1

PRESS FREEDOM AND ETHICS WITH ACCOUNTABILITY:

PREMISES AND CONSTRAINTS

ASSOC. PROF DR. FARIDAH IBRAHIM

SCHOOL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES

UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA

e-mail : fbi@ukm.my

“When the press is free it may be good and bad – but certainly without

freedom it can never be anything but bad…For the press, as for man,

freedom is the opportunity to become better; servitude is the certainty of

becoming worse.” Albert Camus, French writer and journalist

Introduction

The media is said to be the ‘Fourth Estate’. This is so because they act as watchdogs that

check and balance the powers of the other three branches of government – the executive,

the legislature and the judiciary. In their plight to be the watchdogs, and to perform their

noble duties and responsibilities, they are often caught in the web of uncertainties and

trapped in the cauldron of ethical quandaries . They have to decide between news values

and bad tastes; and between public’s rights to know and national secrecy or invasion of

privacy. But the public, above anything else, have the right to be protected against

misleading and distorted information. Hence, it is of utmost important that media

practitioners should be ethical and responsible in news dissemination. Indeed, the universal

standard demands that news dissemination be based on accuracy and impartiality.

_________________________________________________________________________

Paper presented at INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CUM WORKSHOP ON FREE AND

RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM organized by South-South Information Gateway (SSIG), Ministry of

Information, Communications and Culture Malaysia Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan 27-31 January

2010.

2

The media are expected to carry out their watchdogs role without fear or favour. And at

this end, they are expected to be accountable. By accountable means media people

should be responsible for the accuracy of their information. Nevertheless, a popular

question that has been raised today is who’s watching the watchdogs? This brings us to a

broad array of issues. Are media people ethical and responsible? Are they accountable?

And to what extent are they accountable? What are the premises of accountability? What

are the constraints? These are some of the issues that will be discussed in this paper.

Media Roles and Responsilities

Why do we need journalists and the media in the first place especially the ethical ones?

The answer is simple and straight forward. This is because democracy depends on the

free flow of accurate, responsible and trustworthy information. What we have learned

from many theories of democracy is that, an informed citizenry is essential in order to

build a strong and dependent society. An informed citizens, according to Kellner (2005)

need to have access to information. In other words, the viability of democracy is

dependent on citizens seeking out crucial information, having the ability to access and

appraise it, and to engage in public discussions about issues of importance.

Information as we know is power. Hence, those who wield information, also wield power.

And journalists who are in the business of gathering and disseminating information is said

to be redistributing power, a role that makes them powerful . This implied that some

ethical practices are necessary so that there is a commitment to a proper and an impartial

use of power by journalists and media practitioners.

The media and journalists have multifarious roles and functions in society. Among the

many functions listed by Gans (1970) are leadership tester, suppliers of political feedback,

power distributors, moral guardians, storytellers and myths makers, barometer of order,

agents of social control , constructors of nations and society, voice of the powers that be,

creators of facts, just to name but a few. However, the most pervasive is their role as

purveyors of information. According to Merrill (2002) they have the potential to eradicate

wrong impressions and stereotypes and reduce tensions; at the same time, they also can

cause fears and anxieties within a society or nation. Their roles become increasingly

3

important with the complex psychological warfare and mounting global tensions raging

everywhere in the world.

Through the media, journalists can accomplish more than the understanding and

influencing of public opinion. Through a healthy regard for truth and ethical practices , they

can make public opinion operative and intelligent. In so doing, they can help perpetuate

articulate public opinion in a democratic society.

In most developing nations, the roles of the media have been reoriented and adjusted to

local needs. Much of the media’s role, particularly the mainstream media, is tied closely to

government objectives. In Malaysia for instance, the mass media (especially the

mainstream) are not only required to inform, educate and motivate the masses towards the

developmental goals stipulated by the government, they are also expected to go along with

the government’s policies in order to survive in the media business. Newspapers and other

media are expected to help the government foster a spirit of understanding and strengthen

friendship and unity between people. The diversity of culture, race, language and ethnic

groups is most distinctively portrayed in the mass media.

