Directive 1.1 – The search for the truth

The search for truth is at the heart of the act of informing. It presumes taking account of available and accessible data, respect for the integrity of documents (text, recording, image), verification and rectification. These aspects are dealt with in 3, 4 and 5 hereunder.

Directive 2.1 – Freedom of information

Freedom of information is a primary condition in the search for truth. It is the task of each journalist to defend it in principle both generally and on his or her own behalf. This protection of freedom is assured by the application of numbers 6, 9, 10 and 11 and as a whole by the rights articulated hereunder.

Directive 2.2 – Multiple viewpoints

Multiple viewpoints contribute to freedom of information. It is most necessary when the media outlet is in a monopoly position.

Directive 2.3 – Distinction between information and opinion

The journalist must take care to indicate to the public the distinction between pure information, reported as fact, and opinion appropriate to commentary or criticism.

Directive 2.4 – Public function

The exercise of the profession of journalist is generally not compatible with that of a public function. However, this incompatibility is not an absolute. In particular circumstances, participation in public affairs can be justified. In such a case, the journalist must separate strictly such spheres of activity and make sure that the public knows of his or her double role. Conflicts of interest are damaging to the reputation of the press and the dignity of the profession. The same rule applies to any engagement of a private nature that has any connection, however slight, to a journalist’s professional activity and his or her treatment of news.

Directive 2.5 – Exclusivity contracts

Exclusivity contracts agreed with a source must not inhibit information relating to events or situations of major significance to the public and the formation of public opinion. Such contracts, when they contribute to the creation of a monopoly by preventing access to information by other media, are damaging to the freedom of the press.

Directive 3.1 – Treatment of sources

The first act of journalistic diligence consists in confirming the origin of any information and its reliability. In principle, it is in the public interest to cite sources, unless there is an overwhelming case against doing so. Whenever the source of information is the subject of a secrecy agreement, this must be mentioned in as much as it constitutes an element important to the integrity of the information being provided.

Directive 3.2 – Press releases

Press releases issued by public bodies, political parties, associations, companies and any other self-promoting group must be clearly signalled as such.

Directive 3.3 – Archive documents

Archive documents must be presented as such, if possible with a mention of the date of original publication or release.

Directive 3.4 – Illustrations

Photographs and filmed sequences designed to illustrate a subject but representing people and/or situations not directly related to the people and/or circumstances cited in the article or programme must be identified as such. They must be clearly distinguished from photographs and filmed sequences of an informative or documentary character with a direct bearing on the facts being reported.

Directive 3.5 – Reconstructions

Reconstructions of reported facts as simulated by actors on television or in publications must be clearly signalled as such.

Directive 3.6 – Montages

Photo and video montage can be justified only when it throws light on an event, illustrates a conjecture, offers a critical viewpoint or contains a satirical element. It must, however, be very clearly signalled as such so that readers and viewers are protected from any risk of confusion.

Directive 3.7 – Surveys

When publishing the results of a survey, the media must give the public every indication useful to understanding the results. Minimal information includes: the number of people polled, how representative they were, where and when the research was carried out and who commissioned it. The report must also reproduce the questions as posed in the original survey. Restricting the date up to which a survey can be published before elections or a vote on issues brought before the public is not compatible with freedom of information.

Directive 3.8 – Right to be heard against grave accusations

According to the principle of fairness, journalists are obliged to contact and hear the views of those accused of serious offences. Grave accusations intended for publication must be specified precisely. The statements of the person accused of serious offences must not receive the same weight in a report as the criticism of his or her actions. But these statements must be presented fairly when published.

Directive 3.9 – Right to be heard – exceptions

The «right to be heard» does not apply:

• if serious accusations are based on available official sources (e.g. court judgements);
• if the accusation and the explanation of the accused has been made public previously. However, the earlier explanation must be repeated with subsequent mentioning of the accusation;
• if there is an overwhelming public interest against the «right to be heard».

Directive 4.1 – Concealing professional identity

Concealing one’s identity as a journalist in order to obtain information, recordings, images or documents for publication or broadcast, comes under the heading of dishonest conduct.

