NationStates Jolt Archive

Read my proposal, and, if you agree with it, or if you just find it a meritory point of debate, give it your approval. Thanks.

We, the United Nations,

Defining a journalist as a person, within legally-recognized adulthood, whose main professional occupation is the gathering, selection and treatment of facts, news or opinions, through text, image or sound, destined to be delivered by press, news agency, radio, television or any other form of electronic broadcasting,

Recognizing the importance of a worldwide respect to the free flow of information and the intermediary role played by the journalist in the maintenance of said free flow,

Hereby declare these to be the basic rights of the journalist:

1 – A journalist shall have complete press access in all United Nations member countries, given that he is properly identified and affiliated with a credited medium organization. A International Press Registry Committee shall be created for the purpose of defining what constitutes a credited medium organization and affiliate branches shall be placed in every UN member nation;

2 – A journalist shall never be forced to reveal his sources, under no circumstances, even in the case of criminal prosecution, enjoying the same rights of privilege as any other privileged occupation (e.g. a lawyer);

3 – A journalist shall always be awarded the right of free expression, free from any form of exterior pressure (internal, governmental or economic). A special UN committee shall be put together in each of the UN member countries to monitor this compliance.

Given that no such rights shall come without some degree of responsibility, the UN also declares these to be the basic duties of the journalist:

1 – A journalist must always uphold his work to the standard of factual truth. Any journalist who fails to do so is liable to legal prosecution by the injured party in the article and/or be subject to government sanctions. The exceptions to this rule (e.g. a satirical article or a column), must be explicitly shown as such;

2 – A journalist should never reveal his sources, being subject, in the event of a breach of trust, to the same sanctions predicted in any other profession that includes a right to privilege (e.g. a lawyer). This rule only applies in the case of a request of anonymity by the source;

3 – And finally, a journalist shall always respect the privilege of being awarded the right to free expression and strive to provide his audience with the best kind of journalism he can, making such quality the benchmark for the worldwide free flow of ideas.

i felt bad for u so i replied

I feel that your tabloid industry will blossom under those guidelines. :) Also:

Defining a journalist as a person, within legally-recognized adulthood, whose main professional occupation is the gathering, selection and treatment of facts, news or opinions...

Selection of facts? I would presume reporters outside of our countries borders had to report all facts involved as a matter of professionalism.

There should be an exception to the 2nd "right" - that is - if the journalist becomes award that a crime (felony or major crime) is about to take place, he/she has a duty to report this fact to the authorities.

This is the same stipulation that applies to any professional - including lawyers and shrinks.

I object to this proposal on the usual national sovereignty "why the hell do people keep trying to legislate a universal policy when there are so many nations who will need different laws in accord with their biological, technological, and cultural characteristics and can make those laws just fine on their own" grounds.

The representative from Wolfish had a good point. Even if you don't respect national sovereignty as much as I would like, at least take his very practical advice. It'll probably gain you a few votes if your proposal reaches quorum. :)

I feel that your tabloid industry will blossom under those guidelines. :) Also:



Selection of facts? I would presume reporters outside of our countries borders had to report all facts involved as a matter of professionalism.

No, no, no. Think about it - it's impossible to tell everything that is happening at the same time. Every article is a selection. When a bomb explodes in Iraq, the amount of details, quotes and background information you have is enough to write a book. To write a short article about it you allways have to make a selection. This is one of the most basic known truths of journalism.

And by the way, the tabloid industry would blossom? I specifically state a demand for factual truth in every article - how does this make the tabloid industry blossom? Or maybe you were being ironic and in that case, LOL. ;)

There should be an exception to the 2nd "right" - that is - if the journalist becomes award that a crime (felony or major crime) is about to take place, he/she has a duty to report this fact to the authorities.

This is the same stipulation that applies to any professional - including lawyers and shrinks.