Media Freedom: Premises and Constraints

In recent years, various measures and attempts have been made by media practitioners to

establish professionalism and accountability in the media. These are done through various

mechanisms that ranged from the great emphasis on codes of conduct, press councils,

peer pressure, entrance requirements and training checked by standard examinations to a

more rigorous demand for professional journalism and media education. Presumably, this

will lead to professionalism which will limit the ranks of journalism, eliminate the ‘non-

professionals’ from its practice, and make the press appear more respectable and

responsible.

While the news media across developing nations look at media laws and regulations as

significant leverage to hold them accountable, a majority of Malaysian journalists prefer to

work from within in the form of self-censorship. Ethically conscious journalists also feel the

need for voluntary recognition and acceptance of responsibility to provide the kind of

information that will not rupture the social fabric and cause unrest among the people.

4

Such recognition and awareness have become a way of life for Malaysian journalists who

have to operate under a multi-ethnic and diverse social system.

Against a backdrop of internal sensitivities resulting from Malaysia’s multi-ethnic population

and also for the sake of national security, Malaysia like so many other Southeast Asian

countries has put aside the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression in

Malaysia comes in somewhat different forms (Faridah Ibrahim 2002). A veteran journalist,

the late A. Samad Ismail (1991) had reiterated that the press are given ample opportunities

to express their views but the right to free expression must be balanced against the larger

interests of the nation.

With the understanding that information is power and that the media are vital in any

development situation, they (the media) must be carefully used to guide the minds and

opinions of the public in the desired direction. Perhaps most precarious is the way in which

the Malaysian government rationalizes its control over the media . Several of the reasons

given have to do with the internal sensitivity resulting from Malaysia’s multi-ethnic

background and national security. Amongst development-oriented priorities that have

always been the platform for national development plans are national unity, economic and

political stability, work ethics and the inculcation of proper values. Hence, the role and

performance of the mass media are the direct concern of the government, especially in

times such as the present when the nation is beset with numerous social, economic and

political challenges (Faridah Ibrahim 2002).

On the other side of the coin, we can see that the alternative media especially Internet and

Blogs are beginning to play a significant role in information dissemination. With the

proliferation of new media technology, information can be obtained within seconds at a

touch of a button. Information seekers are now looking for immediate and on the spot

alternative views on issues which they think have been left out or inadequately covered by

mainstream media.

At this juncture, we need to understand what is alternative media. It is the nature of

alternative media to be in opposition to something else. If not alternative media will not be

able to capture the audience they are hoping to get. According to Atton (2002) alternative

media deals with the opinions of small minorities; expresses attitudes “hostile to widely held

beliefs”; and deals with subjects not given regular coverage by general publications.

5

Hence, alternative media need to have several characteristics such as radical content ,

strong aesthetic form and innovative presentation strategies.

A case in point, the alternative media in Malaysia are seen to have gathered momentum

after the sacking of the then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia , Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar’s sacking and subsequent arrest had triggered the growth of news websites giving

alternative views and critical analyses of the case. Malaysiakini.com , one of the earliest

online newspapers and other online information providers have gained momentum over the

years in presenting alternative views and opinions and are becoming increasingly popular.

However, their believability and credibility are still being debated. Today the alternative

media have become the “mainstream” media for many who want alternative views

especially the younger generations in urban and suburban societies, the NGOs , the

Oppositions and the ruling elites, as well as society at large.

To date, we see the mainstream and other media undergo a transformation as a

consequence of the rise of new media especially Internet and Blogs. At the same time, the

effect of these changes was compounded by growing occupational rivalry between

journalists and politicians. As Gurevitch and Blumler (cited in Curran 2002:67) pointed out,

the two groups have developed competing forms of legitimacy ever since the beginning of

the press. Politicians argued that they were the democratically elected representatives of

the people, while journalists claimed the right as members of the ‘Fourth Estate’ to oversee

politicians on behalf of the public.