Directive 4.2 – Covert research

An exception can be made to this rule in cases where the overwhelming public interest justifies publication or broadcasting and in as much as the elements covertly obtained cannot be obtained by any other means. It is also justified when recording or filming could put the life of the journalist in danger or totally distort the behaviour of key players, always under the condition of overwhelming public interest. In such exceptional cases, the journalist should always take care to protect the identity of people who happen to be present at the scene by chance. Even under these special conditions, journalists can refuse to participate in covert research for reasons of conscience.

Directive 4.3 – Payment for information

Payment to a third party who is not a media professional for information or images is unprofessional behaviour and is prohibited. It distorts the free circulation of information. Information should not be bought from persons involved in court proceedings. It is nonetheless allowable in cases where an overwhelming public interest exists, and when fact or image cannot be obtained by other means.

Directive 4.4 – Embargoes

If information or a document is given to one or more news outlets under embargo, and if that embargo is justified (e.g. text of a speech that has not yet been delivered or the possibility that legitimate interests could be affected by premature publication), the embargo is to be respected. An embargo cannot be justified for advertising purposes. If the editor considers an embargo to be unjustified, he or she should inform the news source of the intention to publish so that other media can be informed.

Directive 4.5 – Interviews

A journalistic interview is built on an agreement between partners who have established rules for the exchange. Special conditions which are agreed to before the interview must be made public (example, an agreement that the interviewer will not ask certain questions). Without the expressed permission of those interviewed, journalists are not permitted to reconstruct an interview out of a previous discussion.

On the other hand, the person interviewed cannot make modifications extensive enough to distort what is said during the meeting (e.g. change of meaning, suppression or addition of questions). However, the interviewed has the right to correct clear mistakes. Even by extensive cutting of the interview, the interviewed should be able to recognise his statements in the text. If no agreement is possible between the interview partners, the journalist has the right to renounce publication or to cite post-interview interference by the subject. When both sides reach an agreement on what is to be published, earlier versions of the interview cannot be referred to again.

Directive 4.6 – Requesting interviews

Journalists should inform discussion partners of their reason for requesting interviews. Journalists are allowed to formulate and cut discussions, but the text must remain true to the statements made by the interviewed. The interviewed must be made aware that he or she can request authorization for a statement before publication.

Directive 4.7 – Plagiarism

Plagiarism is an act of dishonesty towards peers since it consists of using, without attribution and in identical terms, information, facts, commentaries, analyses or other kinds of information generated by others.

Directive 5.1 – Duty to rectify

The duty to correct errors of fact should be exercised by journalists of their own accord since it is crucial to a truthful record. The obligation to correct applies to misstatements of fact, not to opinion founded on facts known to be accurate.

Directive 5.2 – Readers’ letters and online comments

The standard code of ethics also applies to readers’ letters and online comments. However, it is advisable to accord readers the widest possible scope for free expression of opinion. That is why editors responsible for readers’ letters should interfere only if they clearly contravene the rights and duties of the journalist.

Readers’ letters and online comments can be adapted and shortened as long as their thrust is preserved. In the interests of transparency, the space reserved for readers’ letters should contain a regular notice announcing that the editor reserves the right to shorten letters. Exceptionally, a reader may demand publication of the complete text of a letter; the alternative then is to grant the privilege or not publish at all.

Directive 5.3 – Attribution of readers’ letters and online comments

Readers’ letters and online comments should be signed by their authors. They cannot be published anonymously without justification, examples of which can be protection of privacy or sources.

Online discussion forums, which are based on spontaneous reactions, can dispense with identifying authors as long as the editorial staff controls comments to ensure that they are not defamatory or discriminatory.

Directive 6.1 – Editorial secrecy

Professional duty to keep editorial secrecy goes further than legal immunity as a witness. It protects the journalist’s source material (notes, addresses, recordings, photographs etc). It also protects the journalist’s informants when these people agree to give information only with the assurance that publication or broadcast will not entail disclosure of their identity.

Directive 6.2 – Exceptions to legal immunity

Whatever exceptions are foreseen by laws governing immunity of the press, it is advisable in each situation to weigh up the public’s right to know against other interests worthy of protection. The evaluation should take place, if possible, before and not after commitment is given to respect the confidentiality of the information source. In certain extreme cases, the journalist can feel released from his or her commitment to confidentiality: notably when he or she learns that particularly serious crimes may be implicated or the existence, for example, of a threat to internal or external state security.

