It’s based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest trainers read before adapting the lesson plan for your own purposes.

Learning objective

Students will evaluate editorial decisions by applying ethical guidelines to various journalistic scenarios. They will identify potential ethical challenges and propose solutions to ensure integrity and fairness in reporting.

• Student-facing objective: By the end of this lesson the student will be able to assess editorial choices using ethical standards and suggest ways to handle ethical dilemmas in journalism.
• Standards: Students will learn how to navigate some of the ethical challenges they might face as they go about their work.

Learning activities

Warm-up

Begin with a brief discussion on the concept of bias in newsgathering and media production. Ask students to think about a news story they’ve recently encountered. Prompt them with questions:

• What was the main message of the story?
• Did the story seem to favour a particular viewpoint?
• Were multiple perspectives presented?

Encourage students to share their thoughts with a partner. After a few minutes, ask volunteers to share insights with the class. This will activate prior knowledge and set the stage for exploring editorial ethics.

Direct instruction

1. Conceptual understanding: Introduce the core principles of editorial ethics. Discuss key concepts such as accuracy, impartiality, and integrity. Use real-world examples to illustrate these principles. For instance, present a case where a journalist faced an ethical dilemma, such as whether to publish sensitive information. Ask students to identify the ethical considerations involved.
2. Procedural skills and fluency: Explain the process of evaluating a news story for ethical compliance. Break down the steps:
   • Identify the journalistic purpose.
   • Assess the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
   • Evaluate the thoroughness and fairness of the reporting.
3. Asking critical questions: Provide a sample news article (without revealing its source) and guide students through these steps, prompting them to ask critical questions about the article’s content and approach.
4. Application: Present a hypothetical scenario where students must make editorial decisions. For example, a story about a local protest with conflicting reports from different sources. Ask students to:
   • Determine which sources to trust and why.
   • Decide how to present the story to ensure fairness and accuracy.
   • Consider the potential consequences of their editorial choices.
5. Group discussion: Facilitate a class discussion on the decisions made and the ethical implications, encouraging students to justify their choices based on the principles discussed.

Guided practice

Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a structured discussion to apply ethical guidelines to a real-world scenario.

• Think: Present a brief news article with potential ethical issues. Ask students to individually identify and note any ethical challenges they observe, considering questions like: What is the journalistic purpose? Are diverse perspectives included? Is the reporting thorough and fair?
• Pair: Have students pair up to discuss their observations. Encourage them to compare notes and refine their understanding of the ethical issues present in the article.
• Share: Facilitate a class-wide discussion where pairs share their findings. Encourage students to articulate their reasoning and propose solutions to the ethical challenges identified.
• Connect: As a class, connect the discussion back to the core principles of editorial ethics. Highlight how the students’ observations align with or challenge these principles.
• Reflect: Conclude with a reflection on how applying ethical guidelines can impact journalistic integrity and public trust. Encourage students to consider how they might handle similar ethical dilemmas in their future work.

Independent practice

• Provide students with a set of brief news scenarios, each containing potential ethical dilemmas.
• Ask students to individually analyse each scenario, applying the ethical guidelines discussed in class.
• Instruct them to identify the ethical challenges, propose solutions, and justify their decisions based on the principles of editorial ethics.
• Encourage students to document their thought process and conclusions for each scenario.
• Circulate to observe and support students as needed, ensuring they are engaging critically with the material.

Assignment

Ask students these questions:

1. What is one ethical guideline you applied today, and how did it influence your decision-making?
2. Can you identify a potential consequence of not following editorial ethics in journalism?
3. What’s one question you still have from today’s lesson?

Suggested answers:

1. Suggested answer to Question 1: I applied the guideline of ensuring diverse perspectives, which helped me present a balanced view in the scenario.
2. Suggested answer to Question 2: Not following editorial ethics can lead to biased reporting, which may mislead the public and damage trust in journalism.

Teacher resources

Differentiation guide

• Advanced learners: Encourage deeper analysis by having them explore complex ethical dilemmas in journalism, such as conflicts of interest or the balance between public interest and privacy. Suggest they research real-world cases where editorial ethics were challenged and present their findings to the class.
• Striving learners: Simplify scenarios and focus on one or two key ethical principles at a time. Provide structured guidance and examples to help them identify ethical challenges. Use visual aids or graphic organisers to help them map out their thought process and ethical considerations.
• Recommended reading: This lesson plan is based on an article ‘Why editorial ethics are important‘ which we suggest you read before adapting the lesson for your own purposes.

Notable definitions

• Editorial ethics: A set of principles guiding journalists to ensure their work is fair, accurate, and impartial, avoiding bias and maintaining integrity in reporting.
• Impartiality: The practice of reporting news without favoritism or bias, ensuring all relevant perspectives are considered and presented fairly.
• Integrity: Upholding honesty and moral principles in journalism, ensuring that reporting is truthful, transparent, and free from conflicts of interest.

Required materials

• Sample news articles with potential ethical issues
• Printed copies of ethical guidelines for reference
• Whiteboard and markers for class discussions
• Projector for displaying case studies and scenarios
• Notebooks or digital devices for student reflections and notes

Lesson summary

• Warm-up
• Direct instruction
• Guided practice
• Independent practice
• Assignment

The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used in the production of this lesson plan.

The post Lesson: Editorial Ethics first appeared on Media Helping Media.

This module provides an in-depth exploration of editorial ethics in journalism, designed for students pursuing careers in media.

It covers core principles such as accuracy, fairness, integrity, impartiality, and respect for privacy, while addressing contemporary challenges like unconscious bias and the ethical considerations of causing offence.

By integrating practical exercises, case studies, and interactive discussions, this module aims to equip students with the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the complex ethical landscape of modern journalism.

The module, which can be adapted for local requirements, incorporates practical exercises and real-world examples to equip students with the foundational knowledge needed for a career in journalism.

