In recent years, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics has been receiving a growing number of requests from the audiences of online media. Occasionally, readers ask to assess not only materials published under editorial control of such media for their compliance with the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist, but also op-eds and blog publications.
In this regard, the Commission is providing the following recommendations on the actions of online media concerning the publication of materials placed on their platform without prior editorial approval from the online media outlet team.
Opinion journalism is still a genre of journalism, which requires adherence to ethical standards. Otherwise, the expression of personal opinion would serve as an all-encompassing justification against any responsibility, which is unacceptable.
In a 2021 statement, the Commission pointed out that a personal view of the events does not exempt a journalist or a media outlet from observing the Ethics Code: The Code applies to opinion journalism as well as factual journalism. The Commission also emphasized that, while making evaluative claims, a journalist should base them on verified facts. It is unacceptable to spread information containing bias or unjustified accusations, nor baseless insults or libel, calling them value judgments, a subjective standpoint etc.
In view of this, the Commission believes that the standards of professional activity should also apply to the unmoderated blogosphere in cases where the reader perceives information in blogs as provided by a journalist. Thus, when a representative of the journalistic profession who provides respective credentials expresses their opinion in a blog, the Commission will evaluate such a material in accordance with journalistic standards.
In the Commission’s view, when the credentials indicate that the author represents the journalistic profession, this may lead the reader to expect a certain quality from the material. These expectations may also be based on trust to the platform where the blog or the op-ed is published: such sections are usually available on online outlets which enjoy significant trust from their audience.
However, applying the requirements of journalistic ethics to blogs written by government officials, politicians, activists, or social movements, would be unjustified. In such cases, op-eds or blogs can be used as advocacy or lobbying tools. These types of materials do not require adherence to professional standards, although the platform should be willing to give opponents of the positions covered in such columns an opportunity to express their views on the platform.
Therefore, journalists who act in several roles — for instance, are activists in their local communities on issues which do not overlap with their journalistic activities — should clearly delineate their activity, in order to avoid scrutiny from the journalistic self-regulation system and creating false expectations among information consumers.
At the same time, the Commission emphasizes that online media which do not pre-moderate the section with blogs or op-eds do not bear any responsibility for placing blogs of third-party authors on their platforms until they receive complaints about the content of the posted material. However, in the case of receiving such a complaint, the outlet should conduct an independent analysis of whether the statements violate the platform’s own rules for publication of blogs or other information. If the violation is found, the outlet should make a decision on restricting access to the material or clearly indicating that the material violates or may violate the law, internal rules, or ethical standards. Otherwise, it should rely on external analysis (by a judicial or independent administrative body, or a self-regulation body).
This mode of responsibility is generally accepted for intermediaries: that is the exact function of a platform for publication of blogs for bloggers, similarly to a social network acting as an intermediary for the posts written by its users. This is reflected in the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce, the Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (particularly in Delfi AS v Estonia, MTE and Index.hu v Hungary, Pihl v Sweden and others). It should not be viewed as “censorship”— censoring materials is primarily the practice of their ban from being released or demands to introduce changes to already published materials. The platform responding to violations and taking action to stop them is a way of regulation, similar to content moderation by social media if it does not correspond to community standards or other similar rules.
In view of this, online media are liable for violations of journalistic standards as a platform for posting opinion-based journalism that is not under their editorial control only when they provide no response to complaints from their audience. At the same time, such online media have a duty to provide convenient communication mechanisms between their consumers and contributors of blogs or similar sections of the outlet. In this regard, the Commission recommends that online publications:
- create a convenient mechanism for filing complaints about content that may violate the requirements of journalistic ethics, which is published in the sections of the website that are not under the editorial control of the media;
- envision clear provisions in the rules for the respective sections of online media that would regulate the procedure for reviewing complaints, contain a list of prohibited categories of content and actions that can be taken against materials that violate the rules and their authors;
- encourage authors in the relevant sections of the online media to distinguish between their professional and activist affiliations in order to create a clear understanding of the author’s role and capacity among the audience;
- ensure that the received complaints are sent to the authors of such op-eds or blogs for the journalists’ proper response to the remarks;
- in case if the authors of non-moderated materials who are not journalists do not respond to the complaints received, engage in independent analysis of the materials for their adherence to the requirements of journalistic ethics or approach self-regulating bodies for the necessary expertise.