“It is not in the public interest to know all the details of the murder of a girl”: N1 guests on the Code of Journalists

(Source: N1) A working group composed of representatives of the Press Council, UNS, NUNS, Media Association and Local Press presented the proposal of the new Code of Journalists of Serbia. Gordana Novakovic from the Press Council says that the Code had to be changed after 18 years, and that one of the provisions is that the state must stop funding media that constantly violate that code. Nevena Martinović from Share Foundation adds that new norms had to be introduced into the Code, because the entire media environment has changed.

What are the things that need to be changed in reporting in relation to the norms in the previous document, adopted 18 years ago? How will this affect viewers, readers and listeners? What do you expect from the public hearing that will last until May 7?

“At first glance, it seems that the changes are big, but in fact they are not so much. Our Code was not bad, it was a good document, but some things have changed in 18 years, due to the development of the Internet, it was necessary to incorporate something else into the document,” Novakovic said in New Day.

She also says that in her work, the Complaints Commission of the Press Council saw several things that were not covered by the Code.

“We faced some things that were not governed by the code. Let’s say, we didn’t have a provision in the Code that it’s forbidden to campaign against people, and that’s something we’ve had very often. This provision is now incorporated into the Code,” she stressed.

Novakovic said that some things in the Code were repeated in several places, so that was regulated as well.

“And we have also developed, say, the right to privacy and the dignity of the person. We have often had complaints concerning violations of dignity. And at first glance, it seems that the whole document has been greatly changed, but it is the same document in essence,” she said.

When asked how much the Code had to be changed, given that the current “18” year old, Martinovic said that the new norms had to be made, because the entire media environment had completely changed.

“We tried not to change things. “We’ve brought in certain things that are like intelligence, privacy rights, and some things related to social media,” she said.

As she stated, the privacy chapter contains a provision that, for example, all information transmitted from social networks is considered as a source and must be verified.

“Also, we need to seek the consent of the people whose information is being downloaded. In certain situations, it does not have to, if the person directly intended this information to the public,” he notes.

Novakovic, speaking about the public interest, says it is “an eternal journalistic dilemma”.

“We have written clearly and precisely that the editor is responsible for every content he publishes on his media. Which includes any download from every other source. What is public interest is an eternal journalistic dilemma, but every editor has to measure it himself,” she emphasized.

Although, he adds, it seems to be difficult to determine, it is not.