It is released under the terms of the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence so that educational institutions can make use of the material free-of-charge.

Target Audience: Journalism students (undergraduate and postgraduate)

Course outline

Learning objectives:

• Understand and apply core principles of journalistic ethics.
• Recognise and mitigate the impact of unconscious bias in reporting.
• Evaluate and resolve ethical dilemmas in various journalistic contexts.
• Develop strategies for ensuring accuracy, fairness, and integrity in media content.
• Comprehend the legal and ethical implications of privacy and offence in journalism.
• Improve critical thinking and decision-making skills in ethical situations.

Module content:

• Week 1: Introduction to editorial ethics and its importance
  • What are editorial ethics?
  • Why are they crucial in modern journalism?
  • The role of ethics in maintaining public trust.
  • Introduction to key ethical frameworks.
  • Resource: Why editorial ethics are important
• Week 2: Accuracy and integrity
  • The importance of fact-checking and verification.
  • Maintaining integrity in reporting.
  • Avoiding plagiarism and fabrication.
  • Resource: Accuracy in journalism
  • Resource: Integrity and journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Accuracy in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Integrity in journalism
• Week 3: Fairness and impartiality
  • Presenting unbiased perspectives.
  • Giving all parties a fair hearing.
  • Distinguishing between opinion and factual reporting.
  • Resource: Fairness in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Fairness in journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Impartiality in journalism
• Week 4: Respecting privacy
  • Balancing the public’s right to know with individual privacy.
  • Ethical considerations in reporting on sensitive topics.
  • Legal implications of privacy violations.
  • Resource: Respecting privacy as a journalist
  • Resource: Lesson: Respecting privacy as a journalist
• Week 5: Offence and journalism
  • The ethical considerations of causing offence.
  • Balancing freedom of expression with social responsibility.
  • Contextualising potentially offensive content.
  • Resource: Offence and journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Offence and journalism
• Week 6: Unconscious bias
  • Identifying and understanding unconscious bias.
  • Strategies for mitigating bias in reporting.
  • Promoting inclusive and representative journalism.
  • Resource: Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism
  • Resource: Lesson: Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism
• Week 7: Ethical decision-making and case studies
  • Applying ethical frameworks to real-world scenarios.
  • Analysing complex ethical dilemmas.
  • Group discussions and debates on ethical issues.
  • Resource: Is your journalism ethical?
• Week 8: Review and assessment
  • Review of key ethical principles.
  • Assessment (e.g., essay, presentation, or ethical scenario analysis).
  • Discussion of ongoing ethical challenges in journalism.

Suggested timetable:

• Weekly schedule (3-hour sessions):
  • 1 hour: Lecture/presentation (introducing concepts and theories).
  • 1 hour: Interactive discussion/case study analysis (applying concepts to real-world examples).
  • 1 hour: Practical exercise/group activity (developing skills and critical thinking).
• Example weekly breakdown:
  • Week 1:
    • Lecture: Introduction to editorial ethics.
    • Discussion: The importance of ethics in current media.
    • Activity: Analysing ethical codes from different news organisations.
  • Week 4:
    • Lecture: Privacy and journalism.
    • Discussion: Case studies on privacy violations.
    • Activity: Writing a report while considering privacy.
  • Week 6:
    • Lecture: Unconscious bias and journalism.
    • Discussion: Identifying bias in news reports.
    • Activity: Rewriting biased articles to be more inclusive.

Assessment:

• Class participation and engagement (20%)
• Case study analysis and presentations (30%)
• Final essay or ethical scenario analysis (50%)

Teaching Methods:

• Lectures and presentations.
• Interactive discussions and debates.
• Case study analysis.
• Group activities and practical exercises.
• Guest speakers (e.g., experienced journalists, media lawyers).
• Online quizzes.

Resources:

• All links provided above.
• Additional readings on media ethics and journalism.
• Ethical codes from professional journalism organisations.

Summary:

• This journalism training module focuses on equipping students with a strong foundation in editorial ethics, essential for responsible and trustworthy reporting.
• It delves into core principles like accuracy, fairness, and integrity, emphasising their critical role in maintaining public trust.
• Students will learn to navigate ethical dilemmas, understand the importance of respecting privacy, and recognise the impact of unconscious bias in their work.
• Through case studies, discussions, and practical exercises, they will develop the skills to make sound ethical decisions in various journalistic contexts.
• The course also addresses contemporary challenges, such as the ethical considerations of causing offence and the evolving landscape of digital media.
• It aims to foster critical thinking and promote a deep understanding of the journalist’s responsibility to the public.
• By exploring real-world scenarios and engaging with ethical frameworks, students will be prepared to uphold the highest standards of journalism, ensuring their reporting is accurate, unbiased, and respectful.

The post Module: Editorial Ethics first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Journalists can sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by trying too hard to ‘balance’ a story or incorrectly treating elements of a story as being roughly equal.

This article looks at ways of avoiding two errors, applying ‘false equivalence’ and ‘false balance’, which are both about making inaccurate comparisons.

False equivalence is when you say that two or more things are the same, when in fact they are significantly different.

An example of false equivalence is to state that “politicians are all the same”. They are not. They might have similarities and some common attributes but that does not mean they are the same.

False balance is when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, when in fact the evidence weighs heavily in favour of one side.

An example of false balance is the treatment of the climate change debate. Scientists come down heavily in favour of the proposition that human beings are causing, or at least helping to cause, global warming. A tiny minority, perhaps as low as three per cent, disagree, and it is false to represent the dispute as evenly-matched.

Ironically, many cases of false balance happen because the journalist is trying to avoid being biased.

When reporting a controversy, quite properly the journalist does not want to take sides.  But sometimes it is necessary to show that one side’s arguments and evidence are much more persuasive than the other side’s.

