MORAL DECISIONS AND ONLINE NEWS MEDIA: CASE OF ZAMBIAN WATCHDOG. Author: Chishala Francis Chisembe, S.J (Media Scholar: University Heights, OH, USA) {chishfc@gmail chishfc.wordpress} The emergence of online publications in the news media has brought out many legal and ethical challenges to journalism. The question often asked is whether there are to be new ethical approaches to new media different from the mainstream media. This is a question media scholars and managers interested in making ethical choices are to wrestle with in this new dispensation set by the new media. Gracia Capilla, G. describes well the influence of internet on human thinking. He notes that, The Internet has provoked a revolution as an information and communication technology. A crucial factor in the change the Internet is generating is the fact that it has become an indispensable working tool for individual people and societies. The genetic determination of our ways of thinking, perceiving and acting is not unique; our experiences and the society where we live also have a crucial influence, but technology (tools) can influence profoundly those mental functions (deriving important ethical consequences). Therefore, the Internet is playing an important and durable role in what we think and how we think (2012, p. 14). There are two Zambian news websites hosted in the United States and also in the United Kingdom whose publishers have remained impenetrable. These sites have reported on allegations of corruption and promiscuity by government officials, politicians, corporate personalities and high profile individuals in the Zambian society. The affected individuals have complained that their right to privacy has been invaded. They have however raised concerns that the online media has convicted them and found them guilty in the press without allowing the accused to defend themselves. This has been due to the fact that the people behind the online media are unidentified and their publication unregulated. The argument is that the online media go on to make allegations against others while at the same time acting anonymously. Apparently, some in the government, in the corporate world, and other high profile individuals in other sectors who have been affected have called some of the writers on online media as cowards and disgruntled elements without the interest of the country at heart. Headlines like, “Mahtani files summons against a US site hosting Zambia Report,” (Saturday Post, 08th November, 2014) and “Miles Sampa declares war with Zambian Watchdog,” (allafrica, 01st January, 2014) were common in the press indicating the discontent some quarters of society had expressed towards the online media. Legally the complainants in this scenario would not sue the offenders running the online publications because they were unknown. It is often argued that the same laws that apply to the mainstream media should also apply to online publications. In terms of morality it is also argued that the same ethical consideration that obtains in society should be applied to the media as well whether mainstream or new media. The two Zambian cases of “Mahtani vs US site hosting Zambian Report” and “Sampa vs Zambian Watchdog,” bring out very peculiar ethical dilemmas. The ethical issue in this case is that, the online media fails to take responsibility for their actions. For the two Zambian online publications the problem lays in them failing to be responsible for the allegations they make. It is believed they fail to be responsible in the sense that they act in bad faith by deciding to be anonymous. Two online news sites controlled by unknown Zambians and hosted in the United States and United Kingdom namely; Zambian Report and Zambian Watchdog respectively, are known to publish very damaging dossiers for public, corporate figures and high profile personalities. The writers on these sites claim that actually what they do is investigative journalism. For instance in the case of “Mahtani and the USA site hosting Zambian Report,” Mahtani was trying to request the USA host site to reveal details about the owners of Zambian Report and their physical address so that legal charges could be issued against them. Mahtani is a well-known banker who owns Finance Bank of Zambia as well as a funder to the former ruling party, the Movement for Multiparty Democracy. As in the case on “Sampa and the Zambian Watchdog,” honorable Miles Sampa made an offer of about $4000 to anyone who would reveal the names of the people behind Zambian Watchdog. Sampa is a member of parliament for the Patriotic Front and also Minister of Commerce. Zambian Watchdog had published damning reports over the minister’s supposedly extra marital affairs. It had published on its website and Facebook page pictures of young women whom it claimed the minister had an affair with. After several weeks of such publications, the minister decided to withdraw his offer and threat to take the online publication to court. The online media has made many allegations against government and corporate officials and high profile personalities. The compliant that many have is that the online media, like any other media, do not divulge their sources. Also as for the Zambian watchdog it has used derogatory nouns to address its targeted subjects. For instance, whenever it brought out stories about the late president Micheal Sata, it would refer to him as “the ailing dictator” or “the ailing Michael.” Claims which the government and the late president’s family used to discredit though in the end the republican present appeared to be sick at certain national functions and later died in November 2014. People had issue with the Zambian Watchdog referring to the republican present by his first name as “Michael” and qualifying that by what seemed like derogatory reference such as “ailing.” The government had often been disturbed by the presence of the online news publications because it had often revealed what seemed like inside information. For instance, the government had ignored the issue of working on a new national constitution which it had promised that it would release, once elected into government. The Patriotic Front (PF) party while in opposition even specified that it would institute a new constitution in ninety days and also fulfill many other promises within the same period. The online news publication constantly had articles that called the PF government as dishonest. This made the government several times issue threats to barn the online news