Ethical newsgathering: Al Jazeera’s biggest challenge

And now there are three, neatly arranged in English alphabetical order too: Al Jazeera International (AJI), BBC World and CNN International.

On November 15, the decade-old Arabic channel’s entered the highly competitive 24/7 news and current affairs TV market in English. It was preceded by months of speculation and anticipation. If you believe that any publicity is better than no publicity, the new channel has had a head start.

The new kid on the block isn’t exactly new -– it has merely acquired a new tongue. Described as the only politically independent TV station in the Middle East, Al Jazeera has been broadcasting from Doha, Qatar, since 1996. Although reliable audience figures are hard to come by, its global satellite transmission in Arabic has at least 50 million viewers, according to the Wikipedia.

AJI will no doubt build on this brand recognition, but their sights are set much higher. The channel wants to ‘balance the information flow from (global) South to North, providing accurate, impartial and objective news for a global audience from a grass roots level, giving voice to different perspectives from under-reported regions around the world.’

Noble ideals, indeed — and we fervently hope they succeed. In recent years, the self righteous arrogance and the not-so-subtle biases of BBC and CNN have become increasingly intolerable.

But unless it’s very careful and thoughtful, AJI runs the risk of falling into the same cultural and commercial traps that its two older rivals are mired in.

CNN can’t get out of its US-centric analysis even in its international broadcasts. And the BBC news team is like a hopelessly mixed up teenager: one moment they are deeply British or at least western European; the next moment they are more passionate about Africa than Africans themselves.

Desperately seeking legitimacy and acceptance, these global channels have sometimes traded in their journalistic integrity for privileged access, exclusives or -– dare we say it? -– to be embedded.

They epitomise a disturbing belief in international news and current affairs journalism: the end justifies the means.

Take, for example, how the global news channels covered the Asian Tsunami of December 2004. In a few dreadful hours, the disaster killed, injured or otherwise shattered the lives of millions. The ‘media tsunami’ that soon followed turned the plight of affected people into a global circus.

The right to privacy and dignity of thousands of affected people was repeatedly violated. The visual media had no qualms showing the dead, injured and orphaned.

One senior CNN reporter later wrote a whole book recounting those few momentous days, where he boasts how his team managed to get stories before anyone else. The ‘gung-ho’ tone in that book is revolting yet revealing.

Such journalists’ only operating principle seems to be: get the story, no matter what — or who gets hurt in that process.

Of course, the rest of the world had a right to know -– and in that instance, the combined media coverage spurred donations of US$ 13 billion.

But did that justify the affected people’s most vulnerable moments becoming Canon-fodder, beamed around the world at light speed to the accompanying chatter of visiting reporters? I am not so sure.

One year ago, during an international media conference in New Delhi, India, I moderated a discussion involving film makers, TV journalists, media researchers and activists. Concerns were raised about the conduct of Northern film/TV crews who roam the South, looking for images of poverty, decay and suffering for news channels or documentaries.

There was evidence of foreign film crews bribing officials to obtain filming permits and access restricted areas such as wildlife sanctuaries and heritage sites.

A senior editor recalled how, years ago, a visiting film crew had asked if they could film the intentional breaking of a poor child’s leg — a brutal practice that was believed to exist so that maimed children could be employed as beggars. “It’s going to happen anyway,” was how the film crew rationalised their bizarre request.

Similar and worse experiences are known across the developing world. Yes, media exposure can trigger much needed aid, reform or public outcry on certain issues. But that cannot justify getting ‘the story’ by any means. If products of child labour or blood diamonds are not internationally acceptable, neither should the world tolerate moving images whose origins are ethically suspect.

To me, that’s the real challenge for Al Jazeera: to usher in change, it needs to transform not just how television news is presented and analysed, but also how it is gathered at source.

It has to move beyond the obsolete UNESCO rhetoric of reordering global information flows. That call had some validity in the 1970s, but not now: where does the North end and the South begin these days?

There are bits of North across the South –- and vice versa. Migrant workers and diaspora populations have remixed our once neatly demarcated world.

It’s this complex, nuanced Bigger Picture that Al Jazeera must cover in an authentic, credible and ethical manner.

We will be watching. And not just what’s shown on AJI, but how those pictures get there.

Science writer and development communicator Nalaka Gunawardene heads Television for Education – Asia Pacific, a regional media foundation based in Sri Lanka. The views in this essay are entirely his own.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Come now Mr. Padayachee you know what happens when you don’t take your medication, you mix up your favorite book Lord of the Rings with U.S. politics.