Lessons from the eTV subpoena saga
January 26th, 2010
Fortunately, good sense has prevailed in the sage of the subpoena to force eTV to identify the criminals they recently interviewed. The police have reportedly agreed to follow the path of consultation and conflict-avoidance set out in the 1999 agreement between government and editors.
There are a few things to learn from this, though. We learnt how dangerous is the police commissioner’s liking for populist bluster. Hopefully, he learnt the value of taking a deep breath before launching an attack of this sort.
One important lesson, I think, was the danger of journalists getting involved directly in anti-crime campaigns rather than reporting on them. Primedia honcho Yusuf Abramjee has been outspoken on the subpoena and has seemed more like he was wearing the hat of chief promoter of Radio 702’s Crime Line rather than that of a journalist.
He backed the police in this issue, disregarded the fundamental journalistic principle of protecting one’s source and said “each case had to be considered on its merits” (as if there was no basic principle involved). That was a crime-fighter speaking, not a journalist. Yusuf is demonstrating the danger of wearing both these hats.
I am an admirer of 702’s Crime Line campaign, and think it valuable community service stuff. But it has to be kept separate from journalism - or it will dilute that station’s commitment to good reporting.
At the end of they day, police and journalists have to learn to live and work side by side, understanding each other’s role and assisting each other in that. But we have some way to go to develop such understanding and breaking down such outbreaks of mutually destructive hostility.
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, Journalism, Media regulation
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed