This House believes that news organisations should be free to exclude news of homosexuality where it

Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives[1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement[2]. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech.

It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.[3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.[4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact.

[1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node44.html

[2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy.

[3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html?pagewanted=print

[4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’,  Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, http://extras.journalnow.com/pdfs/2009/04/17/plaisance_deppa_mono.pdf

All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid.

Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.”[1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook,[2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit.

[1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91.

[2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/watergate

Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them.[1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories.

If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable.

If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news.

[1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10^th August 2012, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.

Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.

Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide[1].

As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels.[2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”.[3]

[1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World.

[2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/not-reporting-homosexuality-in-the-middle-east/

[3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010, http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/iglhrcinthenews/1089.html

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it."[1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

Journalists and editors use their judgement all the time on what is acceptable to print or broadcast. Expletives[1] or graphic images of violence or sex are routinely prevented because they would cause offence, giving personal details might cause distress and are omitted as a courtesy, and the identities of minors are protected as a point of law in most jurisdictions. It is simply untrue to suggest that journalists report the ‘unvarnished truth’ with no regard to its ramifications. Where a particular fact or image is likely to cause offence or distress, it is routine to exercise self-censorship – it’s called discretion and professional judgement[2]. Indeed, the news outlets that fail to do so are the ones most frequently and vociferously denounced by the high-minded intelligentsia who so frequently argue that broadcasting issues such as this constitutes free speech.

It is palpably and demonstrably true that news outlets seek to avoid offending their market; so liberal newspapers avoid exposés of bad behaviour by blacks or homosexuals otherwise they wouldn’t have a readership.[3] Most journalists try to minimise the harm caused by their reporting as shown by a study interviewing journalists on their ethics but how they define this harm and what they think will cause offence differs.[4] Western journalists may find it awkward that many in the Arab world find the issue of homosexuality unpleasant or offensive but many of the same journalists would be aghast if they were asked to report activities that ran counter to their cultural sensibilities simply as fact.

[1] Trask, Larry, ‘The Other Marks on Your Keyboard’, University of Sussex, 1997, http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node44.html

[2] For example see the BBC guide to editorial policy.

[3] Posner, Richard, A., ‘Bad News’, The New York Times, 31 July 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html?pagewanted=print

[4] Deppa, Joan A, & Plaisance, Patrick Lee, 2009 ‘Perceptions and Manifestations of Autonomy, Transparency and Harm Among U.S. Newspaper Journalists’,  Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, pp.328-386, p.358, http://extras.journalnow.com/pdfs/2009/04/17/plaisance_deppa_mono.pdf

All of the issues that Prop raises are matters of choice - the use of expletives or the visual portrayal of a brutal act are the representations of an active choice, either by the subject of the story or the reporter. The endemic homophobia in the Arab world attacks people on the basis of their humanity, if people were being imprisoned for having green eyes or red hair or black skin or breasts or an attraction to the opposite sex, nobody would suggest that there were cultural sensitivities involved. Journalists would report it as a crime of apartheid.

Free speech is grounded in giving voice to the voiceless, not only regardless of the fact that some may find that inconvenient but in active defiance of it. Journalism at its best recognises that fact. For example the ethics guide of the American Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should, “Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience even when it is unpopular to do so.”[1] At its worst it’s merely a handy way of filling space between adverts for washing powder; the best of journalism happens when it challenges, takes risks and, frequently, offends. In demonstrating that an American President was, in fact, a crook,[2] or reminding Western viewers that there was a famine happening in much of Africa, the journalists concerned made their readers and viewers uncomfortable because they reminded them that they were complicit.

[1] Quoted in Handbook for Journalists. Publ. Reporters Without Borders. P 91.

[2] ‘Watergate at 40’, Washington Post, June 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/watergate

Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them.[1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories.

If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable.

If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news.

[1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10^th August 2012, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/

This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.

Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.

Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide[1].

As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels.[2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”.[3]

[1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World.

[2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/not-reporting-homosexuality-in-the-middle-east/

[3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010, http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/pressroom/iglhrcinthenews/1089.html

It seems perverse to suggest that consumers of news would be likely to abandon a channel on the basis of one story – or even several. Decisions by consumers of news are determined far more by the general outlook of a channel than by particular stories – it is rare to find individuals who are interested in the entire output of a news organisation.

