Today the editor in chief and responsible publisher of Sydsvenskan Mr. Daniel Sandström rushes in to support me in the issue concerning the publication of name and image of the supected gunman in Malmö.
For the brilliant analysis and the complete article (in Swedish only) please go here Sydsvenskan.
In his analysis, which is titled "When the Exception Becomes the Norm", Mr Sandström - among many other wise things - says (roughly translated), "How should we interpret "public interest"? The rules on press ethics don´t specify this. But you should use the words in a responsible manner, so that they will not be synonymous with "what people are curious about" or, even worse, "gossip". "Public interest" is about what the citizens have a right to know, or "what is important and relevant to citizens" as that phrase reads in the press ethics. If the detained 38-year-old was released and is free from suspicion, no one can say that his name is of "significance and importance to the citizens". Thus, it is currently too early to draw conclusions about the public interest, and therefore the precautionary principle must apply."
Mr Sandström continues, "Basically it is inherent in all publishing to show "a responsible attitude for the journalistic duties." Today, when information is disseminated on the Internet and is increasingly out of control, many believe that the media's refusal to state name and image has to do with censorship. Others believe that it is pointless to disidentify.
Wrong. The need for accountability does not decrease because others do not take responsibility. On the contrary, I would say. Right now, it is urgent to show that there are alternatives to a development that puts both journalistic ethics and personal integrity at stake."
No need to tell me, I already know Mr. Sandström never heard of The Much Honoured Bock McMillan, Laird of Southern Charm, but that´s really his loss!
I agree in principle, but 'Press ethics'? Haha how quaint. Try 'press paycheques' instead.
ReplyDelete