Should journalists use a disguise to deceive their subjects, to put them at ease by creating a false and friendly persona, and then secretly record them? Is such a lie in the application of journalism acceptable if it leads to a greater good?
The Walkley Awards has made an exception to its rules on ethics to allow a story created via deception to be selected as a finalist for its 2019 national journalism competition.
In entering the Walkey Awards, global media network Al Jazeera had to “certify” that its program, How to sell a Massacre, credited to the Al Jazeera Investigations Unit, adhered to the Code of Ethics as expressed by the journalists’ union, the MEAA.
This code requires journalists to identify themselves and their employer when seeking an interview. Al Jazeera journalists didn’t reveal to those involved that they were the subject of a story or even that a news organisation was investigating them.
The Walkley Awards judges allowed an “exceptional example of investigative journalism” to be short-listed in two awards -- best scoop and investigative journalism -- because of an “overriding public interest” despite acknowledging the deceptions.
The Al Jazeera investigation, into how right wing politics in Australia engaged in dodgy behaviour, used hidden cameras to record conversations. And its undercover reporter became an active player, rather than an observer recording events, albeit secretly, by introducing two Australian One Nation officials to the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the US.
There are 12 standards in the Code of Ethics. The 8th one: “Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.”
The Al Jazeera story relied on an undercover operation with those involved playing roles -- a pretend head of a fake gun lobby called Gun Rights Australia -- to deceive the targets and in doing so reveal the tactics of the political right wing in Australia and the gun lobby in the US.
The official description: “A three-year Al Jazeera investigation into the US gun lobby has uncovered an effort by an Australian political party to seek millions of dollars in political funding while offering to soften strict, anti-gun laws in Australia.”
The investigative unit tracked Pauline Hanson’s One Nation as representatives went to Washington for meetings with the NRA.
The fact that a reporter didn't identify themselves for the story didn’t worry the NSW-based Kennedy Awards which gave Al Jazeera the 2019 prize for Outstanding Investigative Reporting. Australian Peter Charley, a senior executive producer for Al Jazeera, picked up the award in person.
Charley, who is currently on assignment in South America, told AdNews he is “quite aware” of the MEAA code of ethics.
“As you are most probably aware, the code provides a ‘guidance clause’ that allows for ethical constraints to be overridden in cases of ‘substantial advancement of the public interest’,” he says.
The Guidance Clause: “Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.”
The judges at the Walkley Awards debated the ethical issue when deciding on finalists.
“Three judges in each category discussed this issue at length,” says Louisa Graham, chief executive of The Walkley Foundation. “They agreed that the story was in the public interest, and it wouldn’t have been obtained by any other means.”
The judges say the MEAA Code of Ethics does not include specific guidelines on secret cameras, so they looked at other codes in the UK and US.
The UK’s NUJ stated: “Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.”
The UK is infamous for scams by reporters donning disguises to get stories. Among those stung by a fake sheik was Prince Edward's wife Sophie who in 2001 made embarrassing remarks about other royals and politicians.
Actor Hugh Grant in 2011 turned the tables on this style of journalism by wearing a concealed microphone to record a media executive speaking about illegal phone-hacking.
In Australia, this year’s Walkley judges on both panels decided the Al Jazeera investigation story was for the greater good and in the public interest.
The Investigative Journalism Walkley judges: Alan Sunderland; Christopher Dore, The Australian; Michael Usher, Seven News Sydney:
“Meticulous in its planning, audacious in its scope and devastating in its execution, this is a story that will forever stir controversy and divide opinion but undoubtedly is an exceptional example of investigative journalism that infiltrated the inner sanctum of secretive and powerful groups and exposed the dubious ambitions of political forces in Australia and the US.”
The Scoop of the Year judges -- Peter Meakin, Network 10, James Chessell, Nine metro mastheads, Josephine Tovey, Guardian Australia:
“This report was the result of a three-year undercover investigation, which would have taxed the resources of any news organisation. Its impact was significant and immediate. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party was shown to have sought up to $20m from the US gun lobby and, in return, would do its best to water down Australia’s gun laws. And the National Rifle Association’s response to massacres in the US was exposed as downright cynical. Some critics were uncomfortable with producer Peter Charley’s use of hidden cameras and the subterfuge involved in nailing down the story. The judges acknowledged these concerns but felt there was an overriding public interest in the report, which could not have been told effectively any other way.”
Transparency
Does it matter how the story was obtained as long as the result has significant value to the community?
Peter Fray, a former editor in chief of The Sydney Morning Herald and now co-director at the Centre for Media Transition, UTS: "In this case the ends justify the means. It was an important story. But it does highlight the need for us to update OUR own ethics code and have a broader discussion about how we can become more transparent as an industry. It is what our audiences want and expect.”
In the past, journalists in Australia have been criticised for going undercover. One example was when a Sydney Morning Herald journalist pretended to be a student to attend Glebe High School.
Local tabloid-style TV inAustralia has in the past been a hot spot for undercover work. Michael Munro was in the 1980s charged under the Listening Devices Act after using a disguise to get inside fuel depots at Sydney Airport. The charges were dismissed.
Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne, says It is highly likely that One Nation’s behaviour could only be exposed through this sort of reporting.
“This isn’t your garden variety case of a tabloid TV program exposing a dodgy car salesmen or a real estate scammer. In this film, the use of hidden cameras directly places several parts of the code of ethics against that all important public interest override,” he writes for The Conversation.
“The question is whether the public’s right to know is so important that it justifies the film’s deceptive conduct and breaches of privacy.
“For me, the use of hidden cameras can clearly be defended when a publicly funded Australian political party, that knows what it’s doing is dodgy, is making connections to ‘change Australia’ by gaining the balance of power in the parliament and working hand in glove with the United States,
“It is highly likely the extent of One Nation’s behaviour could only be exposed through this sort of reportage.”
Squeamishness
Another issue not canvassed by the Walkley judges is the fairness of allowing one news organisation to push past ethical boundaries. What of others who may have held back entering the awards because they believed this would breach the rules?
And, if the rules are changed or clarified to allow deception journalism, will we see more Al Jazeera-style investigations in Australia? Perhaps journalism courses will in the future include units on how deception, false identities and fake organisations can be used to expose the bad guys. Undercover 1010.
Greg Marx, an associate editor at the Columbia Journalism Review, writing on the Ethics of Undercover Journalism, says journalism’s squeamishness with “lying to get the truth,” is well documented:
"Overreliance on sting operations and subterfuge can weaken the public's trust in the media and compromise journalists' claim to be truth-tellers. Undercover reporting can be a powerful tool, but it's one to be used cautiously: against only the most important targets, and even then only when accompanied by solid traditional reporting."
He provides examples going back to the 1970s. The Chicago Sun-Times missed a Pulitzer because some disapproved of a sting operation -- which included setting up a bar -- to expose corruption among city bureaucrats.
Ken Silverstein, the editor of Harper’s, more recently pretended to be a foreign businessman to expose lobbyists willing to represent unsavory clients for a price.
Howard Kurtz, columnist at the Washington Post, wrote of that story: "No matter how good the story, lying to get it raises as many questions about journalists as their subjects."
In the US, the Society of Professional Journalists says in its Code of Ethics: “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”
The society says undercover journalism should be a last resort if traditional reporting methods will not yield information “vital to the public”.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.