An example here is Donald Trump’s often-repeated claim that he won the 2020 US Presidential election. He has failed to produce any evidence to support that claim and has lost numerous court battles challenging the result. So it is false to present his claim as a viable argument.

False equivalence and false balance can both be used deliberately to mislead people. They are often used in misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Or they can be examples of lazy thinking by the journalist.

Either way, they are inaccurate and care must be taken to avoid using them. In order to avoid using false equivalence and false balance keep the following in mind:

• Justify: When you are tempted to say that two or more things are equal, ask yourself if you can justify the statement.
• Explain: If the comparison is likely to be controversial, explain why you think it is valid.
• Validate: Do not accept or repeat other people’s statements of equivalency, without testing their validity.
• Reflect: When covering a dispute, make sure you reflect accurately all sides of the argument.  If some of the arguments are questionable, explain why.

It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.

Questions

1. What is false equivalence, and how does it differ from false balance in journalism?
2. Provide an example of false equivalence mentioned in the text.
3. Explain why false balance can be misleading in journalistic reporting.
4. How might a journalist unintentionally create false balance when reporting on a controversy?
5. Discuss the potential consequences of using false equivalence and false balance in media.
6. Why is it important for journalists to test the validity of statements of equivalency?
7. How can journalists ensure they are accurately reflecting all sides of an argument in their reporting?
8. Analyse the role of bias in the context of false balance and false equivalence. How can journalists avoid it?
9. Evaluate the statement: “It’s important to keep in mind that it is not biased to expose deficiencies in an argument, as long as you subject all sides to the same level of scrutiny.” What does this imply about journalistic integrity?
10. Synthesise the strategies mentioned in the text to avoid false equivalence and false balance. How can these strategies improve the quality of journalism?

Answers

1. False equivalence is when two or more things are presented as the same, despite significant differences. False balance occurs when a report suggests that two sides in a dispute have equally valid arguments, even when evidence heavily favors one side.
2. An example of false equivalence is the statement “politicians are all the same,” which overlooks their differences.
3. False balance can mislead by suggesting that both sides of an argument have equal merit, even when evidence strongly supports one side over the other.
4. A journalist might unintentionally create false balance by trying to avoid bias and presenting both sides equally, even when one side lacks substantial evidence.
5. Using false equivalence and false balance can mislead audiences, contribute to misinformation, and undermine trust in journalism.
6. Testing the validity of statements of equivalency is crucial to avoid spreading misinformation and to ensure accurate reporting.
7. Journalists can ensure accuracy by thoroughly investigating all sides, presenting evidence, and explaining why some arguments may be more credible than others.
8. Bias can arise when journalists fail to critically evaluate the evidence for each side. Avoiding bias involves scrutinising all arguments equally and presenting evidence-based conclusions.
9. This statement implies that journalistic integrity involves critically evaluating all arguments and presenting evidence-based conclusions, rather than striving for artificial balance.
10. Strategies to avoid false equivalence and false balance include justifying comparisons, explaining controversial comparisons, and scrutinising all sides equally. These strategies enhance journalistic accuracy and credibility.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: False equivalence and false balance which you can download and adapt for your own purposes.

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism

Impartiality in journalism

Accuracy in journalism

The post False equivalence and false balance first appeared on Media Helping Media.

In this scenario a journalist lets their own emotional assumptions colour their news judgement resulting in misinformation.

A young radio reporter is coming to the end of his first month on the job. He’s just been approved to drive the radio station’s news car, which means he can now go out on stories and broadcast live from the scene. He’s very excited.

He looks out of the newsroom window and sees a thick plume of smoke rising from the east of the city centre. He alerts the news editor who agrees he should take the radio car, get as close to the scene as possible, and report live into the next bulletin at 4pm.

The reporter arrives at the scene at 3:50pm. He parks behind two fire engines at the corner of a building which is ablaze.

The reporter has 10 minutes before he has to go live into the bulletin. He tries to find someone for a comment, but all the firefighters are busy trying to control the flames, while the police are trying to control the crowd.

However, one of the engineers operating the fire engine pump will talk. When asked whether there are any casualties, he says “Not that we know of, but there are still people in the building.”

The reporter sees a group of people carrying items out of the burning tenements. He presumes they are trying to salvage what they can from the flames.

He lives in a similar part of the city and in similar accommodation. He feels sorry for them.

At that point he decides on the top line for his live report – that people are still in the building trying to salvage what possessions they can.

He hasn’t even considered that he could be at a crime scene where looters are stealing items as residents flee their burning homes.

He raises the radio car mast. The vehicle is new. It has the radio station’s logo plastered all over it in red, white, and blue. The reporter can see the car is attracting attention.

A group of men, some with their faces covered, gather round the vehicle. Three police officers approach and try to block their way.

By now the reporter is sitting in the radio car ready to broadcast. It’s one minute to the 4pm bulletin.

He leaves all four windows half-open to try to capture the sound effects of the chaos outside.

The 4pm news jingle starts to play.

The news reader announces that there is a major fire at a city centre tenement block. He then says, “We are now going live to our reporter on the scene.”

The light on the reporter’s microphone goes green. He’s live. He starts his report…

“The fire has now spread to four floors of this five-storey building. Dozens of firefighters are trying to contain the blaze. Residents are still in the building. Many are trying to salvage what they can from their burning homes. Working together they’re stacking their possessions on the street.”

One of the police officers, who had been protecting the radio car while the reporter was broadcasting, bangs on the window and shouts, “They’re looting, you’ve got to move, it’s not safe here.”

Emotions and assumptions take over

What we have here is a situation where an inexperienced reporter, faced with a breaking news story, is expected to report live from the scene with little knowledge of what is really going on.

That is a common situation.

But the reporter has been carried away with the excitement of the event, and, in the absence of any credible information, and with no time for proper news-gathering or fact-checking, relies solely on his own emotions and assumptions.

