Ethics of Journalism Major Assignment:

The codes of ethics of Al-Jazeera, Wikinews, and the Canadian

Association of Journalists

Brayden
Benham

Prof. David Swick

Ethics of Journalism
 Dec/03/09

With Al-Jazeera, Wikinews, and the Canadian Association of

Journalists (CAJ) we have three diverse forms of journalism. Al-Jazeera

is the only independent news organization in the Middle East. Wikinews

is a burgeoning offshoot of the “Wikimedia Foundation”. The CAJ is a

network of Canadian journalists established in the 80’s. Although they

are very different, there are many important areas where these three

overlap and disagree. These include transparency, conflict of interest,

minimization of harm, fairness and truth. Definitions of terms vary and

some are more comprehensive than others, but it is obvious that

wherever the mantle of journalism hangs common ethical ground can

be found.

As the CAJ’s is the oldest of the three ethical codes and the most

comprehensive I will use it as a standard to judge the other two codes

against. On the issue of transparency the CAJ writes: “We will clearly

identify news and opinions so that readers…know which is which.” Al-

Jazeera holds that journalists should “distinguish between news

material, opinions and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and

propoganda”. And Wikinews gives a long list of ways in which to avoid

opinion and promote hard news: “we remove and re-edit stories that

contain unverified sources…we take the blame for stories that contain

untruthful information…” etc. They are all talking about the same
thing, right? Not really.

They all tackle the same issue from different angles. CAJ’s

preoccupation is the most clear-cut: they will tell readers whether what

they are reporting is opinion or news. But Al-Jazeera adds their own

end to this principle, “to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and

propaganda.” In Canada we are not too worried about propaganda, the

ethical principles of our media have long been being developed and

established. Not so with Al-Jazeera. As they are the only independent

news network in the Middle East they see it as important to establish

principles in response to their particular cultural milieu, rather than to

examine pre-established principles as the CAJ does. This struggle to set

up first principles is clear in the lofty and idealistic tone of the code:

they attempt to establish such idealistic principles as “…to get at the

truth…in a manner which leaves no doubt about its validity and

accuracy…” Although this is an admirable position it ain’t gonna

happen. As the Hindu’s say: “for the progress of the mind man requires

doubt and faith” (Baghavad, xxxviii). Al-Jazeera is a leaning towards

the faith side of things, but I will get back to their loftiness later on.

Wikinews is not too worried about propaganda either. Their focus

is on abolishing “speculation”. This is also shared with Al-Jazeera, but

from a different perspective. As Wikinews is very new it is attempting

to establish itself as an integral form of media. Their code is pre-

occupied with the reporting of actual news rather than news based on

speculation. The focus here is almost exclusively on the importance of

sources: “contact the subject of the article…not publish an article

based solely on speculation…make a mental list of all parties involved

in the article and think about how each will feel about the article…”

Their ethics have a lot to do with accommodation of sources, maybe

too much, but I will get back to that later. These principles are not set

in stone though, as the first line of the code says, “This is only a draft.

Please edit it as much as you would like.” This seems like the ultimate

democratization of the media, but will this strengthen it or make it

flimsy to the point of collapse?

One thing they all agree on, in roughly the same terms, is

“conflict of interest”. CAJ holds that, “The right to freedom of

expression and of the press must defend against encroachment from

any quarter, public or private.” Al-Jazeera supports “…giving no priority

to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.” And

Wikinews, in lieu of its own peculiar situation, justifies itself by saying

“Wikinews is not owned by a corporate entity. It is a project that is

under the banner of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit

organization. As such we will strive not to turn stories about the

foundation into a press release…” They think that independence from

outside sources is important too, but unlike the other organizations

their beef lies mostly with the organization they are directly affiliated

with. The CAJ gives many examples of how a news organization can be

affected by outside sources, but Wikinews only gives one. Rather than

examining the intricacies of independence, like the CAJ, they are

identifying the one entity they see as the most important to guard

against in their nascent state.

