How do you people see the usefulness and effectiveness of the MEAA Code of Ethics these days? What issues do you think arise from the codes today? For example, governing some parts of it my be difficult, particularly with the rise of the internet and the corporisation of the media.

errr....*curious look*..... what the HECK is the MEAA?

How do YOU see it, and then WE can take it from there.

http://www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm
any of the other links wouldn't open.
The headline answers the question; Journalists code of ethics - an oxymoron?

Dear Cadet,

Most media journalists belong to the Australian Journalists Association, a division of a trade union called the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Members are required to follow a 12 point code of ethics. Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to:

Honesty
Fairness
Independence
Respect for the rights of others

To see the full code:

www.australian-news.com.au/codethics.htm - 16k -

How relevant is the code to today's media? In practical terms it sounds idealistic.

Of course it would be wonderful if journalists did
report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. If they did not suppress relevant available facts or give distorting emphasis and if they did their uttmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.

But the reality is often very different - as we all know.

Respect for truth and the public's right to information - often comes in second to what "sells," and the political agenda that follows.

I think reporters are generally far better than they're given credit for. I think the public often confuses opinion writers and journalists, and so complain, completely redundantly, that Andrew Bolt is biased. (Of course he's biased — that's his job. He's not a reporter.)

The problem in the media, I believe, has little to do with journalists not following the code of ethics. It has to do with newspapers failing to provide adequate support to investigative journalists, and sending talented people off ambulance chasing instead. I think it has enormously to do with the proliferation of entertainment reporting and stupid, cliched blogs about relationships.

Go have a look at The Age or the SMH online (reputedly our best papers) then go have a look at The Guardian or the New York Times online.

Then pour yourself a whisky. Then weep quietly in to it.

Codes of ethics are one thing, adherence to them another but there are many journos who do take their responsibilities seriously and then there are some who tend to get caught up in the commercial realities of our modern times where truth and ethics might be viewed as a liability.

It can be interesting to be privy to an event or situation and then sit back and watch what is reported or spun as 'truth' for spurious intentions or effect.

In the 80s journos housed in the hallowed halls of old parley house fell into three very broad categories:

- the 'real' journos who worked for the Fin Review, The SMH (yes it was once a good rag), The Australian or the ABC etal whom enjoyed good and symbiotic relationships (in the main) with politicians and their staff;
- the journos who worked for the 'lesser' rags of whom some were notorious for drinking to all hours and who enjoyed a good puff or snort or two and often turned up to press gatherings after the effects of a late night out; and finally
- the prima donnas/dons who would call demanding in high pitched voices to speak to a Minister usually following it up with a indignant stamp of the foot and a "Do you know who I am?!" retort when told a Minister was not available.

But they were the old days and not sure how much has changed, some of the players have changed, some have risen to greater heights.