previous | next | table of contents

Prime Time for Tolerance
Media and Challenge of Racism

Introduction

In a world where ethnic conflict, racial strife, and terrorism linked to extreme nationalism have been a feature of political life for most of the century, opposition to racism is deeply embedded in journalism. But the use of journalists to provide political propaganda means media can still become weapons of intolerance.

The outbreak of war in 1992 in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda in 1994, and simmering conflicts on every continent demonstrate that laws, journalistic codes, and good intentions are of little consequence in the face of ruthless political leaders bent upon waging war.

It is not unusual in war to find mass media recruited to support political objectives, often at the expense of professional credibility. Indeed, this holds true for almost all wars. Notions of press freedom and editorial independence can become compromised anywhere when journalism is the victim of political manipulation.

However, it is not only in times of war that media face the challenge of intolerance. Racial violence in urban communities often characterized by incidents of terrorism, a rise in influence of extremist right-wing political parties, the reemergence of anti-Semitism, and widespread religious intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination against national minorities on the basis of language and social status is all part of the landscape of daily news reporting.

Too often ignorance and a lack of appreciation of different cultures, traditions, and beliefs leads to media stereotypes which reinforce racist attitudes and strengthen the appeal of political extremists.

At the same time media and journalists continue to be victims of undue pressure. Some pressure comes from tense and competitive by conditions in the media market, and some is applied by political players, either governments directly or by powerful special interest groups. Journalists are rightly wary of outsiders interfering in journalism, but many are conscious, too, of internal weaknesses which compromise journalistic standards.

The Bilbao conference, held during the celebrations for World Press Freedom Day, provides a historic opportunity to consider how journalists can confront the challenge of intolerance. In this paper we look at some contemporary problems, we review existing legal standards, international conventions, and ethical codes of journalism. The last section outlines some suggestions for future action.

Finally, the International Federation of Journalists wishes to thank all of those organizations and individuals who have contributed to the organization of the World Congress. In particular, we acknowledge the contribution of the Basque Regional Government, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and the IFJ member union, ELA-STV.

Aidan White
General Secretary

Challenges to Media

a] Media As Weapons of War "The real culprits in this long list of executions, assassinations, drownings, burnings, massacres and atrocities furnished by our report are not, we repeat, the Balkan peoples... The true culprits are those who mislead public opinion and take advantage of the people's ignorance to raise disquieting rumours and sound the alarm bell, inciting their country... " 1

This conclusion of an inquiry into the Balkan conflict 70 years ago was echoed by United Nations envoy Tadeusz Mazowiecki in his report in 1995 on the role of media in the origins of the recent Balkan war. His finding was that media were guilty of inciting community hatred and war-mongering.

Media, we all know, can be unfair, but they become something much worse when they are conscripted by undemocratic politicians to inspire, provoke, and underwrite national fears and hatreds as has happened in Serbia and Croatia in recent years. Fundamentally, journalists who lend themselves to this process abandon their professional status and become propagandists.

The problem is that journalists who lack a tradition of independence - whether in eastern Europe, Africa, or Asia - can be the most vulnerable to political pressure which leads them into the twilight world of political propaganda. Often they find themselves confronted by the demands of political leaders and community leaders who call for "committed " journalism in support of "the national interest ". This call is familiar to journalists - in Africa, Asia and Europe - which have recently made the transition to democracy.

This question gets to the heart of political commitment to democracy. It is a test not only of media professionalism, but also of a nation's faith in human rights and freedom of expression. During the past decade journalists throughout the world have come to identify a common set of principles and beliefs associated with journalistic freedom, but political turbulence continues to undermine relations between media and government.

Part of the problem is the revival of nationalism and community rivalries in many corners of the world accompanied by a fragmentation of national politics. Referring to this phenomenon, the late Stephen Spender said that in an era of fragmentation censorship is likely to be local:

"It is liable to be one of the phenomena connected with ethnic conflicts in which one group, aware of itself as a people, shuts itself off from other groups - the Serbs from the Croats, the Croats from the Muslims. " 2

This willful exclusion of one community from another is a dangerous step along the road to censorship and conflict. In some countries current political tensions mean that journalists are discouraged from reporting negatively on their own communities, and there are appeals to notions of citizenship which compromise ethical responsibilities. Journalists find themselves facing the grotesque choice of respecting their professional commitment to truthseeking or risking being branded a traitor. They are often subject to grandiose appeals or crude threats to put patriotism before professionalism.

