The slogan 'report with rigour, without favour and without fear' says almost everything about reporting. Rigour requires investigation, cross-checking of versions, documentation and testimonial, written, audio or graphic evidence... to back up what was reported. The without favour aims directly at neutrality, fairness, objectivity, without personal interests or the interests of the media company mediatising or biasing the information. And the fearlesslyAnd courage to tell the truth, even if the journalist puts his or her job on the line, or is uncomfortable for those who decide, finance and rule over him or her.
What can a journalist keep quiet about? Or rather, what should he or she keep quiet about? To begin with, the confidentiality of sources, which is a duty of professional ethics, if it has been agreed upon. the off the record. And to continue: any truthful but slanderous information not previously reported to a judge. Any defamation which, although true, unnecessarily harms the defamed party's right to social honour, professional prestige, good name, family peace... The adverb 'unnecessarily' is important. That is to say, when it destroys property unnecessarily.
On the contrary, there may be a moral obligation to defame - in the strict sense of stripping someone of a prestige that he or she unduly holds - if it is done to protect the common good, or that of a community. E.g.: denouncing for the information of a group of parents of pupils that a certain teacher or instructor is a paedophile. The same applies to the urgent obligation to publicly warn about the existence of a certain danger or risk: bad water, a vaccine or drug with a high percentage of harmful substances, a telephone trick whose activation would destroy a hard disk, the detection of an individual who spies against national interests, or a laboratory that alters food, or a group that is preparing an attack. Here silence can be a serious offence.
A journalist cannot conceal the identity of a criminal source, under the umbrella of professional secrecy or the off the recordwhen this impunity constitutes a danger to others. There have been many cases involving drug traffickers, human organ traffickers, women for prostitution.... or Jihadist or ETA terrorists. In these extreme cases, silence is an accomplice, even if not to remain silent would dry up a highly informative source of information.
The problem or dilemma arises when faced with the private life - public life binomial. A journalist knows which personalities, however famous they may be, have the right to their privacy; and which personalities, insofar as they hold authority, have the duty of public and private exemplarity, without licence or bull that exempts them from honest and legal conduct within the walls of their home, mansion or palace. The doubt arises when the powerful or powerful person, despite his or her morally reprehensible private conduct, does not harm the rights or property of third parties, nor does he or she harm the common good, nor does he or she make scandalous boasts of his or her deviations. In this case, the journalist can in conscience and with right judgement -without favour and without fear- managing their silences. Above all, if by speaking, if by relating these private deeds of low morals - water that does not move the mill - it causes damage or ruptures in the family relationship.
As a general rule, not everything a journalist knows should be told. There is the filter, always unequivocal, of the common good. And another, more subtle filter, that of personal dignity. Neither the public's curiosity nor its morbid curiosity has the right to be satisfied at the cost of dishonouring anyone. There, silence is a noble trait of humanity. On the other hand, what is unacceptable, because it is indecent and dastardly, is today's silence for tomorrow's extortion. To put it cynically: 'So-and-so is worth more for what he keeps quiet than for what he says'.
This text may be reproduced provided that PROA is credited as the original source.
Pilar Urbano
Journalist and writer