In general, the politicians wanted to advance their political and personal objectives, while

the main concern of journalists was to get ‘the news’. Sometimes the super-ordinate goals

of these two groups were conflicting. Thus, the media anti-partisanship or partisanship

went deeper than mere rivalry, and seemed to take on the characteristics of a cultural

clash. With the need to get alternative and fresher views on up-to-date news stories and

information, media audiences turn to new media. The aftermath of it, moral traditionalism,

represented by the traditional media, is presented as an irrational, repressive, backward-

looking but powerful force. Whilst the new media are seen as the ‘modern’ tradition of

tolerance and moral pluralism (Curran 2002).

Nevertheless, the majority of people still get their news and information from the highly

ideological and limited mainstream media. This is so because much of the world is not yet

wired and there is still the question of Internet accessibility. Hence, the Internet is a

6

contested terrain , with certain progressive and reactionary forces using the technology for

their conflicting agendas (Kellner 2005). However, a positive stance to this scenario is that

the existence of the traditional mainstream media and alternative media side by side is an

indication of the presence of a democratic process that allow a wide range of social

problems being addressed . This is a common trend in democratic countries, and Malaysia

is without exception.

So what is media freedom? To stay free is the primary imperative of the authentic

journalist. Only the free journalist can be a truth seeker, says Merrill (1974). But working

under the premises of persistent pressures which often cause him to adapt to the “social

good” and accept institutional responsibility often suppress his desire to be authentic .

Freedom is part of a democratic process and the press functions as a mode of expression.

Ahmad Murad Merican (2001) exerts that society cannot exist without expressing, reflecting

and identifying itself. And they cannot exist without being conscious of their existence.

Gauhar (cited in Ahmad Murad Merican 2001: 40) says that whether free or controlled, the

media is constantly engaged in providing facilities for writing, reading and speaking. He

argues that “when we talk of freedom of the press, we are in fact talking about the

fundamental needs of human beings to express and discover themselves…by limiting

freedom of expression, a community restricts the scope of the development of its creative

potential”.

It is generally known that the media’s day-to-day offerings could be dictated by various

actors such as the government, media owners, advertisers, political parties, pressure

groups and NGOs, to name but a few. This shows that the media are not as free as one

may want to believe (Faridah Ibrahim 2002). All press systems, as Merrill and Lowenstein

(1971:174) wrote, are enslaved by their respective government’s philosophies and are

“forced” to operate within certain national ideological parameters. These journalism

scholars contend that “No press system is truly free, regardless of how freedom is defined.

Restrictions of every kind – but in differing degree – are exerted on all national press

systems.” This applies to the Malaysian media system too. The questions of press freedom

is interpreted according to government priorities whilst decisions on media ethics have to be

balanced against the larger interests of the nation.

7

Media Ethics and Accountability

The word “ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethos, which means the guiding spirit or

traditions that govern a culture. Professional codes of ethics usually set a leadership tone

for a profession. Ethics should provide the journalists certain basic principles or standards

by which they can judge actions to be right or wrong, good or bad, responsible or

irresponsible (Merrill 1974). Concerned groups worldwide have attempted to write rules or

ethical guidelines on how media and journalists should operate. But in most instances,

violation to the ethical codes will not end in a lawsuit since some ethical decisions do not

carry legal consequences. However, the consequences of bad ethical judgments may

damage the reputation of the journalists and media organizations as well as the profession

in general.

A case in point, the Malaysian media have constantly been criticised for their portrayal of

crimes. This was clearly seen when the former Malaysian Inspector General of Police,

Mohd Bakri Omar warned local dailies which publicised details and pictures of those who

were still in remand. Commenting on the coverage of the Noritta Samsuddin murder (a high

profile case involving a Malaysian business executive cum model) he said: “They (local

dailies) should be more responsible in their reporting or face any consequences that may

arise as a result of this..” The current Malaysian Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Musa

Hassan also reminded the media that they could highlight crime stories but should not

sensationalise it as it could make a bad impression to tourist and potential investors. The

media were also warned against speculating about the murder of Mongolian model

Altantuya Shaariibuu, saying that it amounted to “trial by media” (Sharon Wilson and

Faridah Ibrahim 2009:2).

