Journalists also vote: Where does personal opinion end and political cheerleading begin?
(Source: Webinfo ) A journalist is not a person without a political opinion. This person also goes to the polls, circles the name on the ballot and almost certainly has a stand on the government, the opposition, the student list or some other political option. But what happens when that choice ceases to be private – when it appears in a (social media) profile photo, in a frame, slogan or becomes open support? And can a media outlet have an editorial stance without becoming a supporter?
Election campaigns almost always reinforce existing divisions. Profile photos with frames, slogans, logos and calls to vote appear on social networks. Among the people posting them are journalists.
In itself, a journalist’s political opinion is nothing unusual. A journalist is not deprived of the rights that other citizens have. The question begins where his private opinion becomes a public political alignment, especially when the same journalist reports on people and options among which he has previously publicly chosen a side.
Code: media can have an editorial concept, facts cannot have a party booklet
The Journalists’ Code of Serbia specifically insists that political interests must not influence the professional work of journalists and that professional distance must be maintained in reporting. Election campaigns are a particularly sensitive time, when the line between personal political stance and public political engagement becomes even more visible.
But where exactly does a journalist’s right to say what they think end and “advocating for a political option” begin?
Gordana Novaković , Secretary General of the Press Council, tells Webinfo that the answer is not entirely simple.
” A journalist’s political affiliation should in no way affect his journalistic work, and that is probably the ‘red line’ ,” Novaković said.
On the other hand, she adds journalists, like all other people, have the right to freedom of expression and political affiliation.
When it comes to social media, part of the answer is left to the audience.
” If he expresses personal views on social media, it is up to the audience to assess whether they will trust his objectivity and impartiality ,” says Novaković.
She also points out that many large newsrooms have internal rules that more precisely define what a journalist can do privately without jeopardizing their own credibility and the credibility of the media. She adds that the position of every journalist is not the same – commentators and columnists have significantly greater freedom to express political views.
Private profile – how private is it really?
The President of the ANEM Managing Board and long-time journalist Veran Matić believes that the Code should be the basic guideline.
” Everyone can have a personal political stance, and they certainly do ,” Matić tells Webinfo, but adds that professional responsibility rests on respecting the Code and the law.
For him, the line between the private profile of a famous journalist and his professional identity is not complete.
” If your professional guideline is related to respecting the journalistic code, your private ‘profile’ should not deviate from the values that are clearly indicated by the code. Otherwise, you lose credibility and credibility with the audience ,” says Matić.
When asked what happens when a journalist publicly shows which electoral option he supports, Matić assesses that this does not necessarily mean that he is no longer capable of reporting professionally, but he questions the purpose of such public alignment.
” We all know roughly who belongs to which political option. And I don’t see the benefit of publicly presenting this information in order to define ourselves on the political scene. That can only hinder the performance of journalistic work ,” says Matić.
His answer to the question of whether the same rules should apply to a journalist who supports a student list, the government, or the opposition is very brief:
” It absolutely should apply to everyone. “
Reuters: You can vote, but be careful what your public engagement says about your impartiality
A similar dilemma has long existed in the world’s largest newsrooms.
Reuters explicitly recognizes the right of its journalists to vote in its professional standards, but requires employees to take care that their activities outside of work do not compromise their impartiality or create the appearance of political bias.
Reuters asks its journalists not to identify themselves or the organization with one side in a political dispute and warns that even the perception of a conflict of interest can damage the credibility of an individual and the entire editorial team. At the same time, it insists on the distinction between factual reporting and clearly marked commentaries and columns.
The Associated Press goes even further. Its journalists are required to avoid political activity regardless of whether they regularly report on politics, and its rules on public expression of opinion also apply to social media, blogs, petitions, and even political stickers or badges. The reasoning is simple – publicly expressing a political stance can jeopardize the AP’s reputation as an impartial news source.
The American Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) makes an important distinction: a journalist has the right to vote and does not have to be a person without political opinions, but he should avoid political activities that may damage his integrity or credibility. For journalists who directly follow politics, the SPJ even cites party badges, stickers, and other public signs of support as problematic.
In other words: the requirement of the profession is not that a journalist has no opinion , but that the reader does not have to think about whether the news they are reading is adapted to that opinion.
Is the media allowed to “have a side”?
Overview of international journalistic standards on personal political stance, public engagement and professional impartiality
This raises another, perhaps even more important, question.
A media outlet has the right to an editorial policy. It can decide to pay much more attention to corruption, human rights, ecology, local self-government, social issues or government control. The Code does not prohibit this – on the contrary, it explicitly recognizes different editorial concepts. What it does not allow is that facts are subordinated to that concept or that political propaganda is presented as journalistic content.
Therefore, critical reporting about the government is not in itself support for the opposition , just as publishing relevant information about the ruling party is not support for that party.
One of the basic tasks of journalism is to control those in power. The SPJ lists “holding the powerful accountable” among the fundamental professional obligations of journalists.
But that job has a condition: the same verification rules must apply to everyone.
If there are serious facts against a representative of the government – they are published. If there are against an opposition politician – also. If the criticism concerns a student list – the fact that part of the audience supports it cannot be a reason to keep the information silent. And vice versa.
The same rule does not mean the same number of texts
Professional balance does not mean that every political actor must receive exactly the same number of texts, the same headlines, or the same number of sentences.
Reuters does not define fairness as a mathematical division of space into equal parts either. The importance of the event, the responsibility of the actors, their power and relevance to the public influence how much space a topic receives. What must remain the same are professional standards: the facts must be verified, the accusation must not be presented as a proven fact, and the person who is the subject of serious criticism must be given the opportunity to respond.
This also means that the media is not obliged to be the megaphone of any party. A party statement is a party statement and should be labeled as such. The Code requires exactly that.
And where is the reader?
Perhaps the reader is the best test.
One will see an article criticizing the government as “opposition media.” Another will see a published statement by a government representative as “promotion of the regime.” A third will interpret criticism of a student list as an attack on students, while a fourth will consider any news about that list as political support.
A journalist cannot control the political affiliation of a reader.
Can control his own business.
For Webinfo, this means that the criteria for publishing cannot be a question of who will like the news . The criteria must be public interest, relevance, verifiability, and the same professional standard towards everyone we report on.
During the elections, a journalist, like any other citizen, will be left alone behind a screen with a ballot.
Perhaps this is one of the few places where his political decision can truly remain his alone.
Author: Tijana Janković