And that is not good.

The fact that he lived in a similar inner-city area meant that he was unable to be objective; he immediately assumed those gathering possessions were similar to his own neighbours.

His emotions were high when he thought they were salvaging what they could. He made a false assumption and that polluted his report.

The story he had built in his mind from the moment he arrived at the scene was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but it was missing the importance of the event.

He was witnessing rioting and looting, not local residents working together to salvage what they could from their burning homes.

In such situations reporters must detach themselves from events, broadcast what they see, and avoid any assumptions.

If they are unable to find out what is actually going on from a reliable source, they should offer a situation report about what they can see in front of them.

There was enough eye-witness material to fill a 30-second report without adding guesswork.

Guesswork, assumptions, and emotionally charged observations are not part of breaking news reporting.

The report should have been limited to describing the flames, the smoke, the number of fire engines, the size of the crowd, and the number of police at the scene.

The reporter’s mistake was letting his imagination take over.

He was broadcasting false information to the station’s listeners.

This was before social media, but in today’s age of Facebook and Twitter, such an error could lead to a rapid spread of misinformation which would take on a life of its own as raw emotion and ill-informed reaction is added.

Lessons from this scenario

• A breaking news reporter’s job is to describe what is happening at the scene, you are not there to interpret without evidence. If you have facts that are sourced and verified, you should include them.
• It doesn’t matter what you think might happen next. Guesswork about the future has absolutely no value.
• You must avoid all assumptions when compiling a report. Assumptions are fine when you are trying to work out what the story is during the research stage, but they then must be verified or discarded during the fact-checking process – they have no place in live situation reports.
• Adjectives and adverbs have little value in live breaking news reporting. The facts are strong enough on their own. The audience doesn’t need your subjective take on things, or your own personal value judgements.

This scenario vividly illustrates the dangers of emotional bias and unchecked assumptions in journalism, particularly in the fast-paced environment of breaking news.

Core problems:

• Emotional bias:
  • The reporter’s personal experience living in a similar area clouded his judgment. He empathised too strongly, leading him to project his own feelings onto the situation.
  • This emotional connection prevented him from objectively assessing the scene.
• Premature assumptions:
  • He jumped to conclusions about the people removing items from the building, assuming they were salvaging possessions rather than looting.
  • This assumption was based on his emotional bias, not on factual observation or verification.
• Lack of fact-checking:
  • He failed to gather sufficient information from reliable sources. He relied on a brief, ambiguous statement from a fire engineer and his own assumptions.
  • He did not consider alternative explanations for what he was witnessing.
• Prioritising narrative over accuracy:
  • He constructed a narrative in his mind and then forced the facts to fit it, rather than letting the facts dictate the story.
  • He was more concerned with creating a dramatic story, than telling the truth.
• Failure to report what he saw:
  • Instead of simply describing the scene, he interpreted it, and incorrectly.

Key takeaways:

• The importance of objectivity:
  • Reporters must strive to maintain objectivity, especially in emotionally charged situations.
  • Personal experiences and feelings should not influence news judgment.
  • Journalists need to examine their own unconscious bias.
• The necessity of verification:
  • Assumptions must be rigorously checked and verified before being reported as fact.
  • Multiple sources should be consulted to ensure accuracy.
  • Fact-checking is essential.
• Descriptive reporting:
  • In breaking news, especially when information is limited, descriptive reporting is crucial. Focus on what you can see and hear, without adding subjective interpretations.
  • “Just the facts” is a powerful tool.
• The dangers of misinformation:
  • Misinformation can spread rapidly, especially in today’s digital age.
  • Reporters have a responsibility to be accurate and avoid contributing to the spread of false information.
• The power of words:
  • Using adjectives and adverbs add subjective opinion. In breaking news, the facts alone carry the weight of the story.
• The pressure of live reporting:
  • Live reporting is a high-pressure environment, but it does not excuse inaccurate reporting.
  • Reporters must be trained to handle these situations responsibly.
• Ethical considerations:
  • The reporter’s actions had ethical implications, potentially endangering the safety of himself and others, and misrepresenting the situation to the public.
  • Journalistic ethics are essential.

In essence, this scenario serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of journalistic integrity, objectivity, and accuracy. It highlights the need for reporters to prioritize factual reporting over emotional narratives, especially in the chaotic and fast-paced world of breaking news.

Related articles

Accuracy – scenario

Accuracy in journalism

Photojournalism and ethics

The post Emotional assumptions – scenario first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Bias is a prejudice or favour for or against an individual or group. It is often an inaccurate and unfair judgement. We are all biased. It’s normal, although it is not desirable.

Our brains have to process a lot of information in a short time. It therefore sometimes takes shortcuts. This ability can help keep us safe. We quickly assess whether or not the unknown person approaching us is a threat or harmless.

Factors affecting our unconscious bias

• Our background and upbringing
• Personal experience
• Societal stereotypes
• Cultural context

Unconscious bias can lead to inaccurate assumptions

Journalists should not make assumptions. They should base their judgements on facts and reliable evidence.

• Unconscious bias can lead to damaging stereotypes.
• It can lead to the assumption of innocence or guilt.
• It can mean only a few types of people are interviewed and have their views broadcast or published.
• It can mean that the best people are not hired for the job.

Different types of unconscious bias

Unconscious bias means we do not knowingly show bias, but bias is evident in what we produce. If we are aware of the different types of bias, we can take steps to try to avoid it.

Affinity bias

This bias occurs when we are drawn to people we are like. We are biased in favour of those with whom we share an affinity. That’s to say: people like me.

Confirmation bias

This bias occurs when we favour information, which confirms what we already believe. For example, if we are not in favour of policy X, we are more willing to believe that minor setbacks are major problems and proof that ultimately policy X will fail.