Journalists never prove citizenship by succumbing to manipulation and distortion. A good journalist, one who has respect for the truth and who works according to ethical and professional standards, will always be a good citizen. A good citizen does not lie, twist the truth, or deceive with bogus information and cynical propaganda.

What is important is that journalists are aware of how deeply rooted fears and apprehension of civil strife in society are. They need to know the potential impact of their words and images, whatever the mode of transmission.

The challenge to media is well put in a report from the United States following race riots in a number of cities in the 1960s:

"Those who report and disseminate news of racial trouble and threats of racial conflict must be conscious of the background of anxieties against which their stories are projected.

"This does not mean that the media should manage the news or tell less than the truth. Indeed, we believe it would be imprudent and even dangerous to play down coverage in the hope that censored reporting of inflammatory incidents somehow will diminish violence. To attempt to ignore these events or to portray them as something other than what they are can only diminish confidence in media and increase the effectiveness of those who monger rumours and the fears of those who listen. . . .

"To live up to their own professed standards, media simply must exercise a higher degree of care and a greater level of sophistication than they have yet shown in this area, higher perhaps than the level ordinarily acceptable with other stories." 3

In almost every corner of the globe there is a fear of social conflict between different groups in society. Media have a responsibility to respect these anxieties and to avoid becoming blunt instruments of propaganda.

b] The Dilemma of Hate-Speech Most countries have laws which outlaw "hate-speech" designed to incite community hatred and violence. This issue touches the core of journalism and its relationship with democracy. Should we allow the enemies of democracy to attack in words specific groups of people within society? Should media be permitted to reproduce the violent language of hatred and confrontation of political extremists?

Some countries have no doubt and have already decided the issue. They have enacted edicts, laws, and regulations forbidding not only acts of racism, but expression of it.

Many journalists are uneasy about the legal and regulatory framework in which these laws have framed our approach to expression of unpleasant and uncomfortable opinions. Some see it as an abridgement of freedom of speech which undermines freedom of expression. In the United States the First Amendment is a bedrock principle of democracy. The federal government may not prohibit the expression of an opinion simply because society finds the opinion offensive.

However, other traditions, in Europe and Africa for instance, are based upon different approaches. The European Convention on human rights, for example, dates from 50 years ago and the devastation of a war fuelled upon theories of race hatred which were put into practice and which cost millions of lives. Other regions have framed their approach according to their own historical tradition, often in the context of liberation and independence from colonial powers. Within these perspectives is found the notion that society does have a legitimate interest in the suppression of opinions which incited racial hatred.

The disturbing question of how we limit free speech is simplified by Umberto Eco, who argues that, "We must define the limits of tolerance and to do this we must first know what is intolerable. " 4

The definition of what is intolerable varies widely across the world. In many countries journalists enjoy virtually unlimited freedoms', in others newsrooms groan under the weight of intimidation or legal actions brought by politicians and powerful individuals who use the law to suppress critical media comment and to curb legitimate journalistic inquiry.

While incitement to racial hatred and war is a criminal offence in many countries, the dilemma facing most journalists is based on ethical, not legal, considerations.

Codes of ethics, which are dealt with later in this paper, normally place three duties upon journalists - to seek the truth; to be independent; to minimize harm. The issue of hate-speech forces journalists to balance the first of these duties against the third. Journalists must always seek the truth, but it is a finely judged decision about whether to pursue that objective if the consequences may be unduly harmful.

To confront the hate-speech dilemma with confidence, journalists need to be as free as possible from pressure to follow a particular line. The line journalists should follow is that dictated by their own conscience.

c] Stereotypes in the Newsroom Open forms of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial groups which constitute incitement to racial hatred are not a feature of mainstream media coverage in most parts of the world. Overt expressions of prejudice and incitement are punishable by law.

However, mainstream media do provide many examples of subtle and indirect prejudice which may reinforce intolerance.