Directive 7.1 – Protection of privacy

Everybody – this applies also to celebrities – has the right to respect for his or her privacy. The journalist cannot photograph a person without his or her consent or take photographs with a telephoto lens without the subject’s knowledge (Right to one’s own image and word). Journalists must renounce all forms of harassment (intrusion in the home, pursuit, stalking, telephone harassment etc.) of people who have asked to be left alone.

In public areas, photographing and filming of private persons is only allowed without permission if the persons are not specially focused upon. On the other hand, it is allowed to photograph and film persons who appear at public events.

Directive 7.2 – Identification

Journalists must weigh carefully the various interests involved (the public’s right to information, protection of the private sphere). Names or personally identifiable information is allowed:

• when the person involved appears publicly in relation to the issue or consents to publication in other ways;
• when the person is generally known and the media report ist in relation to the cause of its celebrity;
• when the person involved holds a political, government or social leading position that is connected to the media report;
• when naming the person is necessary to avoid confusion with uninvolved persons;
• when not naming or identifying the person is strongly outweighed by the people’s right to know.

If protection of the private sphere outweighs the people’s right to know, journalists are obliged not to publish names or other information that would identify the person to third parties who do not belong to his or her family, social or professional sphere and therefore are informed only through the media report.

Directive 7.3 – Children

Children’s interests call for special protection; not least, the children of celebrities, public figures and of people who are, for whatever reason, the object of media attention. Particular restraint is called for in reporting violent crimes where children are involved (whether as victims, presumed perpetrators or as witnesses).

Directive 7.4 – Court reporting: presumption of innocence and reintegration

Court reporting requires that journalists be particularly careful with names and other means of identification. Judicial presumption of innocence is to be respected. In the event of guilty verdicts, reporting should show sensitivity to the immediate family and relatives of the sentenced, and safeguard his or her chance of future reintegration into society.

Directive 7.5 – Right to be forgotten

The «right to be forgotten» applies to those convicted of crimes. This right is even stronger when cases are dropped or the accused is found not guilty. However, the «right to be forgotten» is not absolute. Journalists can report on earlier cases in a fair way when justified in the overwhelming public interest. An example is when a connection exists between a past and current case.

The «right to be forgotten» also applies to online media and digital archives. Editors should examine justified requests as to if names should be removed from or facts updated in reports held in electronic archives. If corrections are necessary, editors should make them but not totally delete reports. Names can be eliminated. Journalists should be particularly critical in regard to sources when researching on the Internet and in electronic archives.

Directive 7.6 – Legal dismissal, shelving and acquittals

When a person is involved in a legal action and the decision is taken to dismiss or shelve the case, or the person is acquitted, the announcement of the decision must be, in form, proportional to the previous presentation of the offence.

Directive 7.7 – Sex offences

Victims of sex offences are due special protection. No detail should be given that allows the victim to be identified.

Directive 7.8 – Emergencies, illness, war and conflicts

Journalists should exercise particular understanding and reserve when faced with people in an emergency situation, with those suffering from event-related shock or with those who are grieving. This applies not only to victims but also to their families and relatives. Research in hospitals and similar institutions requires the permission of the appropriate authority.

Images from war and conflict zones, terror acts and other emergency situations document historic events. However, publication in the public interest must be weighed against:

• the danger of offending the private sphere of the person or persons in the image and/or the sensitivity of viewers;
• the right of the deceased to peace in death.

Journalists may only publish images of deceased persons if it is overwhelmingly in the public interest or if relatives explicitly agree.This also applies even if the images are in the public domain such as at funerals and memorial services.

Directive 7.9 – Suicide

The media should exercise the greatest restraint in a case of suicide. Suicides can be the object of a news story:

• when it has drawn a large public attention;
• when it concerns a person of public interest. For lesser known persons, the suicide must at least have a probable relation to public affairs.
• when the deceased or his or her family inform the media;
• when it provokes public debate;
• when it gives rise to rumours and accusations.

In all cases, reporting should be limited to what is needed to understand the facts and exclude intimate and personally damaging details. In order to avoid suicides by imitation, the media should not mention any details about the method or product used.

Directive 8.1 – Respect for human dignity

Respect for human dignity is fundamental to the work of informing the public. It must be constantly weighed against the public’s right to know. Respect must be paid to the people directly concerned in the information, as much as to the public in general.