Anchor bias

This bias occurs when we rely too heavily on the first piece of information we receive and we are anchored down by it. For example, if the first piece of information we receive comes from an official who says Y is a problem – we will see Y as a problem rather than questioning whether or not this is true in the first place.

Bandwagon Bias

Jumping on the bandwagon means joining in something just because it is fashionable or popular. Journalists often follow stories or trends because other media outlets are doing so. Journalists need to keep up with current trends, but just because other media houses are following a story it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s important or true.

How to avoid unconscious bias

• Be aware of the different types of unconscious bias.
• Think about the situations where you are likely to be susceptible to unconscious bias.
• Find your trigger points when you are likely to make snap judgements.

Possible triggers for unconscious bias

• Under pressure of a deadline.
• Under pressure from your boss to come up with stories.
• When you are tired, stressed or hungry.
• When you are in an unfamiliar territory or with unfamiliar people.
• When you feel threatened or judged.

Measures for tackling unconscious bias

• Step out of your comfort zone. Talk to as many different types of people as you can.
• Put yourself in the other person’s shoes. See things from their perspective.
• Counter stereotyping by imagining the person as the opposite of the stereotype.
• See everyone as an individual rather than a type.
• Flip the situation. Imagine a different group of people or flip the gender. Would you still come to the same conclusions?
• Be careful with your language and images. Make sure they do not contain assumptions, harmful stereotypes or inaccuracies.

Question 1: Unconscious bias is a quick judgement based on limited facts and our own life experience. True or false?

Answer = True. Biases are often based on quick judgements. Examining your assumptions is a good way to counter bias.

Question 2: The manager agrees to let one of your colleagues work flexible hours. You view this as an indication that they are not as committed as those who work regular hours. This is not unconscious bias if they later do turn out to be trying to avoid certain responsibilities. True or false?

Answer = False. In this case, someone who believes that employees who work flexible hours are less committed than those working more traditional hours may start to develop perceptions of colleagues who work flexibly which confirm that belief. This is unconscious confirmation bias.

Question 3: If you choose to recruit candidate Z because you get on with them because you studied at the same college – this is not affinity bias if they are a different gender and ethnicity to you. True or false?

Answer = False. It is affinity bias because you still feel an affinity to them through a shared experience of college.

Question 4: Unconscious bias is based on the following:

1. Gender
2. Appearance
3. Previous experience
4. Ethnicity
5. All the above

Answer = All the above.

Question 5: What is affinity bias?

1. Believing something because your friends believe it.
2. Being more receptive to people who are like you.
3. Looking for evidence which backs up your beliefs about someone.
4. Creating stereotypes about different groups of people.

Answer = b is correct

Question 6: Unconscious bias can give people an unearned advantage and unearned disadvantage. True or false?

Answer = True

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan ‘Unconscious bias and its impact on journalism‘ which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

Take a look at these other modules on Media Helping Media to help you keep your journalism up to the highest standards.

False equivalence and false balance

Accuracy in journalism

The post Unconscious bias and journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Our role as journalists is to unearth information, prepare it and then display it for the benefit of the audience. We are not there to fabricate, manipulate or force.

We are there to uncover facts, not plant them. So what are the essential attitudes needed when going out on a story?

I wrote this article after an experience in the Caucasus when a young journalist interviewed me. I was told the interview was going to be about the course I was running.

However it became clear that the reporter had only one question in mind. She wanted to know what I thought of the political situation in her country, and she kept repeating the question, clearly eager to hear the answer that she wanted to hear from a visiting journalism trainer from England.

She kept returning to the same question to which I was only able to tell her that I was there to deliver journalism training and not to comment on the country’s political situation.

But she wouldn’t give up, and each time she asked the question she became more and more animated adding opinion and some anger to her leading questions.

It was an approach that I had not personally been exposed to before. And it made me think about how important it is for journalists to remain objective and impartial not only when reporting about events, but also when planning interviews.

It also reminded me of the many times I have gone out on a story with an end result in mind. Like all journalists, I always wanted my story to run, either in print when I was a newspaper journalist, or in the bulletins and current affairs shows when I was a radio and TV correspondent.

I also wanted it to be hard-hitting, insightful, memorable and – let’s be honest – to win me praise and make me look good.

Looking back, and with the Caucasus interview in mind, here are a few thoughts on how to make sure journalism relates to reality and not our own idea of how a situation should play out.

1: Retain an open mind

It’s fine to set off on an interview having done your research and with one burning question in your mind. In fact, not to do so could be seen as sloppy and could leave you open to manipulation.

However, you need to retain an open mind and accept that unexpected things may happen. It may be that there is a stronger line of questioning than the one you had thought of as you set off for the interview.

You will probably not spot that opportunity if you are working to a set script and have an end result in mind. So it’s important to be prepared to leave your script behind and retain an open mind when you meet your interviewee.

2: Don’t force an issue

Some journalists misinterpret resistance to questioning to be an admission of guilt, and that if the interviewee refuses to answer, or avoids the question, they have something to hide. It might not mean that.

However it could mean that it was a bad question not relevant to the topic. It could also mean that the person you are interviewing genuinely doesn’t have an answer or opinion. or it could mean that you don’t understand the complexity of the issues being discussed.

Press too hard at times like these and you could end up damaging the integrity of the media organisation you represent. Confrontation is not necessarily a sign of good journalism – just because you get a reaction doesn’t mean you have made a good point.

3: Be firm but fair

You can be rigorous and robust in your interviewing and remain fair. You probably won’t achieve this with a shouting match and a standoff. It will need clear questioning and sensible interpretation of the answers.

Your role is not to appear smart and score points against the interviewee. Your role is to inform the public debate so that the audience can make educated choices.

Be prepared to back down if you have asked a question that is clearly irrelevant and off-topic. Be prepared to admit when you are wrong or when you are still learning. Be prepared to acknowledge a good point if the interviewee offers a plausible explanation.