The popular or mass circulation tabloid press are often guilty of negative portrayal of ethnic, religious, or cultural minorities. This becomes routine when there are long established and unresolved political problems as in the Middle East or in the simmering disputes of South Asia and Africa. But the problem can be found almost anywhere. Former President of the British National Union of Journalists Jim Boumelha has summarized the problem in a UK context:

"Since the arrival of the first sizeable wave of immigration of black people to the UK 30 years ago, Britain's black community has tended to be depicted in terms of stereotypes and within a negative context involving conflict, drama, deviancy and controversy. " 5

The stereotyping of the black community, he argues, reflects two themes: the media stereotype of black as a "problem " within society or as a "victim. " In each case the image is negative.

There is a tendency for media to underplay the reality of people from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. A distorted image of the Muslim world in the western media or a shallow analysis of so-called "western values " reflected in the media of some Asian countries are both sides of the same coin. Media coverage is made simple and accessible at the expense of understanding the complex differences which exist in a multicultural world.

These failures to reflect the realities of life is seen in local as well as national and international media .

Stereotyping may have little impact on the consciousness of multicultural communities, where people's own experiences are a counterweight to ill-informed media coverage, but it can be important in shaping the prejudices of people who do not have daily contact with minority communities.

A failure to balance discourse which treats immigrant, racial or minority groups as a problem means that media can be implicated in a process of discrimination, particularly at a time when racist ideology is becoming part of mainstream political debate.

Stereotyping often arises due to neglect of the conditions in which journalists work and the way media are managed. Most media organizations, for instance, do not have recruitment policies that encourage journalists from ethnic or minority communities to enter journalism. As a result most newsrooms rarely reflect the ethnic and cultural balance of society at large.

Additionally, journalism training often fails to tackle issues of discrimination and intolerance. There is too often a profound lack of awareness and ignorance among news gatherers and production staff about the societies they serve.

This lack of awareness is reinforced by a failure to use representative and authoritative sources of information from minority communities when dealing with news items about community relations. It is a common criticism that media too often rely alone on "official " and establishment sources of information without seeking out the opinions of other expert sources.

d] The Challenge of Diversity in Media Many of the problems outlined here can be resolved if media recognize that diversity is an issue within journalism as well as a potential news item. Media management and journalists have a responsibility to examine their own recruitment, training, and reporting techniques; to set targets for improvement and to monitor the results.

6 The first step is recognition of the problem. A staff profile that is ethnically balanced, a training regime that talks about the ethical dilemmas involved in dealing with intolerance, and a willingness to examine and to monitor the editorial performance of media will inevitably raise awareness, broaden the horizons of news gatherers, and reduce the incidence of error and prejudice arising from ignorance and incompetence.

Diversity not only exists around media, but within media. Many countries have newspapers and broadcast stations which cater for religious, cultural, and language minorities. Journalists and media from different groups should be encouraged to work together, to exchange information, and to learn from each other. Dialogue within and between different media is as important as dialogue between media and society at large.

Racism and International Regulation

In almost all countries open forms of racial prejudice and discrimination against ethnic minorities are punishable by law. National laws regulating the content of media in this area are drawn from international standards and conventions.

While the well established right to freedom of opinion and expression is set out in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29(2) of the same declaration adds:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements or morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Additionally, Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights holds that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference but adds, in Article 19(3), that the right to free expression may be subject to restrictions by law in order to respect the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.

Article 20 states:

1] "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law".

2] "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination of 1965 Article 4 says:

"State parties condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons on one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicat all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end..."

a] "Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;"

b] "Shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations, and all organised and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognise participation in such organisations or activities as punishable by law;"

c] "Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination."

In addition to these there is the 1978 UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, which urges mass media to promote understanding and tolerance and to contribute to the eradication of racial prejudice in society.

There are a number of regional charters and conventions which are also useful to consider. The African Charter on Human and People's Rights states in Article 9 that "every individual has the right to receive information and the right to express and disseminate his opinions."

Article 25 says that states party to the Charter: "shall have the duty to promote and ensure through teaching, education and publication, the respect of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter..."

Article 27 states: "The rights and freedoms of each individual shall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security morality and common interest."

Additionally, the European Convention For the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression and opinion in Article 10:

1] "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers..."

2] "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

These texts are valuable, not just when talking about the performance of media, but as useful points of reference in the daily work of journalists. However, they need to be accessible to journalists, and should be made available, through examples and case studies, to show how they are relevant to contemporary journalism in Europe.

