The ethics of representation
By Editor on September 4, 2008 10:21 am
JOURNALISM IS FOR the people. As the fourth estate, the watchdog of the public, the scrutiniser of celebrities, public figures and institutions, journalism has always professed to work on behalf of its audience. With this power, however, comes the responsibility to report accurately and honestly.
So it should come as no surprise that National Union of Journalists General Secretary Jeremy Dear called on fellow professionals to exorcise the demons that exist within the reporting of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants. In a letter to journalists earlier this year Dear said: “The media plays a key role in how refugees and asylum seekers are perceived and, ultimately, how they are treated by the public at large.”
The Union’s Code of Conduct, a “rulebook” designed to ensure ethical journalism is practiced by its members, has recently included a Conscience Clause in a bid to “nail asylum myths” by placing accurate reportage in the public domain.
So why is this an issue? And is there really a problem? The Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees in the UK certainly thinks so. The academic research group, which is based at London’s City University in England, has been highly critical of the British press for its sometimes “lazy” reporting of issues such as immigration, born perhaps of the continuing expansion of the European Union and the tens of thousands of annual applications for asylum in the UK.
Its research, which was carried out between January and March 2005, found inaccurate terms were used in a cross-section of (mainly national) newspapers. In particular, it found that the interchangeable use of terms with different meanings (e.g. “refugee”, “asylum seeker”, “failed asylum seeker” and “migrant”) that could be seen as “a reflection of the fact that global migration processes are complex and it is not always easy to distinguish between forced and more voluntary movements”.
However, in some reporting there was evidence of lazy journalism and a lack of understanding of the legal framework governing asylum applications. That phrases “asylum seeker”, “migrant” and “refugee” have been deployed in an apparent haphazard way surely contradicts the essence of journalism and the NUJ — that of clear, accurate and honest reporting.
A pamphlet issued in January to members of the NUJ provided a bitesize guide in defining these complicated and baggage-laden terms. In particular, attention was drawn to the erroneous description of an “illegal” asylum seeker, owing to the fundamental human right that, under international law, everyone is permitted to request asylum from his or her own country.
So why are these descriptions lazily employed in the first place? It could be argued that readers sympathetic to Enoch Powell’s notion of “floodgates Britain” may seek solace in a press that adheres to similar viewpoints. However, it is possible the more potent cause is subconscious reporting, where stereotypes are naturalised rather than challenged.
The Hutton Inquiry into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly and the “sexed-up” Iraq dossier revealed a dispatch from then Today programme editor Kevin Marsh, who criticised his BBC colleague Andrew Gilligan’s use of “loose” language. With this in mind, it is little wonder that many have flagged up the “crisis of trust” in British journalism in recent years.
The NUJ’s attempt to help reclaim and safeguard that trust, through sensible handling of asylum issues and working with the UN Refugee Agency London, should therefore be seen as a step in the right direction.
UK journalist Ryan Hooper can be reached at rjhooper@hotmail.co.uk.
Your Thoughts (0 Comments)