The above are two celebrated cases that had forced the media to pull up their ethical

defenses. There are also other cases that have placed them in a quandary. Most often in

these cases, there is a thin line between ethical responsibility and the people’s right to

know. And of course these cases have the dramatic potentials that add to the frequently

sort criteria in journalism – i.e news value.

The dilemma of journalists has also been expressed by John Hohenberg (1969:330).

Writing about the professional journalists, he said that the temptation is great, under the

pressure of daily deadlines, for the journalists to leap to conclusions, to act as an advocate,

to make assumptions based on previous experience and to approach a story with

8

preconceived notions of what is likely to happen. When the journalist gives way to such

tendencies, he invites error, slanted copy and libelous publications for which there is little or

no defense.

Indeed, a profession that accepts ethical behavior as a standard helps guarantee a future

for that profession. In the journalistic profession, the core business is information gathering

and dissemination. When the presentation of that information is weakened by untruth, bias,

intrusiveness or irresponsibility, the media may gain only a few advocates but acquire

more enemies. According to Hulteng (1976 : 82) “ the primary objective of the press and

those who work with it is to bring readers, listeners, and viewers as honest, accurate, and

complete an account of the day’s events as possible…and that the power of the press must

be used responsibly and compassionately.”

Today media practitioners including the journalists are getting weary of their credibility and

accountability. Journalistic credibility is important for the journalists and their profession

because it reflects ethical and responsible reporting which in the long run makes the media

accountable and credible.

How do journalists maintain their standards in order to be credible? Basically, credibility

comes with accurate news reporting supported by accredited source. Journalists feel that

in order to be credible, what is needed is a set of principles based on the tenets of

journalism that serve the public by seeking and reporting the closest possible truth about

events of great concern and interest to the people. Responsible media practitioners would

also strive to collect information honestly and fairly as well as treating the people involved

with compassion.

Many journalists also feel that they should undertake the tasks of conscientiously interpret

and explain the news so that the news makes sense and could be comprehended by their

audiences. Ethically conscious journalists also feel that there is a need for voluntary

recognition and acceptance of the responsibility to provide information that will not rip the

social fabric and cause unrest among the people. Such recognition has become a way of

life for Malaysian journalists who have to operate under a multi-ethnic and diverse social

system.

In order to maintain responsible journalism many ethicists suggested that journalists should

have some kind of controls or a kind of institutionalized concept of responsibility that should

9

be injected into the practice of journalism. Thus, journalists would have to succumb to

governmental laws and professional sanctions, namely the ethical code for journalists if

they want to be recognized as responsible journalists. But even so, the question of

responsible and ethical journalism is very relative ; a press might be responsible to certain

people in certain circumstances and to a certain degree. But to some groups they are not

(Merrill 2002). This may be due to preferences and orientations of media organizations

which have to tow in line with the demand of their owners. Hence media ethics have to be

discussed in the context of specific landscape where the media operate.

Christians (cited in Halimahton Shaari 2005:43) calls the different influences on media

ethics as a ‘hirarchy of loyalties’ that the media practitioners have to carry in their daily

routine. These loyalties may include obligations to the government, employers, society,

religious and cultural beliefs. Halimahton contends that the Malaysian media system is an

appropriate example of a media system that experiences this hierarchy of loyalties that

show the adherence of the media to the political masters, cultural sensitivities and the

aspirations of media organization.

Proponents of media ethics contend that there can be no real safeguarding of ethical

standards by the media if they are totally controlled. According to Banerjee (2002) it is

only in a liberal democratic society where media have some amount of independence , that

one can expect media practitioners and journalists to uphold professional standards and

ethics. In other words, a journalist operating in an environment with strict media control

cannot be judged for his ethical practices. Hence, he cannot be expected to sacrifice

everything including his life for the sake of moral and ethical beliefs.

But ethics, however complex they may be, are important because they articulate what

journalists ought to do in order to be moral individuals and professionals. Code of ethics

provide some guidelines to help journalists make decisions. Without them, journalists’

actions may be random and unguided .