Always challenge yourself more than you challenge the interviewee. If not, you will appear arrogant. Interviews should be conversations, not lectures. Interviews conducted with a desired end result are rarely more than rants, and fitting only to those media organisations that have vested interests controlling their editorial agenda.

The post A journalist must not have an agenda first appeared on Media Helping Media.

I began thinking about this after being invited to contribute a chapter for a handbook for journalists living in exile. In the email, the reason for inviting me to write a chapter was expressed as follows, “because you are an experienced journalist and a media activist.”

If journalism is meant to be objective, impartial and fair, then surely a journalist can’t be an activist?

But what if that journalist campaigns for freedom of expression, can that be achieved without compromising the editorial ethics listed above? And what about journalists reporting on environmental issues such as climate change?

I have never thought of myself as a media activist. In fact I have always thought of activism as being incompatible with true journalism and I have always considered an activist to be someone who pushes a cause without aiming to reflect an alternative view point. If that is the case, and if an activist makes no attempt to remain objective and impartial, how can they also be a journalist?

Journalists must always aim to be removed from the issues they are covering. They must avoid becoming emotionally and politically involved, because once they do they are likely to lose their objectivity. But what about journalists specialising in areas that have strong public interest such as:

• Human rights and freedom of expression
• The environment and climate change
• Health, disease, pandemics, medicine.

I have been working with journalists in transition and post-conflict countries, and countries where freedom of expression is under threat for more than 20 years. In all cases, I have been trying to help them establish strong, independent, and ethically focused newsrooms. In those conditions, I can see the term activism being used in a different way by those who don’t enjoy the levels of freedom of expression that we enjoy in the West.

Perhaps the phrase media activist reflects the realities of what journalists in the majority world face day to day.

I come from a society where journalists are taken out and wined and dined by the powerful and influential, whereas many journalists in the majority world are simply taken out with bullets and bombs.

In that atmosphere it is understandable to come across journalists who view themselves as activists.

However, if a journalist’s role is to seek out truth, reflect the voices and opinions of those who don’t usually have a say, and to represent the whole audience regardless of race, religion, political affiliation and social status, then perhaps a journalist is, essentially, an activist for freedom of expression.

One dictionary definition of journalism is ‘the profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and online’. However, I would argue that journalism, without clearly-defined journalistic ethics, can easily deteriorate into public relations (PR) and marketing.

Journalism has to be accurate. It is all about clear, irrefutable facts that are tested and well set out. Journalism also needs to be well-sourced. All evidence must be checked and verified. All elements of the story need to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are not misleading and that they don’t magnify one side at the expense of another.

We should use clear, precise wording to tell the story and avoid comment and opinion that could add confusion. We need to be open about what we know, what we think we know and what we don’t know.

Journalism needs to be impartial, objective, and fair. We need to remain open-minded and reflect all significant opinions as we explore a wide range of disparate views.

If we decide not to use some views, we need to be clear why. We need to ask ourselves why we are omitting some information or views and including others.

What impact does that have on the piece? Does it help clarify issues, or does it confuse? If it confuses, what could be the consequences of that confusion and who is likely to gain?

• We need to be honest with ourselves about our motives and reasons for covering a story.
• We need to understand any unconscious bias that lurks beneath our journalism.
• We need to ask searching questions.
• We need to talk to all sides, particularly those who hold public office.
• And, in doing so, we need to provide the basis for a healthy and robust public debate.

All journalists will have their own political points of view, but these must never creep into our journalism, and they must not have any bearing on the choice of stories we cover or the way we cover them.

Perhaps this is where the real meaning of the word activism becomes relevant. When all these conditions have been met, a journalist will have served as an activist for freedom of expression, human rights, or protecting the environment.

However, as far as using journalism to fight for a particular cause, that is a difficult one. In those cases the journalist probably needs to accept that they have crossed a line in the same way that a journalist who moves into public relations (PR) does. Once crossed they are using their skills for a different purpose. They are no longer aiming to reflect all significant strands of opinion but, rather, they have chosen to focus on one and make that their editorial priority.

It’s important to explore the tension between journalistic objectivity and activism, particularly in contexts where fundamental freedoms are at stake.

The traditional view: Objectivity vs. activism

The traditional view posits that journalism and activism are fundamentally incompatible. Journalism, at its core, is rooted in:

• Objectivity: Striving to present facts without personal bias.
• Impartiality: Giving fair representation to all sides of a story.
• Accuracy: Ensuring factual correctness and verification.

Activism, conversely, is driven by advocacy for a specific cause, often involving:

• Taking a clear stance.
• Promoting a particular viewpoint.
• Seeking to influence public opinion and policy.

From this perspective, a journalist who engages in activism risks compromising their credibility and the public’s trust.

The reality: Nuances and grey areas

However, the reality is far more nuanced. Several factors blur the lines:

• Fundamental rights: Reporting on human rights abuses, freedom of expression violations, or environmental destruction often necessitates exposing injustice. In such cases, the pursuit of truth inherently aligns with advocacy for basic rights.
• Contextual differences: Journalists in repressive regimes often face existential threats. In these contexts, simply reporting the truth can be an act of defiance and a form of activism. The lines between journalist and activist become blurred out of necessity.
• “Activism” as a defence of journalistic values: One can argue that upholding journalistic ethics – accuracy, fairness, and impartiality – is itself a form of activism, especially in an era of misinformation and propaganda.
• Specialised reporting: Journalists specialising in areas such as environmental science or public health often possess deep expertise. This expertise can lead to a strong sense of responsibility to inform the public about critical issues, which may involve advocating for evidence-based solutions.