Self-Regulation and Ethical Codes

It should be said from the outset that ethical codes will not solve all the problems of intolerance in media, but they may help journalists focus on their own responsibility and help them resolve dilemmas. By setting out the ideals and beliefs which underpin independent journalism they encourage journalists to do what is essential in all areas of their work according to their conscience.

Codes of ethics begin with sweeping generalities but tend finally to require particular attention to local context and to particular facts. That is how, in the end, ethical dilemmas are resolved. In matters of tolerance, journalists must place the broad sweep of aspirations and values set out in ethical codes firmly in the context of their day-to-day work.

It is worth recalling that the landmark Sean McBride Report for UNESCO in 1980 laid emphasis on "professional integrity and standards" in its recommendations for better international communications. The McBride Commission concluded that:

"For the journalist, freedom and responsibility are indivisible. Freedom without responsibility invites distortion and other abuses. But in the absence of freedom there can be no exercise of responsibility... The adoption of codes of ethics at national and, in some cases, at the regional level is desirable, provided that such codes are prepared and adopted by the profession itself - without governmental interference."

Journalists must constantly remind themselves that regulating ethics is the collective business of journalists, not principally of the corporations which commission and carry their journalism, and especially not of governments.

Governments have a legitimate role in regulating media structures to try to ensure the diversity necessary for freedom of expression to flourish and for local culture to flower. But journalists' ethics are a content issue, and governments have no proper role in media content.

Ethics, then, require active support. Journalists have to act ethically, not merely memorize and parrot ethical codes. The standards or rules of such codes are useful and they work most of the time. But sometimes genuine conflicts arise between values and ethical decision-making is required.

This difficult skill is like all the other skills of journalism: it takes training, time and effort to become good at it. Individual journalists, employers, local journalists' associations, and international organizations of media professionals have a specific responsibility to encourage good practice. The ethical dilemmas facing journalists referred to earlier in this paper - the conflict between the need to seek the truth and the need to minimize harm - cannot be satisfactorily addressed unless journalists unions, publishers, broadcasters, and industry regulators do much more to raise awareness among journalists of the potential impact of their work.

There are many different models, but all ethical codes and codes of practice focus on the fundamental aims of the journalistic mission. They can be used like a checklist, even when journalists are working close to a deadline. They direct thinking and permit conscious decision-making that can be explained later if and when controversy arises about decisions.

One model, by Joann Byrd, Washington Post Ombudsman, suggests media must ask some simple, yet essential, questions before going public:

• Have we done good reporting?
• What do we know, and how do we know it?
• Who are the sources, and what is their stake in it?
• Have we verified the information?
• Is it reasonable to conclude the truth based on what we know, or do we still know nothing more than some facts?
• Will the story have impact? What kind?

The final question in this list is particularly helpful in dealing with issues of intolerance by helping to clarify the harm that might be caused, and that must be weighed against the benefits of publication.

The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race or nationality is one of the most general features of professional codes of ethics agreed upon at the national and international level. 8

The Code of Principles of the International Federation of Journalists was revised in 1986 to include the following article:

7. "The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins."

In addition, a number of journalists' organizations and a number of public broadcasting organizations, for example - have established specialist working groups and published statements and guidelines for journalists revealing a commitment going beyond the good intentions of ethical declarations.

At the same time, a number of national Press Councils have adopted codes that identify the issue of intolerance and have taken up complaints from members of the public about poor media reporting of race relations issues.

The value of a self-regulating process can be seen in a recent case from the Netherlands in which broadcasters were taken to court following complaints of discrimination over a television program broadcast by RTL4, a commercial channel, concerning the district of Lombok in Utrecht where many immigrants live. The courts did not find that the program was unlawful and cleared the broadcasters, but the case was then taken up by the Dutch Press Council, which found that there had been a breach of standards of journalism. The professional verdict that the program was unacceptable was highly publicized in the Dutch media.

For self-regulation to work, whether through professional organisations or more formal press council and broadcasting complaints bodies, there must be greater internal cooperation between media professionals. There is common ground, at least in theory, between managements, editors, and journalists on ethical values and standards of journalism, but different everyday working objectives often establish obstacles to dialogue. These problems need to be overcome.