Actually, if a lawyer accepts a client's case and later he confesses to have done the crime, he IS under legal obligation not to disclose that information - de can recuse himself from the case - but even after he is now longer is client he can never reveal that he is guilty. That is the law, and rightly so, in my opinion, although I do not wish to enter in that legal debate.

I object to this proposal on the usual national sovereignty "why the hell do people keep trying to legislate a universal policy when there are so many nations who will need different laws in accord with their biological, technological, and cultural characteristics and can make those laws just fine on their own" grounds.

The representative from Wolfish had a good point. Even if you don't respect national sovereignty as much as I would like, at least take his very practical advice. It'll probably gain you a few votes if your proposal reaches quorum. :)

In my opinion people have to start realizing that being in the UN is not just about having the cute UN logo on your country's homepage. This is a universal institution, the resolutions must affect the world universally. And, by the way, let me just say that this is also a huge problem with the USA government structure. I find it abolutely ridiculous that if you kill a guy in one place, you get a life sentence, but if you kill him a mile down the road (in another state), you get the chair. I also the find the concept of the death penalty ridiculous on its own, but that is a whole other issue...

Before someone quotes that FAQ line again, I would like to point out that while one could argue that FAQ says we can force other nations to act with our vision of the world, the same could be said about the "soverignty" people - for their vision of the world is "State's Rights". It is a valid argument.

Regardless: I have advised my delegate to support this proposal, though I bow to Wolfish's wisdom of a possible expansion should this proposal fail this time.

In my opinion people have to start realizing that being in the UN is not just about having the cute UN logo on your country's homepage. This is a universal institution, the resolutions must affect the world universally.

Yes, the UN wields power to universally effect change in its member nations. And, as the wielder of such universal effects upon member nations, care and responsibility must accompany legislative decisions. There are over 35,000 members being affected by every resolution passed by this body. That means over 35,000 different press corps. That means over 35,000 different pragmatics and customs of anonymous sources (e.g. not every UN member has the same rights given lawyers or doctors regarding confidentiality--confidentiality rights this proposal leans upon heavily). That means over 35,000 different situations regarding what makes up the "standard of factual truth". Resolutions have universal effect--they must be flexible enough to allow for diverse member nations' diverse situations, in this case, with regards to journalism.

I feel the UN should not be used as an ideological cudgel. I refuse to believe that UN lawmakers are not unburdened by the responsibility of compromise and understanding and tolerance of different beliefs and member nations’ vast array of different domestic climates. In other words, the UN is not here to create a carbon-copy culture and nation in all 35,000 members. I feel it arrogant and naive to believe I or you or any other proposal author knows how to micro-govern the journalists in any one of these 35,000 member nations better than those in that nation--living and educated on that nation's individual journalism situation.

I don't mean that the UN shouldn't do anything. But there needs to be a mature accountability of the universal effect the singular UN has on its vastly disparate membership. That said, the problem with the proposal is that it’s too specific. It assumes certain things as givens (that are not actually givens) and gets a little too in-the-face of my nation’s journalists who may need more freedom than the proposal would allow them (to reveal sources, to write opinion papers, to engage in satire, etc.).

And, by the way, let me just say that this is also a huge problem with the USA government structure. I find it abolutely ridiculous that if you kill a guy in one place, you get a life sentence, but if you kill him a mile down the road (in another state), you get the chair.

Federalism allows representation. It will always be debated what decisions should be made by international, national, provincial, and local governments--but it's hardly a worthy debate whether there should not be these divisions in power. The UN has no idea how to zone my neighborhood (nor the time to decide how it is done); that's for the local government, which has firsthand knowledge of the situation. Perhaps the death penalty is something that should be given more national consideration, perhaps not. But the system of allowing more local decisions to be made at more local levels is not legitimately in question.

Actually, if a lawyer accepts a client's case and later he confesses to have done the crime, he IS under legal obligation not to disclose that information - de can recuse himself from the case - but even after he is now longer is client he can never reveal that he is guilty. That is the law, and rightly so, in my opinion, although I do not wish to enter in that legal debate.

