet the responsibilities of running Webdiary, and set out guidelines for your contributions. These guidelines are always open for discussion and debate on Webdiary and can be clarified and added to as issues arise. My obligations 1. I will strive to comply with the Media Alliance codes of ethics, which will be in a prominent position on this site at all times. 2. In particular, I will correct errors of fact on Webdiary as soon as possible after they are brought to my attention and will disclose and explain any inadvertent breach of my ethical duties on Webdiary at the first available opportunity. 3. I will respond on Webdiary to all non-frivolous queries or complaints about my compliance with the codes and give a copy of queries or complaints to the online editor. 4. I will not belittle or show disrespect for any reader's contributions I publish, or to any person who emails me. 5. I will do my utmost to ensure that Webdiary is a space to which all readers, whatever their views or style, feel safe to contribute. If you are offended by something in Webdiary, feel free to respond. I won't publish any material which incites hatred. 6. I will let you know when archives have been changed except when changes do not alter their substance, for example corrections to spelling or grammar. I will amend archived Webdiary entries to include corrections of fact and advise you accordingly. 7. I won't publish all publishable emails, but I will read every one unless there's too many to reasonably do so in the time available. If I haven't been able to read all emails, I'll let you know on Webdiary. 8. My decisions on publication will be made in good faith, without bias towards those I agree with or am sympathetic towards. 9. I reserve the right to edit contributions. 10. I will publish most contributions made in good faith which are critical of Webdiary's content or direction, or of me. My expectations of you As a journalist I have ethical obligations to readers; as a contributor you do not. Still, there's a few guidelines I'd like you to follow. David Davis, who's read and contributed to Webdiary from its beginning and helped draft these guidelines, explains why. "Webdiary encourages free and open debate. The guidelines for contributors are not designed to curtail this, but to remind you that just as you live in a community in the real world, the same is true in the online world. Being part of a community carries many rights, but there are responsibilities. Rather than eroding the rights, these responsibilities actually protect them." 1. If you don't want to use your real name, use a nom de plume and briefly explain, for publication, why you don't want to use your real name. Please send me your real name on a confidential basis if you choose to use a nom de plume. I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used. 2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write. For example, if you are writing about politics, disclose your membership of a political party. 3. Don't plagiarise, that is don't use the ideas of others without telling us where they came from, and don't copy the writings of others and pass them off as your own. There's no need. Put quotes around the words of other people, and tell us who they are and where you got them from. If you've used online sources for your contributions, include the links so others can follow them up. 4. Be truthful. Don't invent 'facts'. If you're caught out, expect to be corrected in Webdiary. 5. Robust debate is great, but don't indulge in personal attacks on other contributors. 6. Write in the first person. Remember, we're having a conversation here. Complaints I am bound by the code of ethics of the Media Alliance union, of which I am a member. The Alliance code follows. To complain about a breach of the code, contact me and/or the Media Alliance. To comment on, question or complain about Webdiary's ethics, post to this entry and I will respond as soon as possible. MEDIA ALLIANCE CODE OF ETHICS Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to * Honesty * Fairness * Independence * Respect for the rights of others 1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply. 2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability. 3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the sources motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances. 4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence. 5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain. 6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. 7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories. 8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a persons vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. 9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed. 10. Do not plagiarise. 11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude. 12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors. Guidance Clause Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden. *
For a comprehensive discussion of Webdiary ethics, see my piece Webdiary's ethics.
[ category: ]
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
re: Webdiary Ethics
G'day. More evidence of good timing, perhaps?
re: Webdiary Ethics
Hi Margo, I'll join the others in wishing you well with this project.
I'd just like to add my view on the failings of Fairfax. I don't think their columnists are the problem. Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson, Mike Carlton et al might write something I disagree with or dislike. But they are there to write opinion, and most readers would understand that. They're also meant to stir the pot - and I must confess they've all given me something new to consider from time to time.