Media Action to Combat Intolerance

Following the wars in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, journalists organizations have made renewed efforts to put tolerance on the ethical agenda.

At the International Federation of Journalists Congress in Santander in 1995, unions from Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed to prepare a report on the role of journalists in the war. The interim report of that inquiry will be reported at this conference.

Within the IFJ argument at the 1995 Congress centered on whether or not journalists should be identified by the Federation for the purpose of prosecution under international law for acts of propaganda. The consensus reached was that organizations of journalists have a responsibility to monitor media performance, to report on incidents of unprofessionalism, and to promote high standards, but it is not their role to act as the agents of other authorities with responsibility for law enforcement.

Taking advantage of the European Union designation of 1997 as the European Year Against Racism, another important feature of the Bilbao discussions is to work together on questions of tolerance.

A conference will be held in Brussels in July when the IFJ, the European Newspaper Publishers Association, and the European Broadcasting Union will discuss a joint approach to questions of portrayal, recruitment, and training and their role in raising awareness on issues of tolerance.

Earlier, in 1995, media professionals also set up the International Media Working Group Against Racism and Xenophobia and launched a campaign of activity publication of handbooks for journalists, and the establishment of a European Journalism Prize. 9

In 1996 the IFJ established a Media Solidarity Centre in Algeria to help media workers and journalists who are victims of the current internal conflict.

The question of tolerance and media solidarity has been one of the key issues in IFJ professional assistance projects in Africa, where extensive Media For Democracy Programme was launched in 1994. Handbooks dealing with ethnic conflict and human rights have been produced.

Five roundtable meetings of journalists from the Balkan region organized by the IFJ and the World Association of Newspapers (FIEJ) have over the past four years put tolerance and cooperation among independent media firmly on the professional agenda in the region.

Media For Democracy work has been established in Latin America and three regional round-tables of unions of journalists from South Asian countries have also taken up the question.

Other areas of cooperation that are important include the area within the trade union movement where the IFJ has begun discussions with other media workers in membership of the International Committee of Entertainment and Media Unions and the area with regional trade union organisations in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Summary of Recommendations

Diversity Within Media: Journalists have a responsibility to address internal weaknesses that compromise journalistic standards and to apply principles of diversity and pluralism at all levels within the industry. In particular,

• journalists and their unions should demand media recruitment policies that encourage journalists from ethnic or minority communities to enter journalism.
• journalism training must address issues of discrimination and intolerance in society. There is often a profound lack of awareness and ignorance among news gathers and production staff about the societies which they serve.
• journalists and media organizations must broaden their coverage of the community and use representative and authoritative sources of information from minority communities on relevant news items.

Industry Cooperation and Solidarity: Increased dialogue and cooperation between journalists, broadcasters, and publishers is needed to better understand the role of media in confronting intolerance. In particular, dialogue should be encouraged between media outlets serving minority communities and mainstream media.

International Standards: International and European conventions, texts, and declarations that are relevant to journalists facing ethical dilemmas in the area of tolerance should be promoted through the provision of handbooks and materials that provide useful examples and case studies at a regional level. The IFJ should promote the development of such materials at a regional level.

Role of Governments: While governments have a legitimate role in regulating media structures to try to ensure the diversity necessary for freedom of expression, they have no proper role in the regulation of media content and journalistic ethics.

Support of Self-Regulation and Ethical Conduct: All journalists' unions should promote editorial independence and the right of journalists to report free from external and internal pressure.

The IFJ and journalists' unions should campaign vigorously against all forms of censorship - including self censorship - and should develop codes of conduct and guidelines for journalists to assist them in resolving ethical dilemmas.

In the promotion of self-regulation journalists should promote professional solidarity among journalists and media professionals to promote high ethical standards and the right of all journalists to act according to their conscience without undue interference or pressure. In particular,

• the IFJ and journalists' unions should promote conferences, seminars, and workshops to exchange information and promote awareness within the industry.
• the IFJ and journalists unions should convene on projects and activities that will ensure that journalists are made aware of national and international ethical codes and their usefulness in resolving day-to-day journalistic dilemmas.
• the IFJ and its member organizations should monitor and report on media performance in the area of intolerance and should engage in dialogue with governments and other professional organizations in defence of journalistic independence.