You completely missed my point (and the RL law) - the key phrase is "about to take place" - not "has taken place".

In RL, a lawyer, doctor, accountant...whomever - learns that you are about to kill/rape/rob/assault - has a legal obligation to report you to the police regardless of their professional relationship to you.

This is apparently an OOC response, so I'll be responding OOC as well.

In my opinion people have to start realizing that being in the UN is not just about having the cute UN logo on your country's homepage.

You think that logo is cute? *raises eyebrow*

This is a universal institution, the resolutions must affect the world universally.

Actually that's just due to limitations in the game mechanics, not because the UN has an IC purpose of effecting universal policy.

And, by the way, let me just say that this is also a huge problem with the USA government structure. I find it abolutely ridiculous that if you kill a guy in one place, you get a life sentence, but if you kill him a mile down the road (in another state), you get the chair. I also the find the concept of the death penalty ridiculous on its own, but that is a whole other issue...

Ah...the old "it must be the fault of the system" approach.

Well I'm here to tell you different. Stupid laws are the result of stupid people, not the system of government. It takes people to start the government, maintain it, and screw it up. It takes people to abuse an economic system or use a political ideology to further their own wealth and power. And it takes people to twist spirituality and perfectly healthy religious beliefs and use them to further their own bigotry and arrogance. No matter what governmental or economic system is in place, it's the people that fuck things up and then try to blame it on the system or find a more personal scapegoat. Now each system does have different characteristics that make them easier to abuse, but you can't really blame the system for that, because it was...guess who...people who designed it, and you can't blame a petit woman for making an easier rape victim either.

(The above is highly generalized, so try not to take it personally, okay?)

1 – A journalist shall have complete press access in all United Nations member countries, given that he is properly identified and affiliated with a credited medium organization. A International Press Registry Committee shall be created for the purpose of defining what constitutes a credited medium organization and affiliate branches shall be placed in every UN member nation;

2 – A journalist shall never be forced to reveal his sources, under no circumstances, even in the case of criminal prosecution, enjoying the same rights of privilege as any other privileged occupation (e.g. a lawyer);



OMG you mean to say that if the journalist manages to somehow get past security in a government institute we can't stop him from reporting everyhting he sees? What about national security? This clause seems to a flagrent violation of our sovereignty.

OMG you mean to say that if the journalist manages to somehow get past security in a government institute we can't stop him from reporting everyhting he sees? What about national security? This clause seems to a flagrent violation of our sovereignty.
Prevent the reporter from getting past security in the first place and you won't have that problem.

Unless you catch him, no

Ever heard of a "leak"? How can you prove any data he has that was in a secure area isn't from someone leaking the data?

I object to this proposal on the usual national sovereignty "why the hell do people keep trying to legislate a universal policy when there are so many nations who will need different laws in accord with their biological, technological, and cultural characteristics and can make those laws just fine on their own" grounds.

The representative from Wolfish had a good point. Even if you don't respect national sovereignty as much as I would like, at least take his very practical advice. It'll probably gain you a few votes if your proposal reaches quorum. :)
As a student journalist in RL, the last thing I need is the government guaranteeing me any of these "special rights" - freedom of the press is all I need.

No, no, no. Think about it - it's impossible to tell everything that is happening at the same time. Every article is a selection. When a bomb explodes in Iraq, the amount of details, quotes and background information you have is enough to write a book. To write a short article about it you allways have to make a selection. This is one of the most basic known truths of journalism.

And by the way, the tabloid industry would blossom? I specifically state a demand for factual truth in every article - how does this make the tabloid industry blossom? Or maybe you were being ironic and in that case, LOL. ;)

1. I was thinking about less reputable members of the press "picking facts" to support biases, corporate editoral lines, whatnot. Certainly nothing bars a reporter from writing a book about his great expose of the Secret Chicken Cabal, for instance.

2. Yeah, that was irony. I should make it clearer, I guess. :D