Cheers for «On  Behalf of Journalism». Il would like to ad some thoughs regarding the notion of fairness in journalism, which is often ignored. Even though many writers assume that fairness is to complex to be formalized in media ethics,  I propose what I call A Tripartite Conception of Fairness in Journalism. In a nut shell, I would introduce it by the following:

***

It is not a scoop to say that fairness is a very complex notion and that is somewhat a factor of confusion or debate regarding his practical applicability.

 

What we may say at first is that fairness refers usually to some sort of reciprocity, equality, equilibrium, justice and a certain moral sense in the human relations as well as the adherence to some procedures and the distribution of advantages and obligations. That’s for the society in large.

 

In journalism, fairness is usually an explicit duty or obligation, but its range is rarely well defined so it is very difficult, if not impossible, to know with precision which are the professional acts or the deontological norms to which it refers.

 

My goal here is to suggest a more formal way to deal with fairness in journalism, so the respect of it would be more easy for the practitioners. At the same time, I hope it will struggle against some confusion that is often associated with this professional duty.  I propose what I call a tripartite conception of fairness in journalism, according to what different codes of ethics have to say about this professional norm. This tripartite conception is in itself a work of categorization and characterization which, from my point of view, may have some practical utility for the journalists as well as for the critics of media.

 

The three facets of fairness in journalism are the following: procedural fairness (which is about the means (ambush interviews, hidden camera or microphone, espionage, stolen documents, and so on), fairness in the process of information (what is kept out, what is in the piece and how that is accurate, comprehensive, relevant; how about use and even abuse of anonymous sources, sensationalism and hype, etc.), and fairness in the follow-up (how the reporters promptly can readjust and correct errors).

 

It can be said that these three aspects are usually, but not always, tie with a temporal dimension. Usually, the procedural fairness is relevant before the diffusion or broadcast of the information, the fairness in the process of information (selection, emphasis, etc.), is relevant in the presentation and during the diffusion/broadcast, and the fairness in follow-up is the duty to keep an eye on the development of the news after a first diffusion.

Best