The challenge of maintaining credibility

The challenge lies in maintaining credibility while engaging in advocacy. Here are some considerations:

• Transparency: Journalists should be transparent about their potential biases and any affiliations that could influence their reporting.
• Rigorous fact-checking: Even when advocating for a cause, journalists must adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and verification.
• Fair representation: While advocating for a particular viewpoint, journalists should strive to acknowledge and address opposing arguments, even if they disagree with them.
• Distinguishing between reporting and opinion: Clearly separating factual reporting from opinion or commentary is crucial.
• Acknowledging limitations: Journalists should be clear about what they know, what they don’t know, and any uncertainties surrounding the information they present.

The role of context

The context in which a journalist operates significantly influences the relationship between journalism and activism.

• Western democracies: In societies with strong press freedoms, journalists can generally maintain a clear separation between reporting and advocacy.
• Authoritarian regimes: In countries where freedom of the press is suppressed, journalists may be forced to become activists simply to survive and report the truth.
• Conflict zones: Journalists covering wars and humanitarian crises often witness atrocities that demand a response. In these situations, the line between reporting and advocacy can become blurred.

Journalism as activism for truth

Ultimately, perhaps the most profound form of journalistic activism is the relentless pursuit of truth. By holding power accountable, amplifying marginalised voices, and exposing injustice, journalists can act as powerful agents of change.

In summary:

• There is a traditional and valid concern that activism will corrupt the core values of journalism.
• Context and the subject matter that is being reported on, can make the lines between activism and journalism become blurred.
• Journalists can be activists for the truth, and for the values of good journalism.
• Transparency is key to the journalist maintaining their credibility.

Questions and Answers

1. Question: According to the traditional view, what are the core principles of journalism that are considered incompatible with activism?
   • Answer: The traditional view emphasises objectivity, impartiality, and accuracy as core principles of journalism, which are seen as conflicting with the advocacy-driven nature of activism.
2. Question: In what types of contexts might the lines between journalism and activism become blurred?
   • Answer: The lines become blurred in contexts such as reporting on fundamental rights violations, operating in repressive regimes, and covering conflict zones.
3. Question: What is meant by “activism” as a defence of journalistic values?
   • Answer: It refers to the idea that upholding journalistic ethics – accuracy, fairness, and impartiality – can be seen as a form of activism, particularly in combating misinformation.
4. Question: What is the primary challenge journalists face when engaging in advocacy?
   • Answer: The primary challenge is maintaining credibility while advocating for a cause.
5. Question: What role does transparency play in maintaining credibility for a journalist who engages in advocacy?
   • Answer: Transparency involves being open about potential biases and affiliations that could influence reporting, which helps maintain credibility.
6. Question: How does the context of “Western democracies” influence the relationship between journalism and activism?
   • Answer: In Western democracies, there is typically a clearer separation between reporting and advocacy due to strong press freedoms.
7. Question: How does the context of “authoritarian regimes” influence the relationship between journalism and activism?
   • Answer: In authoritarian regimes, journalists may be forced into activism simply to report the truth and survive.
8. Question: What is meant by the phrase “Journalism as activism for truth”?
   • Answer: It refers to the idea that the pursuit of truth, holding power accountable, and amplifying marginalised voices are forms of activism inherent in good journalism.
9. Question: What is the risk that a journalist takes when they decide to fight for a specific cause?
   • Answer: The journalist risks crossing a line that separates journalism from advocacy, similar to when a journalist enters public relations, where they prioritise one viewpoint.
10. Question: What is the importance of a journalist to separate reporting from opinion?
    • Answer: Separating reporting from opinion is important to maintain credibility, and to allow the public to decipher the facts of a situation, from the opinion of the journalist.

The post Journalism and activism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Reliable journalism is based on applying strict editorial ethics to all we do so that we can examine the issues that have the most impact on the lives of our audience.

If the content you produce pushes an agenda, spins a line, favours a sector of society, promotes a certain initiative without question, is manipulated to achieve a subjective outcome, or has a desired objective, you are probably producing public relations copy or even propaganda.

So, does your journalism pass the test? Consider the following questions to see whether your journalism is ethical or not.

Questions to consider

• What is your journalistic purpose.
• What do you hope to achieve by doing the story?
• What is your personal motivation?
• Do you have any vested interests in the outcome?
• Have you included different perspectives and diverse ideas?
• Is the journalism you produce is thorough and informative?
• Have you ignored any elements that might appear to weaken the story you are writing?
• Have you considered what motivates those you are interviewing?
• Are all your questions fair, or are they leading or manipulative?
• What are the possible consequences of the story you are producing both in the short term and long term?
• Are you using those you choose to interview in order to strengthen your article without considering the possible harm they might suffer once the story is published?
• Are you able to justify your editorial decisions to your colleagues, to those who you interview, and to the public?
• Is your journalism original, well-sourced, accurate, and honest?

Getting it right

• Keep your eyes wide open – seek truth and report it as fully as possible.
• Act independently – owe nobody and don’t seek favours or favourites.
• Minimise harm – protect your sources, respect privacy, be aware of possible consequences.
• Assess all facts – don’t ignore the uncomfortable, or that which goes against your script.
• Seek out independent sources – don’t follow the flock, find fresh voices and perspectives.
• Thoroughly check the validity of information – take nothing at face value and make sure you have researched and can justify the inclusion of every fact.
• Be wary of subjective manipulation – don’t be swayed by those who want you to put a positive spin on news.

Attitudes of mind

• Be honest, fair, and courageous in your news gathering and reporting.
• Give voice to the voiceless
• Scrutinise the executive.
• Hold the powerful to account.
• Guard vigorously the role a free media plays in an open society.
• Seek out and disseminate competing perspectives, especially those which are rarely heard.
• Remain free of associations and activities that could compromise your ability to publish the truth.
• Always consider how your journalism could impact the lives of those who feature in your coverage.
• Treat all with respect, and not as a means to achieving your journalistic end.