Directive 8.2 – Interdiction against discrimination

Mentioning a person’s nationality, ethnic group, origin, religion, sexual orientation and/or skin colour can have a discriminatory effect, especially if negative value judgements are generalized and prejudices against minorities strengthened. Therefore, journalists must weigh the proportional worth of the information against a danger of discrimination.

Directive 8.3 – Protection of victims

The authors of reports on tragic events or acts of violence should always weigh carefully the public’s right to know against the interests of victims and other concerned people. Journalists must avoid any sensational presentation in which a human being is degraded or treated as an object. It is particularly the case for the dying, the suffering or the dead of whom presentation in text or image should not go beyond decent limits appropriate to legitimate public interest.

Directive 8.4 – Images of war and conflict

Photography and televised images of war and conflict must be carefully examined – before publication or broadcast – in the interests of answering the following questions relating to respect for human beings:

• is a possible affront to dignity justified by the fact that the image bears unique witness to contemporary history?
• are the people in the images recognisable as individuals?
• would their dignity be harmed by publication?

Directive 8.5 – Images of accidents, catastrophes and crimes

Photographs and televised images of accidents, catastrophes and crimes must respect an individual’s dignity by taking into account the immediate family and relatives of the person concerned, particularly in the context of local and regional news reporting.

Directive 9.1 – Independence

The defence of press freedom depends on preserving journalists’ independence. Such independence must be the object of constant vigilance. It is not forbidden to accept – as an individual, in social and professional relationships – invitations or small gifts when the value is within reasonable limits. However, such acceptance should in no way influence research and its publication.

Directive 9.2 – Conflicts of interest

Economic and financial journalism is particularly exposed to privileged information. Journalists should not use information they obtain for their own gain, or have it used by a third party, before it is made known to the general public. To avoid conflict of interest, they must not write about companies in which they themselves, or their close family, hold shares or bonds. They must not, under any circumstances, accept shares under privileged conditions in return for articles.

Directive 10.1 – Separating editorial from advertising

A clear separation of printed editorial/electronic programming from advertising (paid content or content supplied by third parties) is essential to the credibility of the media. Printed advertisements, advertising spots and paid for content or that supplied by third parties is to be clearly distinguished from journalistic reporting and comment. If this is not the case optically/acoustically, the information must be clearly marked as advertising. Journalists may not bypass this directive through methods designed to slyly insert advertising into their texts.

Directive 10.2 – Sponsoring, press trips, coupling of editorial reports and advertising

The name of the sponsor must be transparent when media reports are sponsored; and editorial freedom in regard to content and handling of the report must be respected. In the case of press trips, the source of payment must be made clear. Editorial freedom must also be respected. Journalistic reports (e.g. “accompanying” editorial pieces), which serve as a “reward” for print advertising and advertising spots, are not permitted.

Directive 10.3 – Lifestyle reports, naming brands and products

The freedom of the editorial staff in choosing themes in the areas of lifestyle and consumer advice is to be respected. Professional ethics in these areas cover both reports on consumer goods and services. An uncritical or too positive presentation of consumer goods, a mentioning of goods and services which is more frequent than necessary and a blatant reproduction of advertising slogans in the editorial sections of the media endangers the credibility of the media and journalists.

Directive 10.4 – Deceptive stories

Journalists should not write or edit stories related to interests (publicity and public relations) restraining their journalistic independence. It’s particularly delicate for them to take on themes they also treat in journalistic contributions. Journalists should report on events in which their own publication or network are involved as sponsor or partner with the same deference given to other events.

Directive 10.5 – Advertising boycotts

The journalist should protect freedom of information in the legitimate public interest when it is breached, impeded or threatened by private interests, in particular by boycotts or the threat of boycotts by advertisers. Threats of boycotting should in principle be made public.

Directive a.1 – Leaks

The media may publish information that has been obtained through leaks under the following conditions:

• the source of the information is known to the media;
• the information is in the public interest;
• publication does not offend extremely important interests such as rights and secrets worthy of protection;
• there is no major reason why publication should be delayed;
• the information has been intentionally and willingly provided.

Directive a.2 – Privately owned companies

Privately owned companies should be the object of journalistic investigation when they play an important economic and/or social role in a region.

 

These directives summarise the practice of the Press Council since 1977 and interpret the rules of the Code (State of the Directives as of July 1, 2017).

 

Last updated on 29.10.2018. Source: Presserat