Ethical Media Language

In order to maintain responsible journalism many ethicists suggest that journalist should

have control of their environment and situation. They need to be aware of the avenues that

can help them maintain or raise their professional standards. Since the day-to-day activities

10

of journalists involve the use of language to mould their news, then journalists should

concern themselves with an in-depth understanding of media language as the underlying

factor in attaining ethical objectivity in news writing (Mohd Rajib and Faridah 2008).

Within the media, news is the primary language genre. Language plays an essential role in

news content, which fills up millions of pages of daily newspapers, thousands of hours of

broadcast time and countless virtual pages of websites. It is said that people all over the

world hear more language from the media than they do directly through human interaction.

New terms are coined every day by media people to economise on words and news

spaces as well as to put meanings to events or things that are new to their experience and

knowledge. Hence, the media have become the dominant producers of language in our

society today. Findings from various studies (Hayakawa 1962; Merrill 1965; Mohd Rajib

1984; Faridah 1984; Mohd Rajib and Faridah 1996; Faridah and Rahmah 1996; Faridah

and Emma Mirza Wati 2006) on media language, especially using the general semantics

have demonstrated the practicality of using the method to examine the various degrees of

ethical objectivity in news reporting.

According to Hayakawa (1978) general semantics have the effect to increase our

awareness of the problem of language and trigger our understanding on the complexity of

the non-verbal and verbal realities that language carries. In the journalistic profession,

general semantics is useful in instilling ethical awareness among journalists. Semantically

conscious journalists tend to question the appropriateness and accuracy of meanings in

their writings, and therefore try to minimize judgmental and inferential words which are

value-laden and unobjective (Mohd Rajib 1984).

Without regard for the appropriateness of words used, journalists sometimes are guilty of

consciously or unconsciously getting involved in slanting stories and taking sides on the

issues that they cover.

The principle of general semantics is introduced by Alfred Korzybski (1950) who looked at

language in three perspectives: (a) A map is not the territory (words are not the things they

represent); (b)A map does not represent all of the territory (words cannot say all about

anything); and (c) A map is self-reflexive, in the sense that an ideal map would have to

include a map of the map, of the map etc.

11

From the general semantics perspectives, words such as ‘communism’, ‘terrorism’, ‘racism’,

‘fundamentalism’, ‘dictator etc, etc, are all abstract terms based on our perceptions. Of late

wartime jargons find their way in news spaces – people are labeled ‘soft targets’, civilians

killed are termed as ‘collateral damage’, smaller attacks are labeled as ‘ surgical strike’ and

‘friendly fire’. To the general semanticists, these abstract terms need to be clearly defined.

For instance the word ‘terrorism’ need to be defined accordingly . We have often heard

about this famous label: one man’s terrorist , is another man’s freedom fighter. Hence, the

word ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’ are not the things they represent and do not reflect the

actual meaning .

The underlying truth is that words used in language especially media language , that are

circulated worldwide, have the power to create and to destroy . At this end, one can see

that the journalists do have an ethical obligation – in the words of the Society of

Professional Journalists Code of Ethics – to ‘minimise harm’. Thus, the act of determining

the use of appropriate words in the news and news headlines should be one of the crucial

task undertaken by journalists who called themselves ethical professionals (Mohd Rajib

and Faridah 2008).

Conclusion

Generally, in their pursuit for ethical and responsible reporting, journalists need to

contend themselves within the parameters that allow them to function effectively as

information providers while avoiding grey areas where they might be reprimanded. This is

true in the case of Malaysia and several other developing countries.

One aspect that should be considered is regional cooperation and smart partnership in

terms of news exchange so that journalists in the whole region will benefit. Some of the

news generated can even be alternative news for the mainstream media. But working

from within, journalists could strike a balance between freedom and responsibility through

media language. By being conscious and aware of the use and misuse of language in the

news, journalists are able to avoid bias and unethical inclinations in their reports. Hence,

journalists who are well-equipped with general semantics knowledge would be constantly

on guard against generalizations, abstractions, labeling and making inferences and

judgments.