publication. The government even instructed the Zambia Information, Communication Technology Act (ZICTA) to block the website for Zambia Watchdog. ZICTA went ahead to block the publication but failed to block its Facebook page. Which meant people in the country developed more interest in reading Zambian Watchdog on its Facebook account. Due to the fact that the government owned most of the media houses in print and broadcasting, the online news publication was seen as the alternative media. The online news media has been regarded as offering an alternative voice to that of the government controlled mainstream media. This assumption agrees with the claims of Thomas Bivins (2004, p. 225) who notes that, the internet is a critical source of information and that this information provides freedom to people and creates the belief of self-governing for the masses. However, Natalie Fenton (2014) thinks differently of this pre-supposed freedom envisioned to exist with online news publications. She purports that, “Just as individuals cannot claim the right to freedom of expression in the same manner as media conglomerates, neither can the so-called freedom of individuals online fulfill the emancipatory claims made of them” (p. 36). Fenton take this right in the sense that online media has to be accountable for its actions and also has to assume responsibility of the claims it makes. Though the online news publication covered the government and the private news, it however, most of the time presented the government in bad light. Just as the government’s news media had gagged the opposition coverage so did the online news publications opted through its reports to show the government in bad light. In this sense the online news publications chose to trend on the opposite end of the spectrum, forming two opposing forces. Hence, the online news publications were not to claim fairness and balance in their generation of news. Bivins reflects this scenario by a caution that “what has been considered unethical in the past will probably still be unethical today” (2009, p. 226). There are many issues that the Zambian Watchdog revealed that was true but there were other information that made some people in the country and the ruling party accused the publication as sponsored by the opposition. The main ethical issue was that the online publication sometimes crossed the line and failed to uphold its integrity by the use of derogatory language and tone. And it claimed that it had people within the government system who provided them with news stories and classified documents. For instance, when the PF government failed to release the draft constitution the Zambian Watchdog released a soft copy on its Facebook page for the masses to download and read. Considering the information provided in this essay so far about the two Zambian online news publications, there are few ethical dilemmas that stand out. Some of these dilemmas are listed below: (i) Invasion of privacy, (ii) Being in possession of classified documents, (iii) Using derogatory language to refer to subjects in their news stories, (iv) Maintaining anonymity of its founders, editors and writers, (v) Being anti-government and always accusing the government of practicing tribalism and regionalism in its appointment of government and those with public portfolio, (vi) Failing to apologize when what it had earlier claimed turned untrue. We shall discuss each of these six ethical issues in light of some ethical principles. To start with the arguments in this discussion are going to be anchored on the principles that ethical choices in the media should be viewed from a contextual perspective. It can be argued that sometimes it would not be fair to replicate ethical principles of society to the media. This is so because media sometimes work in a very challenging environment and the fact that the media has an obligation to society to provide the truth and somehow act as the conscious of society. However, in the new media were citizens become producers of media text the responsibility of making ethical decisions must be placed on every participant. Given that citizens are participants also in the new media platform and they are not professionals, the only ethical guidelines they would take recourse to be those provided by society. Some scholars support this notion of applying society’s principles to citizen journalism. For instance, Rick Kenney and Kerem Ozkan, argue that: The values that must be treasured and integrated into journalistic activity are not those that have become inculcated within the confederacy of journalists themselves—isolated, by choice, from community—but rather those shared pluralistically by the community itself (2011, p. 45). The common argument often given why the media sometimes should be condoned when they tend to invade the privacy of high profile personality or politician is that the public has the right to know everything about their leader or role model. In this sense, for a journalist what is important is to get the story out there. The worry is having the story and not how the story was sourced. This argument is based on the principle that ‘the end justifies the means.’ In the case on “Sampa vs Zambian Watchdog,” it could be argued that the online news publication was justifiable to write about Miles Sampa and his supposedly concubines. As the validity of the story is for the society to find out and also for the minister to sue the publication; even when they were anonymous. The fact that Sampa withdrew from laying charges against the online news publication indicates that he was somehow guilty and afraid that the online news publication would reveal more as they had promised. The second issue involves the online media obtaining classified documents and making them available to the public. A good example of this scenario is when the Zambian Watchdog released the draft constitution when the government and the president had refused to do so. The PF government had back-tracked on its earlier promise of instituting a new constitution within ninety day of being in office. The online news media was justifiable to release the draft constitution so as to see what the constitutional review commission had come up with and what was unsettling the government to withhold the document from the public. The obtaining and release of this classified document was not to endanger or compromise national security in the sense that in the final analysis the document was to be made available to the masses. Why it could have been labeled as classified is that it had not been released by the designated authority that had been working on it. The third issue concerns the use of derogatory language in referring to subjects of their news stories. The media are supposed to uphold the level of morality if they were to remain fair and credible. Where satire and figures of speech are permitted the media are not allowed to insult or use insults to refer to someone. For the media referring to the republican president as “ailing Sata” when the mentioned is still enjoying good health is deceitful and alarming the nation. However, in the case of “Sata and Zambian Watchdog,” the claims that the online news media was making referring to the head of state’s health was difficult to dispute as the president was out of the public sights for weeks long. Even the disclaimer by the government that the president was enjoying good health was difficult to believe because on a few occasions that the president appeared to perform national duties he appeared frail and unwell. This even increased people’s speculation about his health. It so happened that the president actually was unwell and eventually passed on in months later. His eventual demise made the online media appear trusted and an alternative voice to that of the government publications that were known to conceal the truth. In this sense, the online media reference to the president as “ailing Sata” was not derogatory since it proved to be the truth. The fourth issue, and very important one, is that of the online news publications in question being anonymous. When dealing with sensitive issues journalists have been known to use any means to remain anonymous. Investigative journalism involves risk taking and as it were, the online media existing and operating undercover sometimes becomes necessary in its quest to find the truth. If most of the information reported by the online media has proven to be true and many charges against them had no grounding rather than harassing the media then it is all the more necessary for them to remain anonymous to serve the public interest. In as much as the mainstream media will remain a propaganda tool of those who wield political and economic power then ‘submarine journalism’ by the Zambian Watchdog and Zambian Report is justifiable. The fifth issue involves the online media accusing the government of practicing tribalism and regionalism in appointing government and public service leaders. On one hand, we could argue that the online news publication is justifiable to air its views on matters of national and public interest. On the other hand, if we consider the context of the issue then such accusations would be deemed dangerous for the unity of the nation. Firstly, given the nine provinces in the country the PF government had a following in the majority of those provinces whilst the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) had following in only two provinces and the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD) had one province. The ruling party was justifiable to offer positions to members of parliament who were from the provinces where they enjoyed support. Given the ration of certain ethnic groups it is clear that they were in the majority hence holding many of the ministerial positions. For the online media to allude that it was tribalism and regionalism for the government to act in the way it deed was dangerous to the unity of the nation. The media should always avoid alarming the nation on sensitive issues as these would lead to chaos in the future. This is where the media is usually called to be honest and fair and avoid personal interest overwhelm them. The sixth and last issue is that of the online media failing to apologize when its claims where proven to be untrue. This is difficult to determine in the sense that those who argued that the online media should apologize where not supported by the legal procedures or ruling to prove that the online media had been wrong. This is due to the fact that it was difficult for the online media to be taken to the court of law. And also rulings that had been against the said online media were propelled by the government or individuals with vested interest. In the other sense it is advisable for the online media to be responsible and to admit error and wrong doing when they later discover they had misfired. Regarding these ethical dilemmas posed my online media it is still can be understood that new media is like what Stephen J. Ward calls “mixed,” due to the presence of a myriad practitioners who engage in multiple technology to produce a variation of media content (2014, p. 46). According to Ward, this scenario makes it difficult for online citizens to have what he terms as “digital responsibility” because no one is there to verify what is posted on a site as this kind of news is prompt and immediate (p. 47). As far as this observation might be true other scholars argue that actually new media provides an opportunity for open ethics where everyone becomes a participant in making moral or ethical decisions. Indeed everyone can publish on the internet on online news publications. Somehow, some control is taken with some news websites where content is first sent to the editor and where blogs are first approved before they appear to everyone online. Despite these self-censorship approaches citizens are moral beings and are capable of making more choices as they become participants on the online platform. As it were, in the new media, ethics is not only practiced by the professionals but is open for every participant or citizen. This is what the media scholars now refer to as the new ethics of the fifth estate. In this case the fifth estate is the new media. This is well expressed by Ward and Wasserman when they note that, “For this new media ethics, one group of communicators is important: a revitalized fifth estate media that presents itself as an alternative or supplement to the mainstream press, the Fourth Estate” (2010, p. 281). If I were a media manager for an online news publication there are specific measures that I would take in making moral decisions for these ethical dilemmas discussed above. I would first have our online news publication clearly indicating our physical address and the contact that people who would want to approach us for any legal and ethical concern might contact us at. The editor and all our writers will append their name after every article they writer except