The ethics of reporting on
criminal justice issues
Ruth Hopkins – journalist for
The Wits Justice Project
QUIZ: what would you do?
• A police source tells you there are 7 bodies
buried in the backyard of a drug lord’s granny
A. Go to the backyard and count the bodies
B. Write the story claiming there are 7 bodies in the
back yard
C. Find eye witnesses to corroborate what the
police source said
D. None of the above
QUIZ: what would you do?
• An important source asks you to convert to
Christianity
A. You agree on the spot
B. You politely decline
C. You convince him Islam is a better idea
D. You run
QUIZ: what would you do?
• You uncover a wrongful conviction and publish
online. The lawyers of the accused now want you to
submit an affidavit disclosing everything that was
said in interviews with your sources.
A. You agree and sign the affidavit
B. You decline because journalists should always
remain independent
C. You agree, but only if the affidavit will provide
crucial evidence in the case
D. You can’t decide and let the opportunity pass
QUIZ: what would you do?
• A government official visits your office to tell
you to stop talking to a source, who you had
been meeting in secret, off-the-record.
A. You ask him/her how they know you were talking to
the source
B. You deny speaking to the source
C. You neither confirm nor deny speaking to the
source, but ask the official where he/she got the
information from
D. You say nothing at all
Who are the people involved?
• Prisoners
• Lawyers
• Victims of crime
• Family members
• Government officials
Editorial guidelines
The history of the ethical guidelines
developed by
The Wits Justice Project
Ethical guidelines: Interviews
• Transparency and informed
consent
• Disclosing your identity and being
on the record
Ethical guidelines: Corroboration
• Eye witness to the event who is prepared to be
named and/or sign an affidavit;
• One or more corroborating eye-witnesses who
are prepared to be named and/or sign an
affidavit;
• Hard evidence (original documentation, court
documents);
Ethical guidelines: Fact Checking
• Each journalist is responsible for fact-checking
their article.
• When no other record of an interview is
available other than the journalist’s memory
or notes, then the person being quoted should
be contacted to check the quote.
Ethical guidelines: Anonymous
sources
• A source’s identity can not always be revealed
because of serious safety concerns.
• At least one other member of the team (the
journalist concerned and a colleague) must
know the identity of the source.
• When the source is unnamed, the journalist
must present documented proof or other
“hard” evidence.
Ethical guidelines: Right of reply
• The people we make allegations towards must
be given the opportunity to submit a “right of
reply”.
• They must be given a reasonable deadline to
do so.
• If it is about a member of an organization
then attempts must be made to seek
comment from both the individual and the
organization.
Ethical guidelines: Right of reply (2)
• Question: Should the whole article be sent or
only the relevant portions?
• It is the responsibility of the journalist to make
every effort to confirm that those concerned
have read the document.
• If the journalist makes significant factual
changes to the article, after comment has
been given, comment must be sought again.
Data Protection
• The journalist must ensure that all data and
information on a case is kept safe.
• 1. This is so they have proof AFTER they go to
print.
• 2. It is also so they protect themselves BEFORE
going to print.
Journalist Safety
• Working as a journalist can be dangerous.
• WJP ensures the Project Co-ordinator or team
member is aware of all the places and areas the
journalist concerned is visiting.
• Frequent contact is compulsory and company may be
necessary.