Beleaguered journalism can adapt, but not ethics

Journalists marked Reporters Day this week with the usual reflection. The usual questions were asked, some related to the issue of freedom of the press and others about the financial decline of print journalism and the resultant weakening of ethical standards. The influence of the social media continued to be analysed.

And, as usual, the questions were easy to ask and difficult to answer. The relevance of journalism has been hanging by a thread for a few years now, or at least of journalism as we know it. This is the journalism that prides itself on unconditional independence and the courage to stand up against both direct and blatant harassment and also more subtle threats and soul-sapping temptations.

Maybe the key question is how to die with integrity. To soften the tone just a bit, the question is how journalists can maintain professional relevance and integrity in the face of all adversaries. Opinion-based journalism has been challenged by the fact that journalists are no longer the only ones offering “informed opinions”. The same goes for “reflective journalism”. And investigative journalism is under growing scrutiny, not because of its efficacy is in question but because of spreading suspicion that fewer investigative journalists are above bias.

Two developments in particular are making the life of journalists difficult, professionally and ethically. They are the social media, which have eaten into what used to be exclusively the reporter’s job (as in fast and detailed coverage of the launch of every new Apple product by non-journalists), and the increasingly rough business aspect of journalism. The latter has prodded many journalists to cross ethical lines, knowingly, unknowingly or “out of necessity”.

It's a slippery slope. In order to stay relevant, many journalists end up following the very practices that undermine their profession. In order to survive financially, ethics might have to yield.

All is not lost, however. The social media still can’t effectively screen substance from hearsay, fabrication or distortion. Access to authoritative sources remains difficult for those outside the journalistic profession. In other words, while more and more people are as informed as journalists, we still need reporters to be the “last line of defence” in a world flooded with information.

Journalism will not fade away anytime soon, even with “robots” now handling the simpler newsgathering and research and putting some impressive information online. But to stay relevant, a big price might have to be paid. The question is how journalists can draw a reasonable line. Today, “freedom” and “independence” take on post-modern meanings as journalists and news organisations struggle to stay afloat fiscally.

Political intimidation is one concern, but there is something equally worrisome, if not moreso. There are now more ways than ever to lose independence and freedom without knowing it. It’s not easy to get around them nowadays, but everyone must try if journalism as we know it is to be fully protected.

It’s widely held that journalists, in order to survive, must adapt to the brave new world. That is true in many aspects, but any such adaptation cannot affect the fundamental ethics that have always defined journalism. While the methodology of journalism has evolved, nothing has changed ethically. When it comes to independence, neutrality and the quest for truth, journalists must remain conservative. It’s as simple as that.