The ‘Public Editor’ at the Toronto Star last week revived the controversial issue of a journalist’s absolute impartiality. The argument that questions the ethics of ‘taking sides’ is not a new one and has probably plagued every starry-eyed cub reporter just as it has bothered me ever since I took up the vows of journalism.

Well, I haven’t really taken any ‘vows’ but let’s just say I jumped into the journalistic fray and mentally swore to writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And yes, God has helped me follow that motto, despite various dissenting powers that came in the way – some editorial, some political.

In the news world, truth is tricky, and like history, it is always someone’s story. Mostly, it is that person’s story who told it first. After that, no matter how many rebuttals or contradictions are printed, in the backdrop of ‘Breaking News’, it is usually the one with the first word in that gets heard. Truth gets even trickier when the person writing it has an opinion about it which gives rise to what we now call ‘spin’.

In this extremely opinionated environment of today, where points of view are floating on Twitter at the rate of 140 characters per thought, per second, it is nearly impossible to eliminate personal feelings and separate individual belief from a public issue. So, is it ok for a reporter or an editor to have a political preference, be a human rights activist or an environmental crusader while being a journalist? According to strict followers of journalistic ethics – a breed now mostly extinct – No!

It is not even correct for a reporter covering politics to have a political opinion, let alone follow a party line. But ever since the phenomenon called Fox TV became a media sensation, such strict values have become obsolete, and journalists who had previously patronised their preferred leanings on politics or other matters privately, have come out of the closet, openly becoming champions of whatever causes they had secretly espoused.

I have had colleagues who were human rights activists or social workers and were reporting on the same issues they campaigned for. But since these were all ‘just’ causes, no harm was seen by benign editors and they continued their writings without feeling guilty about conflict of interest.

To me the practice appears no different than insider trading. Then why is one a criminal offence and the other a minor matter of ethics? It does show, doesn’t it, how low we have placed the value of ethics for today’s media practitioners?

And this was the point that Kathy English was talking about in her ‘Public Editor’ column. The Public Editor is defined by The Toronto Star as the position that ‘encompasses the roles of reader advocate and guarantor of accuracy, serving as a liaison between the Star and its many readers, both print and online,’ and as such, Ms English often takes on issues concerning public-media relationship.

As an example of now forgotten journalistic scruples Ms English cited the exceptional rules of impartiality followed by a former editor of Washington Post who was so zealous about, ‘being impartial from the political process his newspaper reported on that he even refused to exercise his right to vote.’ She quoted him as saying, “I stopped having even private opinions about politicians or issues so that I would have a completely open mind in supervising our coverage.”

While the Post’s editor might have been extreme, I would be happy to find even one editor or reporter who did not include his or her leaning when writing about politics, business, crime or even sports. The Toronto Star too lays claim to adhering to principles that promote impartiality and ensure their reputation as ‘fair-minded fact finders’ but I see digressions on that philosophy nearly every day in their reports. Their Statement of Principles is a long and detailed document containing many ethical declarations that affirm “the highest standards of journalistic integrity,” but transgressions are evident nearly every day.

With Facebook now urging all its users to exchange their ideas freely with millions of others, displaying ‘Political and Religious Views’ on their personal info, it is impossible to remain impartial and unbiased. How many journalists would have the willpower to refrain from joining their Facebook friends on popular causes and issues? Probably none. And I seriously doubt if all media outlets are monitoring the Facebook pages of its entire staff all the time.

Kathy English writes that The Star has now also included a clause regarding participation of its editorial staff in social media networks which was circulated in its newsroom just a few weeks ago. The official directive stated; “Never post information on social media that could undermine your credibility with the public or damage the Star’s reputation in any way, including as an impartial source of news...remember, readers will hold the Star responsible for its staff participation in social media.”

But it is one thing to outline honourable business principles and a different story to ensure that they are adhered to. Impartiality, though, does not mean that editorial expressions remain mute on inequities. Certainly not. The media has its role cut out as a social watchdog as well, but fair judgement can only be made through a clear distinction for readers between news and opinion and the two should be clearly distinguished by a media-house for its audience.

In Pakistan, amid the cacophony raised by multiple news channels and with newspapers vying for increased circulation through sensational headlines, the simple truth is totally lost and mired in personal opinions, partisan politics and personal agendas. Is anyone even bothered about the question of ethics?

maheenrashdi@yahoo.ca