CBC has a little blue book, which you may know as our Journalistic Standards and Practices.
It is known internally as the blue book because its latest version, completed in 2001, is covered in a little blue binder.
You know it, because many of you refer to it when you want to make sure we are living up to the standards we have publicly set for ourselves. By the way, it is a condition of employment that all editorial staff read and know what’s in it.
The blue book is a unique document in Canadian journalism. There is no other as comprehensive or detailed as ours and, as a journalistic operating manual, we feel it serves us well.
But it is starting to feel dated so we have just launched a thorough, detailed review of the entire document.
As we move forward with this review, we know there are fundamentals that cannot and will not change. The principles spelled out at the beginning — that we are committed to accuracy, fairness and integrity in all news coverage, no matter what the platform — can only be strengthened.
But it is the advent of new platforms that is one of the reasons we have decided to do this now. The current version does, in fact, have a section about online journalism, revised in 2003, so it covers some things. But reading it now, this section feels almost quaint — in six short years!
The social web
Twitter, Facebook and a host of social media have the potential to be exciting and valuable tools for journalists. But how best to use them? What are the rules of engagement?
We know the overriding journalistic principles are the same, but are the applications different in the web world?
Through comments and your breaking news reports, we ask you to participate more and more directly in the creation of our news and content on our different platforms. With this in mind, what are the standards and practices we need to follow to make sure that all our journalism lives up to your high expectations?
Working with our colleagues at Radio-Canada, we are going to find out and rewrite the “little blue book” to make it a stronger and an even more effective tool.
The material we create today now lives on radio, television and our website, as well as on your BlackBerries. That means the pressure to get it absolutely right, to have the highest standard of public service journalism, is even greater.
Here’s an example of something we wrestle with that did not even exist a decade or so ago. We have turned “Google” into a verb.
And we google one another a lot, whether we are looking to hire someone or ask them out on a date.
If you have ever participated in an online discussion, left a comment or been the subject of a story, you have created a permanent record. In the old days, you would have had to request a cassette or transcript of a broadcast or, in the case of newspapers, take a trip to the clippings library if you wanted to get hold of that record. Now, both your publicly noted achievements and foibles are a couple of clicks away.
What is our long-term responsibility here, especially in situations where there might be disagreement? Is it to prevent embarrassment to someone or to maintain an honest record of events and of our coverage of them?
That’s what we need to grapple with when there is a request to remove something from our news archive. Every news organization is trying to come to terms with this one.
Not all of them will create guidelines after careful consideration and research. We will. Not all of them will publicly state their policies and practice. We will.
Public commitment
The document we will create has two purposes. It is our public commitment to you, upon which our credibility as a news organization is based.
For us it is also a user’s manual — a code and a guide that promotes ethical behaviour in the many choices we make every day. Knowing it, our editorial staff has the means to make good decisions on a wide range of issues.
Some of the book lays out dos and don’ts. Some sections can only set out general principles and guidelines to follow.
The thing about the practice of journalism, like much else in life, is that there are so many shades of grey.
I am reminded of that great scene in the movie Broadcast News — now more than 20 years old but unforgettable in this business — when after a serious ethical breach, the Holly Hunter character screams at the William Hurt character about crossing the ethical line. His retort: “Yeah I know there’s a line, they just keep moving the sucker.”
How much truer that is today in this environment of instant communication and no-holds-barred blogs.
But our goal is not to blur the line. On the contrary, it is to make it sharper and to ensure it encompasses all we do.
This is going to be a thorough review of all our standards and practices. And of course we wouldn’t do so without asking your opinion.
As you think about what you read, hear and see, what aspects of our journalism do you think need consideration?
Share your opinion.
