Yves Boisvert’s column published on August 4 challenges the right to impartial information when a parliamentary journalist thinks about making the leap into politics. The ethical principles related to the honor and dignity of the profession specific to the codes of ethics of the professional orders partially nourish our reflection.
Posted yesterday at 10:00 a.m.
The question from former Liberal minister Gaétan Barrette is relevant. Are there rules governing the passage of a journalist in politics? Moreover, a journalist assigned to the functions of parliamentary analyst? The unease generated each time this occurs and which “scratches” members of the journalistic profession is understandable.
Is a rule supporting respect for the quality of the profession, particularly during “these passages from one world to another” and aimed at preserving public confidence in the journalistic profession, desirable?
At first glance, two ethical issues are obvious. Will the privileged information obtained by the parliamentary journalist, in reflection on his political future, be used for purposes other than those for which they were entrusted to him: the search for the truth and journalistic chronicles? This reasonable doubt on the use of this information places the last days, even months, of the journalist before a situation of apparent and perhaps even real conflict of interest. The interview with the leader of the Parti Québécois by Mr. Drainville a few days before the latter’s visit to the PQ election campaign harms the image of journalistic independence and the search for truth, such as the Guide de déontologie journalistique du Conseil de Quebec press stipulates it.
Is the normative approach the best solution? It would be possible to ethically impose on journalists, when they are asked by a political party, to place themselves on the sidelines during their period of reflection. But when does this period begin? Last year, during a first approach refused by the journalist? Or at the start of his reflection on a possible political future within a given party?
What would be the point of it since the answer is known only to the journalist in question: he is the only one able to know when he has crossed the line of apparent conflict of interest. And if he were to be found guilty of having worked while in a conflict of interest situation, what sanction would be fair and appropriate knowing that it would occur several months or years after the fact?
If the normative approach is not the best solution, can ethics, or more precisely ethical competence, be useful and take over?
Ethics is challenged when the decision to be taken regarding a specific conduct is not planned, not standardized. It involves putting values into action in the decision-making of the person in question. Different values can lead to different decisions and actions.
Ethical competence, that which is specific to the person in the situation, requires certain bases. The first is ethical sensitivity, which consists in perceiving the issues of values specific to the situation, to the context (here: independence, impartiality, public trust). It also requires decentering from the situation, identifying and considering the expectations of other stakeholders. Subsequently, the imagination of this same person to conceive the consequences of his various choices of actions on these stakeholders, including the journalistic profession, has an impact on the final decision. Finally, competence requires explaining one’s choice of action by sharing one’s reflection.
Is part of the solution through ethical competence in action? The legitimate interest of the public in quality information is at the heart of our thinking. Are we too demanding?