Kode etik jurnalistik

Kode etik jurnalistik Pelindung kredibilitas tindakan jurnalistik yg tercermin dari nilai-nilai kunci (key values) yang dirinci dalam kode etik

Kode etik jurnalistik Wartawan Indonesia bersikap independen, menghasilkan berita yang akurat, berimbang, dan tidak beritikad buruk Wartawan Indonesia menempuh cara- cara yang profesional dalam melaksanakan tugas jurnalistik.

Wartawan Indonesia selalu menguji informasi, memberitakan secara berimbang, tidak mencampurkan fakta dan opini yang menghakimi, serta menerapkan asas praduga tak bersalah.

Wartawan Indonesia tidak membuat berita bohong, fitnah, sadis, dan cabul. Wartawan Indonesia tidak menyalahgunakan profesi dan tidak menerima suap.

Wartawan Indonesia memiliki hak tolak untuk melindungi narasumber yang tidak bersedia diketahui identitas maupun keberadaannya, menghargai ketentuan embargo, informasi latar belakang, dan “off the record” sesuai dengan kesepakatan.

Wartawan Indonesia tidak menulis atau menyiarkan berita berdasarkan prasangka atau diskriminasi terhadap seseorang atas dasar perbedaan suku, ras, warna kulit, agama, jenis kelamin, dan bahasa serta tidak merendahkan martabat orang lemah, miskin, sakit, cacat jiwa atau cacat jasmani.

Wartawan Indonesia menghormati hak narasumber tentang kehidupan pribadinya, kecuali untuk kepentingan publik. Wartawan Indonesia segera mencabut, meralat, dan memperbaiki berita yang keliru dan tidak akurat disertai dengan permintaan maaf kepada pembaca, pendengar, dan atau pemirsa

Wartawan Indonesia melayani hak jawab dan hak koreksi secara proporsional.

Penilaian akhir atas pelanggaran kode etik jurnalistik dilakukan Dewan Pers. Sanksi atas pelanggaran kode etik jurnalistik dilakukan oleh organisasi wartawan dan atau perusahaan pers.

MERITS The Multidimensional Ethical Reasoning and Inquiry Task Sheet Lembar kerja penyelidikan alasan etis multidimensi Perkakas yg membantu membuat keputusan etis yg baik 1. Conflicting values 2.normative framework 3.stakeholder interest 4. dities and effects

1. Conflicting values Identify & explain the key values in conflict in dillema. Examine the importance of each & articulate the conflict *explain how each value might be given priority and thus offer a solution *decide which value should be given priority and justify it *will your decision promote key concepts such justice, respect, tranparancey,etc? how so? *are these concepts override by some other compelling interest? *if they are, justify the exception that your decision creates

Normative framework Considerwhich philosohical approach is most applicable & articulate how it should guide ethical thinsking in this case *does the dillema primarily pose question of unequal power relations or of fairness?consider how Rawls could be apllied *does the dillema primarily pose a question of possible special treatment,equality or the relative importance of truthfulness? Consider how Kant could be applied &does the dillema primarily pose a question of balancing of rights or of the relative usefulness if moderation? Consider how Aristotle could be applied

Stakeholder interests Identify all potential parties that would be affected by your decision or have legitimate interest in the outcome *what exactly is the potential harm faced by various stakeholders, and how might you minimize it? *which stakeholder should be given priority? Justify, drawing from the appropriate philosophical framework *which stakeholder appears to have the most to gain from your decision?which appears to have the most to lose? *how might you accommodate secondary stakeholders

Duties and Effects Consider how all your opinion reflect the moral duties you may have & how they may advance your effectiveness as a moral agent *to whom are you directly responsible or accountable? *what duties do you have in your role as media professional? *once you decide on a justifiable course of action, consider whether your decision emphasizes certain duties or values over others. What are they? *is your decision duty-based, or is it based on your desire to produce a certain outcome? How would you feel about your decision if it were to be widely publicized?

MERITS Obviously is not intended to uncover the definitive “ethical” course of action that should be taken in a given dilemma.different people may well emerge from the model with very different decisions and equally compelling justifications for them

MERITS If we can become effective in knowing which questions to ask and keep our focus on the appropriate ethical issue (as opposed to political,personal, or economic ones), more solid ethical reasoning and heightened selfawereness is likely to emerge from the resulting discussions

kasus "PSSI itu bukang perusahaang. Kalau sedang diterangkang, coba dengarkang, penting itu pengalamang. Mengerti kang?..." tulis @tifsembiring, Selasa (1/3/2011). Ahmad Dhani tak masalah telah dilaporkan wartawan Global TV terkait kasus dugaan penganiayaan. Namun, pihak Dhani menganggap laporan wartawan Global TV itu berlebihan.