The recommendations and the public interest

Dragan Janjic

Everybody who is active in the public and other areas needs to take into consideration the public interest – this includes journalists, government officials, doctors, teachers... But their position in this regard is significantly different from the position of others. In simplified terms, in the course of their work journalists are required to search – in the interest of the public – for information that someone (usually the government) wishes to keep hidden for some reason.

Therefore, any form of involvement of the government, companies or the public sector in journalists' activities carries great significance and can be viewed as an attempt to regulate the sensitive area of gathering and publishing of information. This would allow somebody else instead of journalists and journalistic associations to decide what should or should not be published and what is or is not in public interest.

For the same reason, it is completely understandable that some journalists and media outlets, as well as the commissioner for information of public importance, Rodoljub Sabic, have sharply reacted to the Draft Recommendations for Media Reporting on Medicine, a document that – as it seems – was prepared under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. Complaints have been voiced regarding the "order-issuing tone" of the Recommendations, as well as the concept that journalists should be required to name the source for any published information.

The content of the Recommendations can certainly be modified, especially if we take into account that it is still in the draft phase. But what is important here is not only the content, but most of all the procedure and the chronological sequence of steps. Issues related to the professional code of journalism can be regulated only by journalistic and media associations. Consultations with the government and representatives of other professions are possible, but they definitely must not have a deciding influence.

Therefore, it should have been the other way around – journalistic associations, if they had deemed it necessary, should have made certain recommendations (or a special professional code) for reporting on health issues, after consultations with doctors, the Ministry of Health and everyone else who could have been of help. The associations have been informed that the recommendations were being worked on and they had their own suggestions, but they have not thought of taking control of the whole task or – if they believed that recommendations were not necessary at all – of publicly announcing that someone had overstepped their area of responsibility. And this is not good.

Yesterday, the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia has called on the Ministry of Health and the work group that was tasked with preparing the recommendations to immediately organize a new discussion aimed at amending the document. But a new debate is not enough. It is necessary for journalistic associations to accept such document as their own and to begin to take care of its preparation, because this responsibility cannot be left to the Ministry nor any other professional associations.

The mentioned work group was made of reputable journalists and their good intentions are not to be doubted. But in this case, it is evident that there has been a wrong understanding of the role and responsibility of journalists and their associations with regard to the society and the public interest.

Author: DRAGAN JANJIC
Source: Politika, May 27, 2010; page: A17