Tag: journalists

One way to prevent journalists from making comments that could force their media house to issue apologies like the recent case involving a senior editorial staff a newspaper is to have clearly stated social media policies.

I have always been worried the way some of journalists carry on on social media as if they do not know that their posts and comments could rub off on the wrong side for the medium they work for.

When journalists who are supposed to be impartial in the coverage of issues openly express partisan views on social media and brag about it, I usually wonder if they know the implication of what they are doing.

The Vanguard editorial staff simply made a very offensive comment on a facebook post of another colleague and what followed was, not only an attack on his person, but his newspaper with calls for his sack.

He has since apologised for the comment, but it is unfortunate that he and others who have always indulged in such abuse of the freedom allowed on the social media have learnt their lessons.

As much as anyone could choose to express his or her opinion on any platform, it is necessary to exercise restraint in choice of words or views. Those who have no reputation or image to protect of whatever organisation they work for or represent can risk being unguarded, but not people who should know that freedom requires a high level of responsibility.

It doesn’t matter how we feel about some issues, people must know how and where to say whatever is on their mind.

Apart from journalists, I have in the past had to call some staff of some organisations to advise them against some posts they made on social media. As long as we work for some organisation and occupy some positions, it may be difficult to claim that what we say or do is personal and not official.

The Vanguard case should be a wake-up call to all, not only the media, to take necessary steps to prevent a reccurrence. Every organisation needs a social media policy similar to some samples from some foreign media houses below.

* In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.

*Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.

*Assume that your professional life and your personal life merge online regardless of your care in separating them. Don’t write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise your ability to do your job.

*You shouldn’t state your political preferences or say anything that compromises your impartiality. Don’t sound off about things in an openly partisan way. Don’t be seduced by the informality of social media into bringing the BBC into disrepute. Don’t criticise your colleagues

*Unless given permission by CNN Management, CNN employees are to avoid taking public positions on the issues and people and organisations on which se report.

While some of the policies may be said to be a violation of individual rights, it is critical that workers, like the BBC noted, are not seduced by the informality on social media to throw caution to the wind.

Fact by its original meaning, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is something that truly exists or happens. It is something that has actual existence or a true piece of information.

By this definition, facts contained in speeches of public or private individuals, publications or any other claims are supposed to be true.

Fact, according to another popular saying which is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of journalism, is supposed to be sacred, while comments are free.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the ethics of journalism profession requires that journalists are purveyors of truth, not false claims of any kind by anybody.

Even the Constitution requires that journalists hold the government accountable to the public.

If facts are supposed to be truth, why should we check them? The answer, for me, is probably due to what renowned journalist Ray Ekpu described as faction; a mixture of truth and facts which journalists have to work with.

One of the ways to effectively perform the above role is to regularly ensure that we cross check what is presented to us as facts by the people we report.

Judging by the high possibility of most of many sources to offer fiction as facts these days, we must take extra steps to sort fact from fiction, which is the motto of Africa Check, a fact-checking organisation with headquarters in South Africa.

Being able to sort facts from fiction has always been part of journalism, but more than ever before, the new Fact-checking concept requires more rigorous approach to ensuring that false claims by anyone are not allowed to appear as truth.

There are too many claims by especially political office holders which must be subjected to scrutiny so that the public is served with the truth and nothing but the truth.

When public office holders know that their claims will be fact-checked and they stand the risk of being exposed, they will be more conscious of the claims they make.

They will do their best to ensure they don’t make empty promises which they cannot accomplish.

Especially in this age of new media where too many unverified information go viral and the public is misled and misinformed, there is need for journalists to engage in regular Fact-checking.

The sources journalists rely on also need to be fact-checked to ensure that people don’t claim to be what they are not, as it happened in a recent instance in a national newspaper.

A convocation speaker widely advertised as a professor from Oxford University in UK turned out not to be. This is a man who for years has laid claim to excellent credentials that turned out to be false.

Some of the claims are on the Internet but it took a whistle blower to expose the lie.

As publisher of Premium Times, Dapo Olorunyomi, noted during a meeting at the Africa-Check office in South Africa, Fact-checking is journalism plus. It is yet another way of practising journalism which journalists have to master.

It gives journalists the opportunity to go beyond being press statement journalists. This means they will not only report what people say, but deliberately go out of their way to verify them.

When there are no stories, Fact-checking can bring out stories buried in speeches, statements and publications.

Being a journalist in 2018 and beyond will require more than the way journalists have always sourced and disseminated information.

Journalists will need to master new skills like Fact-checking to remain relevant and be able to function as multimedia journalists in and out of full time employment, considering the changing media landscape.