Al-Jazeera’s conflict of interest principle is quite similar to CAJ’s,

but it is surrounded with much more controversy. The controversy

involves their relationship with the U.S. ever since the 9/11 terrorist

attacks. At the outbreak of the War in Iraq Al-Jazeera was “heavily

criticized for showing pictures of US and UK POWs” (BBC). In 2003 the

BBC reported that, “US officials…criticized the channel as anti-

American and encouraging Islamic militancy” (BBC). To this the

bureau-chief to Al-Jazeera in London, Yousri Fouda, said, “I can see why

American and British politicians and military leaders don’t like us

showing these pictures. They show a side of war that they don’t want

projected because it may affect public opinion in their country

negatively” (BBC). Following this, despite their ethical principles, Al-

Jazeera had to cater in part to the demands of the UK and US because

of the sheer force of their respective media, military and political sway.

The three codes take up varying stances in regard to sources

and the right to privacy. The CAJ says that “each situation should be

judged in the light of common sense, humanity, and the publics right

to know.” They recognize this issue as problematic and bear witness to

it. Wikinews takes the opposite stance saying, “the decision rests with

the source.” But giving control to the source disregards “the publics’

right to know.” Wikinews is steadfast in their approach where as CAJ

leaves room for much needed speculation and courage. As I stated

above, Wikinews invests an incredible amount of importance in

sources, but probably too much. Since the CAJ has been around much

longer they are able to question their pre-established principles (a

postmodern approach), while Wikinews and Al-Jazeera are trying to

establish basic principles which can be advanced upon later, as if they

were setting up commandments. Wikinews and Al-Jazeera’s stances

are much more simplistic than CAJ’s, but not inappropriately so: as C.P.

Snow once said, "any statements which have any reference to action

must be simple" (Snow, 60). That is, if Al-Jazeera and especially

Wikinews, ever want to get off the ground they must establish simple

principles that will provide a foundation and the basis for argument
and agreement.

Al-Jazeera and Wikinews are more kindred with each other than

with the CAJ. This is because they are relatively new forms of media

fighting for justification and survival. They are both more concerned

with reiterating principles rather than explaining methods as the CAJ is.

Wikinews is constantly reiterating the importance of sources, and Al-

Jazeera the principle of objectivity. Both share a naive allegiance to the

truth: Al-Jazeera stresses remaining “unbiased and faithful” by taking

into account all factors that add into a story, and Wikinews states,

rather ignorantly, “we remove and re-edit stories that contain

unverified sources and thus may be truthful.” This is the only real

guideline Wikinews gives for getting at the truth, which displays their

simplistic stance and naivety, but also that their hearts are in the right

place. Both of these are opposed to the CAJ who make the humble

assertion that, “Life does not always conform to guidelines.” The CAJ

examines itself saying, “We need to understand how our own beliefs

and biases can interfere with our own ability to see and report fairly

and courageously.” Where the other codes simply state that we must

guard against “bias” the CAJ takes it one step further by admitting that

we have biases and that the way around them is not to avoid them (as

this is impossible) but to understand them.

 The CAJ’s code of ethics is the most evolved of the three. There

are obvious problems with Al-Jazeera’s and (especially) Wikinews’

codes, but this does not mean they are not good. Wikinews is

particularly exciting because it is set up in a way that the code can be

edited at any time and by anyone. This is also frightening, but at least

it leaves infinite room for improvement. Al-Jazeera may have a blind

allegiance to the truth and objectivity, but just like in Wikinews’ and

C.P. Snow’s case such ignorance in founding principles is necessary for

action. Overall the three codes overlap and agree on fundamental

issues, sometimes in the same terms, and sometimes from completely

different angles. It is clear that Wikinews and Al-Jazeera are more

immature than the CAJ, but this only means that one day their

respective codes may evolve into ones as comprehensive and

influential as that of the CAJ. From this it seems true that wherever the

mantle of journalism hangs there is also common ethical ground as

well as room for improvement.

 Works Cited

Al-Jazeera. "Code of Ethics." English.aljazeera.net. 12 Nov. 2006. Web.

Canadian Association of Journalists. "Statement of Principles." The Canadian

Association of Journalists. 2002. Web.

Kafala, Tarik. "Al-Jazeera: News Channel in the News." BBC News Online 29 Mar.
2003. Print.

Multiple Authors. "Wikinews: Code of Ethics." Wikinews.org. July 2009. Web.

Unknown Author, trans. Juan Mascaro and Simon Brodbeck. The Baghavad Gita.
Penguin Books. London, 1962.
Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.