My concern with Fairfax is much more basic: the 'news' they publish is frequently poorly researched, unbalanced and sloppy. It looks like a paper being put out by journalists who are inexperienced, incompetent, overworked or under-resourced. Almost every time I read an article on a subject I know something about I read errors that would be corrected by the simplest of fact-checking; 'comments' by unqualified sources; writing that's skewed to deliver one interpretation of events.
In short, I can't trust the newspaper to inform me on topics I don't know about. So it has almost no value to me apart from the TV programme guide (and Doug Anderson's reviews of course).
I haven't bought a printed Herald for years. I get what I want from the web version and ignore the rest.
re: Webdiary Ethics
Hi Margo,
I'm a journalism student, and an reseasrching an article about journalists leaving the mainstram media to go independent. I was wondering if you would consider granting me an interview?
regards,
Penelope
Margo: Hi Penelope. Love to, in a few months when I've ensured Webdiary will survive and thrive as an independent media participant.
re: Webdiary Ethics
I have chased and discarded more political rainbows - including the Alliance - than there are stars in the sky, but even to this jaundiced reader your effort sounds like a real mccoy.
And if, as I think, the time might just have come for honesty to slip out of the spoilers grasp and back into vogue, your venture might soon be seen as the mine-shaft canary which kept singing in the gloom. So we wish the website and you and your contributors very well.
Margo: Thanks PM!
re: Webdiary Ethics
The code is sound. The practice of the code is sound.
If you continue down the road you are heading now, Webdiary will not only survive but thrive. I support you as do the people commenting before me.
I think it is safe to say that with the emergence of blogs, webdiary can be sure there will be no shortage of excellent writers nor of eager readers.
Good luck :) I hope for an interview too! That would be great! (next year maybe?)
Margo: Hi Luke. Full name next time, OK? I'm in Perth on September 22 and 23 to make a speech and to launch the independent Webdiary in Western Australia . See you then!
re: Webdiary Ethics
Margo... given your central importance to this site and, re the comment you make below to Luke Y, don't you think a proper posting of your itinerary at regular intervals would help readers who would like to catch up with you?
Meanwhile - on another front - I feel that regular such tours (with paid entrance to the forum) might eventually provide the bulk of the income that you (and the webdiary editors) need to pay the bills. Now, I know that Australia is a small market for such things... BUT, that is partly/mostly because no-one has yet pioneered it, I suspect.
And, as I've said before on Webdiary, face-to-face meetings are quite literally THE key to sustaining any egalitarian community - see Christopher Boehm's marvellous Hierarchy in the Forest (Harvard: 1999) for the evidence - so, I feel there would be a real, repeated (paying) audience for same... which would also help keep Webdiary firmly on track.
My only proviso is this. As a currently long-term unemployed person, I'd say, keep the cost of entry low and (perhaps) even lower for Health Care Card holders... and, I think you may be well surprised as to how many (regularly) turn up - to help turn an online democratic forum into a dispersed yet genuine democratic face-to-face community.
Hope you find these ideas useful... and, when are you next in Brisbane, by the way?
All the best.
Margo: Hi John. My 'itinerary' is all over the place. Fluid, the weasel word is, I think. I'm hoping to be in Brisbane soon to see my Mum, my sister, my neice, my nephews and my brother.
re: Webdiary Ethics
Hi. Sorry I did not look at the Ethics section first. Mardi is a nom de plume I use occasionally. My real name is [supplied], and I live in the ACT. I chose to use a nom de plume partly for self-preservation, given that my temp non-ongoing position (described in my recent post) is in a government department, and partly because Canberra is a one-degree-of-separation kind of place and I would not want people who know me to make stereotyping judgements about me or my children, they cop enough.
I always enjoyed Margo's contributions to Lateline. Only heard about the kerfuffle at SMH recently, which has coincided with finally getting online through a Telstra bargain rate (albeit with a crappy screen - it is a 15 inch, so I didn't actually see the menu with 'ethics' initially). So far I like what I see here: intelligent discussion. I feel privileged to be able to perhaps add the odd thing every now and then. Hope it's OK with you that I use the pen-name.
ed Hamish Alcorn: no worries Mardi. Welcome!