Comments on: Christina Odone should learn to tell the truth

By: David Phillips

David Phillips — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:15:18 +0000

Remind me... did Julia once do stand in editing for Kate at PRW.

So poacher and gamekeeper will both fire blanks soon.

By: Philip Young

Philip Young — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:05:56 +0000

Stuart, I have expanded on some of these themes on Mediations (http://publicsphere.typepad.com/mediations/2006/04/honest_journali.html) and to an extent I take your point (and Richard's) about the the difficulties in comparing Codes. But I do think that it is more productive to compare the CIPR framings to those of the PCC rather than those of the NUJ.

The CIPR acknowledges its code to be aspirational, the PCC adjudicates against a set of values and principles drawn up by editors (ie practitioners). The CIPR is trying to create and establish norms of acceptable practice as part of its drive for professionalism, the PCC to delineate and enforce acceptable practice on a mature business model.

By: Stuart Bruce - Wolfstar

Stuart Bruce - Wolfstar — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:53:39 +0000

Philip, I'm not sure the Press Complaints Commission code is the one that I would compare with CIPR's code. It is more appropriate to look at bodies that actually represent journalists and in whose interest it should be to ensure members act professionally. The PCC is an independent 'watchdog'. An equivalent doesn't exist for PR, although as Richard Bailey says on his post perhaps it should.

I'm not sure that there is that big a difference between the NUJ's code and CIPR's. The CIPR one says "Members agree to..." while the NUJ's says "strive to ensure" or "strive to adhere".

The relevant clauses about 'truth' say:

CIPR - "Checking the reliability and accuracy of information before dissemination; "

NUJ - "3. A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate,"

Sound the same to me. I can't see the bit in the NUJ's code that says "must". And if anything "agree to" sounds slightly stronger than "strive to".

By: Richard Bailey

Richard Bailey — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:25:45 +0000

I read the article, but didn't read the blogs. I posted some very similar thoughts in parallel with you (and just restrained myself from typing my more intemperate thoughts.)

By: Sherrilynne

Sherrilynne — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:48:05 +0000

I agree entirely. This Hack V Flack argument is old. We can't live without them; they can't live without us. Let's all accept this fact and move on.

By: Philip Young

Philip Young — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:43:24 +0000

Athough I strongly agree there is no inherent difference in the ethical orientation of journalists and PRs I think you need to take care before ascribing parity to codes of conduct. There are two essential differences between the codes that seek to guide the two disciplines. Firstly, the Press Complaints Commission, though self-regulatory and often toothless, regularly adjudicates on complaints, and is at least taken seriously by the vast majority of newspaper editors; there are no big-hitters who operate outside the scope of its code, which cannot be said for the CIPR.
Secondly, there are significant philosophical differences between the CIPR Code which is drawn as an aspirational document (members agree to...) and both the NUJ and PCC codes which attempt to impose certain duties on their members (The Press must/ must not... etc).
Such framings make it easier for people like Christine Odone to make the claim of moral superiority for journalists; her mistake is to try to believe that journalists, too, do not deal in selective truths.