MEDIA STING OPERATIONS AND WHEN JOURNALISTS POSE AS FALSE LOBBYISTS

Three members of Britain's upper house of parliament (the House of Lords) were suspended from their parties on Sunday after media sting operations caught them apparently offering to use their influence for perdonal gains. The trio were covertly filmed offering to ask parliamentary questions, lobby ministers and host events in the prestigious House of Lords premises in exchange for payment by what they were told were lobbyists acting for companies. Journalists posed as representatives of a fictional company involved in solar energy. The code of conduct for the House of Lords and the House of Commons specify that parliamentarians cannot carry out 'paid advocacy'.

Beyond the case, it might be interesting to explore when it might be appropriate to use deception/misrepresentation/hidden cameras in newsgathering:

While the use of deception in reporting can yield sensational results, it also lends the subject a weapon to wield journalists. If the reporter has forfeited the high ground of transparency and honesty, how can his conclusions be trusted by the public? The fallout may not be limited to the case at hand. The use of deception demeans journalism and damages badly the journalist and the public. To mitigate this concern, undercover reporters are urged to take care to situate what they've gleaned through deception in a structure of traditional reporting to show that, the gimmick is not all there is.

That'sv not the only guideline for going undercover. While, there are, appropriately, no hard and fast rules or central authorities for journalism, a checklist drawn up by Poynter's Bob Steele in 1995 is often cited for guidance on this issue. A few points on the list are probably too vague to be of much use, but the first two are valuable.

All of the criteria must be fulfilled to justify the journalist's actions:

• When the information obtained is of profound importance (whether something is of profound importance is obviously a matter of news judgment. It must be of vital interest, such as revealing great "system failure" at the top levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.
• When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted.
• When the journalists involved are willing to disclose the nature of the deception and the reason for it.
• When the individuals involved and their news organizations apply excellence, though outstanding craftsmanship as well as the commitment of time and funding needed to pursue the story fully.
• When the harm prevented by the information revealed through deception outweighs any harm caused by the act of deception
• When the journalists involved have conducted a meaningful, collaborative, and deliberative decisionmaking process on the ethical and legal issues.

Criteria that do not justify deception:

• Winning a prize
• Beating the competition
• Getting the story with less expense and resources
• Doing it because others already did it
• The subjects of the story are themselves unethical.

Public officials should be responsive to their constituents, and when credible concerns are raised that they aren't, the press should check them out. Public officials have a duty to be transparent and accountable at all times.

What is regrettable once again is that the lobbying practice is being tarnished (through no fault of real lobbyists) and this causes damage to the profession.