Drainville Where: Beyond the appearance of conflict of interest, lack of caution and ethical Marc-François Bernier (PhD)
Journalism Program Coordinator University of Ottawa
Mutation sudden and unexpected Bernard Drainville that metamorphosis of political bureau chief of Radio-Canada, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois candidate, returns once more in the public square the famous question of conflicts of interest and, most importantly, the appearance of conflict of interest.
This case is not the first. The political history of Canada and Quebec is marked by journalists become politicians, and we see more and more politicians becoming journalists. These individuals, men and women exercise their democratic and constitutional right.
But this may raise questions of ethics and the fact to have such questions calls for a serious analysis of facts and principles involved, and not to impute motives.
journalistic standards are clear. Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest or even appearances of conflict of interest because it undermines their credibility and calls into question the integrity of information. This integrity is an essential quality of information, with the thoroughness, accuracy, fairness, truth and public interest. Conflicts of interest, it is primarily any conflicts of loyalty.
The journalist must be loyal to the public by disseminating quality information to his employer respecting the contract that binds them, and to himself by respecting his personal conscience and dignity. The conflict, as the appearance of conflict occurs when a journalist decides to focus on, or seems to favor one type of loyalty to the detriment of others. In this case, it is probable that the journalist might have preferred his own interests and those of his future political leader to the detriment of the public's right to quality information.
Such seemingly invites analysis of the situation, but serious analysis and equitable can not be limited to that appearance, it should go further and consider the facts alleged.
If one believes, the main interest, he received an offer and immediately decided to withdraw from the waves of his thinking time, rejected the bid by announcing it personally to the chief Andre Boisclair and resumed its full status as a journalist on Saturday. At that time, he did not know that a few days later, on Tuesday, he would receive another offer he would accept. At the time of his meeting with Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair taped interview aired on Saturday and Sunday it was more reflective and did not know it was going to come back with a new offer. In his mind, he had become a journalist for the weeks and months ahead.
No ethical principle, no ethics rule does not prescribe the reporter Drainville to withdraw from the airwaves following his refusal, for any period whatsoever.
He would have done, however, by simple prudence, knowing that rejected the offer could become public through calculated leaks, anonymous sources and a malicious media competition sometimes questionable. He could talk to his employer who would then have to take certain decisions to this effect, with all that that entails risk to the rest of his career because nobody knows how managers will react the State Society in such cases. Again, there is no firm rule about this. The caution is all about, trial staff, if not computation with confusion and error that this entails.
The fact of not having followed this ideal scenario does not mean malpractice.
However, since the first offer would be achieved through Jacques Parizeau, the journalist should have taken the same path to make his refusal to apply in person rather than the leader of the Parti Quebecois. Indeed, as head of the political bureau in Quebec City, the journalist Drainville did not have to go personally to opposition leader to decline an offer partisan. The fact however that he should have let one of his colleagues conduct the interview the next day with Mr. Boisclair. This would have considerably reduced the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Also, if there is an orthodox, hyper-demanding ethics can be be tempted to say that the journalist should have ceased Drainville any journalistic activity as soon as he was approached by a political party. This shutdown may last indefinitely, ranging from weeks to six months has even suggested a reporter at the press conference Drainville Thursday.
Such a scenario would be dangerous because policymakers could use them to get rid of journalists they deem too critical in their making false proposals that would result in automatic "eliminate" a good journalist. It must also be the political context in which the Quebec election date is chosen by the Prime Minister position, which greatly reduces the opportunities to provide long-term transition from journalism to politics.
In applied ethics, an important test is the test of publicity. It helps to identify potentially compromising situations. Specifically, this test is to ask whether we will be able to publicly defend our decisions, our actions, our words. If we come to the conclusion that the decision is about to do will not be defensible in the public square, and should therefore remain secret, it leads to change.
Moreover, all members of the Press Gallery can say they never received offers more or less formal to join a political party or candidate as an advisor? What some seem to require Drainville journalist, are they able to apply it to themselves, as would be the ethical principle of the golden rule which is based on reciprocity? Have they removed temporarily from political coverage during and after their period of reflection? The same issue arises in other areas of information that are the economy, sports, entertainment, etc..
Remember that political reporters are always in close relationship with their political sources. Some play hockey together, others socialize in the evenings and weekends, some even have love affairs with elected officials or members of their political staff, others are playing political adviser or accept personal confidences. All this is done away from public view, despite the many critics who have repeatedly denounced the vicinity.
The reaction of many journalists face the reporter Drainville is both reassuring and paradoxical. She reassures because we can detect a real concern of ethical principles and ethical standards that underpin the social legitimacy and credibility of journalism.
Paradoxical as it may be put in comparison with the same coverage generally complaisant media against the appointment of journalist Michaelle Jean, in the first days of August 2005. In the days preceding the announcement of his appointment, then it probably reflected the offer of Prime Minister Paul Martin and that she had perhaps already accepted, it was still the reader Newscast CBC.
The same principles of professional integrity are at stake, even if the case Drainville is more obvious because of his journalism field, that daily contact elected officials and should inform us with integrity about them, while Ms. John did what some sociologists call journalism "sit". That said, both cases have similarities, so it feels to attend a selective indignation on the part of some.
As for the reaction of political opponents, one can certainly see the work of a surprise and a sense of betrayal or disloyalty on the part of journalist Drainville. But it must also be realistic and see a normal political communication strategy which is to attack the new enemy.
Finally, analyze the case Drainville is a bit risky because, as in all case studies, facts are crucial. And for now, the only source that can inform us about the facts is the main person.