In addition, new organisations clearly have an interest in covering areas that are ignored by their competitors because it gives them a commercial advantage both through appealing to new groups but also through enhancing their reputation for impartial reporting. There is clearly a gap in the market to provide reporting of gay issues and it therefore should be in news organisations interests to fill that gap. This is exactly what al Jazeera did when it was set up; it filled a gap left by the closure of BBC Arabic for a broadcaster that is willing to "report the news as they see it."[1]

[1] ‘History of Al Jazeera Television’, Allied Media Corp, http://allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html accessed 14 August 2012

It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy[1]. It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.

News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world.[2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.

[1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.

[2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars, http://globalmediawars.com/?page_id=63

It is routine to make determinations on the basis of the race or religion of those affected in a story as to whether it is newsworthy or not. Sixty people of another nationality die in an accident, it may be barely reported, if two people of the news outlet’s home nationality dies in such a tragedy then it is a major story. The interests and prejudices of the consumers of news are reflected all the time in what editors consider to be important.

It is up to the public to decide whether those actions that are reported are right or wrong, journalists and broadcasters should not act as a filter in that process. Many of these actions – imprisonments, internments, brutality and others – are conducted by governments in the name of the people. Sometimes this is done under euphemisms such as ‘protecting public morality’ or in the name of a majority religion. This is used as a catch all as shown by the case of journalist Sofiene Chourabi who was arrested for ‘harming public morals’ in response to calling for a protest against the governing party in Tunisia.[1] It seems only reasonable that people have the right to know what is being done in their name, how their morality is being ‘protected’ or what their faith is being used to justify.

The failure to do so assumes that the public – individually and collectively – are either to foolish to understand or too callous to care. Either or both of those things may be true, although it seems unlikely, but it is certainly not the role of the individual journalist or editor to make such an assumption. Even was that assumption true, it still does not change the facts. In the words of C.P. Snow, “Comment is free but facts are sacred”.[2] These events happened, they happened to citizens of that country, they affect how the rest of the world views that country and how the government views and treats its citizens. On every count, that is news.

[1] ‘Tunisian journalist faces ‘public morals’ charge after criticizing government’, Amnesty International, 8 August 2012, http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/tunisian-journalist-faces-public-morals-charge-after-criticizing-government

[2] ‘Comment is free’, guardian.co.uk, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/uk-edition

If Op’s argument were true then news programmes would never end – and never need to repeat a story. Governments undertake an enormous number of actions every day that in some way impact upon their citizens and have wider implications for the wider world. By any objective standard, it is quite routine for all but the most important of these to go unreported – most consumers of news have little interest in or understanding of many of the complexities of economics or foreign policy. For example in 1999 only 29% of Americans said they were very interested in news about other countries.[1] Likewise many important developments in science or literature – frequently involving public money – are barely mentioned by a media that knows its consumers to be uninterested.

[1] Bostrom, Meg, 1999 ‘Public Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs An Overview of the Current State of Public Opinion’, Frameworks Institute http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/PDF_GII/public_attitudes_toward_foreign_affairs.pdf p.11

The idea that people are not widely interested in the lives of their fellow citizens is clearly untrue. Indeed, ‘people sell papers’ is one of the oldest sayings in journalism. However, there is also a moral obligation on journalists to report the news that impacts on the marginalized the most. This is demonstrably the case as it tends to those stories that bring to life disadvantage or the vulnerable just as much as those that report the misdeeds of the powerful that win journalists the recognition of their peers and the professional awards and prestige that goes along with that. Pulitzers and others are rarely handed out for reporting what is comfortable, mundane or safe. For example the 2012 Pulitzer for local reporting was for an article on the sex scandal at Penn State and Feature Writing on “haunting story of a woman who survived a brutal attack that took the life of her partner”.[1]

[1] ‘2012 Winners and Finalists’, The Pulitzer Prizes, http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2012

A liberal bias among the journalistic elite in the West is hardly reason for changing the editorial policies of news outlets in nations that do not share those values. The first duty of the journalist must be their role as the eyes and ears of those for whom they do their reporting – the readers and viewers who both directly and indirectly pay their salaries. As a result, there is a duty on journalists not only to report those issues of interest to that group but to avoid those issues which their customers consider either irrelevant or distasteful.