Accuracy

• All work must be well-sourced.
• It must be based on sound evidence.
• Your writing must be thoroughly fact-checked.
• It must be presented in clear, precise language.
• Avoid spreading unfounded speculation, rumour and gossip.
• Accuracy is more important than speed.
• Never rush a story to be first with the news; better to be second and right rather than first and wrong.
• Ensure you always weigh all the relevant facts and information in order to get to the truth.
• If an issue is controversial you must always include all relevant opinions so that your reporting is not one-sided.
• Gather material using first-hand sources wherever possible.
• Ensure you read through everything you write.
• Check the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.
• Corroborate claims and allegations made.

Diversity

• Always strive to reflect a wide range of opinions.
• Always be prepared to explore a range of conflicting views.
• Never ignore any significant strands of thought or under-represented groups.
• Exercise your freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so.
• Ensure to avoid bias or an imbalance of views on all issues, particularly controversial subjects.
• You will sometimes need to report on issues that may cause serious offence to many. You must be sure that a clear public interest outweighs the possible offence.

Public interest criteria

• The story exposes criminal activity.
• It highlights significant anti-social behaviour, corruption or injustice.
• The story discloses significant incompetence or negligence.
• My journalism is uncovering information that allows people to make informed decisions about matters of public importance.
• The story could help protect the health and safety of the public.
• It could preventing the public from being misled.
• The story protects issues of freedom of expression.

Fairness

• Be open, honest and straightforward in dealing with contributors, unless there is a clear public interest in doing otherwise.
• Where allegations are being made, the individuals or organisations concerned should normally be given the right of reply.

Privacy

• It is essential in order to exercise your rights of freedom of expression and information that you work within a framework which respects an individual’s privacy and treats them fairly while investigating and establishing matters which it is in the public interest to reveal.

Integrity

• Always remain independent of both state and partisan interests.
• Never endorse or appear to endorse any organisations, products, activities or services.

Sources

• Accept information from any source, but know you will need to make a personal decision as to which information is worth considering and which is not.
• Sources must always be checked, especially when dealing with first-time sources that have never been used before.
• It is important to protect sources that do not wish to be named.

Questions

1. What are the main principles of reliable journalism?
2. How can you differentiate between journalism and public relations or propaganda?
3. What questions should a journalist ask themselves to ensure their work is ethical?
4. Why is it important for journalists to include diverse perspectives in their reporting?
5. How should journalists handle controversial issues?
6. What role does accuracy play in journalism?
7. How should journalists approach the use of sources, especially first-time sources?
8. What is the significance of public interest in journalistic reporting?
9. What is the relationship between journalism and privacy?
10. How should journalists maintain integrity and independence?

Answers

1. Reliable journalism is based on strict editorial ethics, examining impactful issues, and avoiding bias or manipulation.
2. Journalism is differentiated by its adherence to ethical standards, while public relations or propaganda often push agendas or manipulate outcomes.
3. Journalists should consider their purpose, motivations, vested interests, perspectives included, thoroughness, fairness, and potential consequences.
4. Including diverse perspectives ensures comprehensive coverage and prevents bias, enriching the story with varied viewpoints.
5. Journalists should report on controversial issues by including all relevant opinions and ensuring a clear public interest justifies potential offence.
6. Accuracy is crucial; it involves thorough fact-checking, clear language, and prioritising truth over speed to avoid spreading misinformation.
7. Journalists should verify all sources, especially first-time ones, and protect those who wish to remain anonymous.
8. Public interest is significant as it justifies reporting on issues that expose wrongdoing, inform the public, and protect societal values.
9. Journalism must respect privacy while balancing the public interest, ensuring fair treatment during investigations.
10. Journalists maintain integrity by staying independent of state and partisan interests and avoiding endorsements or biases.

The post Is your journalism ethical? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The Media Helping Media ethics section is designed to help journalists navigate some of the challenges they might face as they go about their work.

The following ethical considerations are intended to be used as guidelines. They need to be adapted to ensure that they are regionally and culturally relevant.

They are for journalists who want to provide robust, searching, issue-led journalism that informs the public debate so that the audience/users/readers can make educated choices.

The articles are based on a desire to deliver editorial excellence that reaches the whole audience regardless of race, religion, nationality, personal preferences and social status, with impartial, fair, accurate and objective information.

The material on this site has nothing to do with producing so-called ‘constructive news’ or ‘positive news’. Subjective value judgements sit uncomfortably with editorial ethics. The ethical guidelines set out below will help journalists deal with editorial issues affecting life as it really is rather than from a controlled perspective.

Increasing demand for ethics training

The creation of this section follows a growing demand for training to help journalists cope with the editorial and ethical issues surrounding newsgathering and news delivery.

Many people have written editorial guidelines, and a search of the web will throw up dozens of variations. We have chosen to base the Media Helping Media guidelines on the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. This is mainly because the two founders of Media Helping Media spent many years working at the BBC and have trained thousands of journalists in how to apply these guidelines.

However, the Media Helping Media guidelines are significantly different. Because they are used in training courses in various parts of the world, they are continually updated to reflect regional issues and sensitivities.

The issue in all cases is to balance the right to freedom of expression with editorial responsibility.

The articles in this section cover:

• Accuracy: Producing well-sourced information based on solid evidence
• Impartiality: Being fair and open-minded coverage while exploring all significant views
• Fairness: Operating in a transparent, open, honest and fair manner based on straight dealing
• Privacy: Ensuring we respect and never invade personal privacy unless it is in the public interest
• Offence: Delivering challenging journalism that is sensitive to audience expectations
• Integrity: Dealing with groups keen to use, manipulate or mould the media for their own advantage
• Bias: Understanding motivation and attitude.

Check our ethics section for the full list of training articles.

Lesson plan for trainers

If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan for teaching editorial ethics which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.

The post Why editorial ethics are important first appeared on Media Helping Media.