12

References

Ahmad Murad Merican. 2001. The journalist as storyteller. Essays on the Scribe and His

Times. USJ: FAR Publishers.

A.Samad Ismail. 1991. Vision 2020. The role of the media, press ethics and responsibilities.

In Hadiah Kewartawanan Malaysia (trans: Malaysian Annual Journalism Award).

Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Press Institute, pp 28-38.

Atton, C. 2002. Alternative media. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Banerjee, I. 2002. Media ethics in Malaysia. Critical issues and perspectives. In Venkat Iyer

(ed.). Media ethics in Asia. Addressing the dilemma in the information age.

Singapore : AMIC and NTU. Pp 66-79.

Curran, J. 2002. Media and power. London: Routledge.

Faridah Ibrahim. 2002. Media ethics in Malaysia. A case of language objectivity. In Venkat

Iyer (ed.). Media ethics in Asia. Addressing the dilemma in the information age.

Singapore : AMIC and NTU. Pp 51-65.

Faridah Ibrahim and Emma Mirza Wati Mohamad. 2007. War heroes, terrorists, freedom

fighters and fragile economy: From metaphors to ‘WMDs’ . Malaysian

Communication Journal of Communication. Vol 22, Pp 35-41.

Faridah Ibrahim and Rahmah Hashim. 1996. Images of women and human rights: A

content analysis of Malaysian media during the Fourth World Conference on Women

in Beijing. Paper presented at the IAMCR Conference, Sydney, Australia, 19-22

August 1996.

Faridah Ibrahim. 1984. The image of superpowers as reflected by two Malaysian national

dailies, The New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia. MA thesis. University of

Missouri-Columbia, USA.

Halimahton Shaari. 2005. Universal and parochial influences on journalistic ethics. Forum

Komunikasi. Vol. 5, No.1. 2004/2005. Pp 41-50.

Hamelink, C.J. 1994. Trends in world communication. On disempowerment and self-

empowerment. Penang: Southbound Sdn. Bhd.

13

Hayakawa, S.I. 1978. Language in thoughts and action. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Hohenberg, J. 1969. The professional journalist: A guide to the practices and principles of

the news media. 2nd edition. San Francisco: Rinehart Press.

Hulteng, J. L. 1976. The messenger’s motives. Ethical problems of the news media.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kellner, D. 2005. Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy. Boulder: Paradigm Press.

Merrill, J.C. 2002. Media ethics in Asia: Between relativity and absolutism. In Venkat Iyer

(ed.). Media ethics in Asia. Addressing the dilemma in the information age.

Singapore : AMIC and NTU. Pp 18-24.

Merrill, J.C. 1974. The imperative of freedom. A philosophy of journalistic autonomy. New

York: Hastings House, Publishers.

Merrill, J.C. and Lowenstein, R. 1971. Media, messages and men. New York: Hastings

House, Publishers.

Mohd Rajib Ab Ghani. 1984. Semantic analysis of objectivity in two Malaysian newspapers.

MA thesis. University of Missouri-Columbia, USA.

Mohd Rajib Ab Ghani and Faridah Ibrahim. 2008. Media stereotyping: Reporting war and

terrorism. In Nirmala Rao Khadpekar (ed.). Media ethics. Global dimensions.

Hyderabad: The Icfai University Press. Pp 139-156.

Mohd Rajib Ab Ghani and Faridah Ibrahim. 1996, The use and misuse of language in the

media. Semantics analysis of human rights coverage in Malaysian national dailies.

Communication Monographs, Vol. 2. UiTM.

Sharon Wilson and Faridah Ibrahim. 2009. Sensationalising the dead bodies: Imparting the

knowledge but where’s the ethics? Paper presented at International Conference on

Media and Communication – Indigenising communication knowledge: Engaging

national policies and academic pursuits. Organised by School of Media and

Communication Studies, FSSK, UKM, 13-15 October 2009, Bangi, Selangor,

Malaysia.