in the case of an underground investigation. Our authors will only remain anonymous on those issues and news that identifying the author would hamper future coverage of the same news story. Because our concern is to be fair and minimize harm (Bivins, 2004, p. 240) we would abide by the same ethical principles that exist in the mainstream media. We will withhold the names of our sources at all costs and also names of contributors who choose to remain anonymous. We will by all means strive to be balanced and we will take responsibility and be accountable for our actions. We will have a disclaimer on the home page that will indicate that, “all views and opinions expressed by contributors do not expressed the views and opinion of the publication.” We will never be intimidated to carry out investigative journalism and sometimes conceal our identity if that would help us serve the public better by uncovering corruption. Some scholars like Ginny Whitehouse (2010) conquer with this assumption of journalistic deception at the service of truth. Whitehouse argues thus: The public may accept journalistic deceptions in pursuit of a greater good if that greater good actually occurs or is somehow clearly evident. Acceptance, however, is far greater for journalistic watchdogs exposing truth by non-deceptive means (2010, p. 317). We are ready to risk our lives for the sake of providing news and information that is fare, truthful and balanced. We will strive by all means to substantiate our claims with further evidence and in a balanced manner. We will do so because we believe in maintaining our integrity and credibility. We aim to remain the most accurate and reliable online publication. We will avoid derogatory language but will not be afraid to call a spade and spade when need be despite the annoyance this might cause to certain section of society. We know that sometimes bringing out the truth will not please everyone but we have a duty and obligation to serve the public. It terms of privacy, we will respect the privacy of every individual unless when it involves serving the public interest. We shall divulge corrupt and moral decadence involving high profile official holding any position of responsibility in society. When we discover we had made an error or misinformed the public we shall attempt to retract and offer an apology. The apology will carry the same coverage accorded to the misleading news. We understand that to error is human and that we are no more than perfect as we too are prone to make mistakes. We shall attempt to be as objective as possible (Bivins, 2004, p. 227). However, this shall not make us have an oversight on factual and truthful reporting. We shall desist from making claims that might seem alarming and placing the national interest in danger. We shall do so because for us serving the public and national interest rank supreme. Our philosophy is to serve and unite the nation. Therefore, we will avoid unverified innuendos that accuse others of tribalism, regionalism, nepotism, racism and the like. Where these vices are evident we shall not hesitate to say so and condemn the practice vehemently in order to warn the nation of the intended divisibility practices. These managerial and ethical choices articulated above conform to what many media ethics and scholars propound. For instance, J.D Lasica in support of maintaining high standards of ethics for online news publications argues that, “we shall embrace the enduring standards and values of traditional journalism; editorial integrity, balance, accuracy, respect for others and fairness” (1997, p. 4). This paper has attempted to discuss the ethical choices posed by new media. With the support of authorities the paper has offered solutions to these dilemmas as based on ethical and managerial principles. The issue of new media and the ethical choices it possess to media managers is an area that media scholars need to research on as this is a new enterprise. Bibliography Adamu, P. (2014, January, 01). Miles Sampa declares war with Zambian Watchdog. allafrica. Retrieved from allafrica/stories/201401020148.html Bivins, T. (2009). Mixed Media: Moral distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and Journalism, NY: Routledge. Capilla, G. (2012). “From postmodern ethics to the new ethics of Me generation: The transition from mass media to the internet.” Comunicación y Sociedad. Vol. 25 Issue 1, 165-187. Retrieved from 0-search.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=89645828&site=eds-live#.VGvGC_kn88c Fenton, N. (2014). “Defending whose democracy? Media freedom and media power.” Nordicom Review 35, Special Issue, 31-43. Retrieved from 0-search.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AN=98509694&site=ehost-live. Kenney, R. & Ozkan, K. (2011). “The Ethics Examiner and Media Councils: Improving Ombudsmanship and News Councils for True Citizen Journalism.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 26:38–55. Retrieved from 0-eds.a.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&sid=9be30521-2d71-41c4-936f-d8f47eb7b9b2%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4105 Lasica, J. D (Dec, 1997). “Preserving old ethics in a new medium.” America Journalism Review, Vol. 19, Issue 10, 52. D.I.O: 9712176290. 0-web.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/ehost/delivery?sid=27333d45-2bba-49cf-bfb... Lungu, F. (2014, November, 8). Mahtani files summons against a US site hosting Zambia Report. Post. Retrieved from postzambia/news.php?id=3847 Ward, S (2014). “Radical media ethics: Responsibility to a revolution.” Nordicom Review 35, Special Issue, 45-52. Retrieved from 0-search.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AN=98509694&site=ehost-live. Ward, S. & Wasserman, H. (Dec, 2010). “Towards an Open Ethics: Implications of New Media Platforms for Global Ethics Discourse.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Oct-Dec2010, Vol. 25 Issue 4, 275-292. Retrieved from erlbaum/Journals/journals/JMME/jmme.htm Whitehouse, G. (2010). “Newsgathering and Privacy: Expanding Ethics Codes to Reflect Change in the Digital Media Age.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 25:310–327,DOI:10.1080/08900523.2010.5128270-eds.a.ebscohost.library.jcu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=9be305212d7141c4936fd8f47eb7b9b2%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4105
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 17:58:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015