CODE OF CONDUCT

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 141, 16 June 1936, Page 14

CODE OF CONDUCT

FOB BRITISH JOURN-

ALISTS

RESPECTING PRIVACY

A Code of Conduct for journalists was passed at the annual conference at Carlisle of the British National Union of Journalists recently, says the "Manchester Guardian." The code laid down the freedom of journalists in the honest collection and publication of news and the right to fair comment and criticism. It stated that a journalist should realise his personal responsibility for everything he sent to his paper or agency, and should respect all necessary confidences. He should not falsify information or documents or distort or misrepresent facts. It was unprofessional conduct to exploit the labour of another journalist by plagiarism.

Mr. H. A. Raybould, of the executive, in moving the resolution, said: "Parliament, social and religious forces, democratic institutions anxious for the liberty of the Press as part of the liberty of speech are looking to see if journalists are prepared to impose on themselves some minimum standard of conduct." He added that the great majority of newspaper proprietors in this country were anxious to have clean journalism. There was a school of thought which wished to restrict the activities of journalists, and if a code were'not established there was every prospect that a legal code might be imposed.

By a unanimous vote, the conference passed a resolution deploring what was described as the recent tendency to introduce what amounted to a covert censorship by Government departments on news bearing on foreign affairs. It was agreed to send copies of this resolution to every member of Parliament. The conference also agreed to approach the Council of Civil Liberties on the question of preserving the liberties of the Press.

VAST CHANGES. In his presidential address, Mr. R. S. Forsyth said that the period of less than thirty years since the union was founded had witnessed vast changes both in the presentation of news and in the enlarged field of interests and activities of newspapers. The union welcomed the latter in so far as It has created more employment; there are other changes which were profoundly disturbing, though typical of almost every industrial sphere. They had seen the trustification of the Press to an extent that the ordinary reader, the "man in the street," could scarcely appreciate. Huge combines, manipulated by financiers, controlled newspapers with gigantic circulations and unlimited resources. There had never been such a mass attack on public opinipn nor such frenzied competition to obtain new readers. But it was questionable if the influence of the sensational Press was as impressive as the circulation figures suggested or as pehnanent as some of. the older and more responsible types of newspapers which had not been drawn within the tentacles of trusts.

The era of sensational journalism had brought many dangers and evils. Among its dangers had been the threat of some form of State control to curtail the freedom of the Press. The N.U.J. was acutely cognisant of the evils. They had been unwilling partners in the departure from honoured standards; they had been compelled, because they were wage-earners, to acquiesce in the exploitation and exaggeration of news and to do things they ought not to have been asked to do.

HIGH STANDARDS. Journalists must maintain ! high standards. This was more than ever necessary .in these critical days. An educated democracy wanted reliable and uncoloured news on local, national, and world affairs. Amid the wave of intense nationalism which was sweeping the world, cheap emotionalism and false news values might be as dangerous as fiery dictators. The resp.onsibilities of the Press, for instance, in the maintenance of world peace were enormous. The executive of the union intended to suggest to the International Federation of Journalists the calling of a world conference of journalists or representatives of newspaper organisations through the League of Nations, at Geneva, to promote the cause of world peace. The responsibilities of journalists in these troublous days were serious, not only in world affairs but in their relations to one another. For a long time the feeling-prevailed that the union should establish a Code of Conduct. Such a code would be submitted ■'to the conference for its consideration and was proljiblv the most important issue before it. Perhaps because he was a country journalist, employed in a centre where high conceptions of journalism prevailed, he was rather lukewarm about this question when it was brought up a year ago. Like others, he thought every man's conscience was his best bulwark, but "conscience doth make cowards of us all." As president of the union he was now whole-heartedly in favour of such an instrument. This was no attempt to make journalists into saints. Even the worst of us had lofty aspirations at times, and this code, both idealistic and practical, if lived up to, would ennoble the profession, extend the influence and prestige of the union, and protect its members who might be ordered to perform tasks which are repugnant to all standards of decency and honour.

Some sections of the Press might have been guilty of questionable methods of intrusion into people's privacy in moments of grief and tragedy. There had been a justifiable outcry against this, but he asserted, on behalf of working journalists, that they were not to blame. As in the army, "orders is orders." But the union had always been ready to protect any member against unjust treatment for disobeying any instruction which was degrading and incompatible with decency. The union was trustee for the craft of journalism, and they had established an undeniable'claim to have a voice in the control of their own proiession. The Code of Conduct for the first time placed before the members ideals to be aimed at, and if the members were animated by its principles the union would ultimately play/ a much more vital part in maintaining the best and highest traditions of British journalism.