Journalist Ethics and Responsibility

Today a journalist from the newspaper Diena called me. He briefly described a situation about the exchange of words and spitting that occurred on March 16 and the subsequent “investigative” journalism that quickly identified the “guilty” spitter’s name, published and widely distributed it. Later, it turned out that the articles mentioned an innocent person who, during the described events, was somewhere entirely different doing other things. However, that particular person’s name had already been spread across the media, and mud had been slung. The journalist asked me to comment - how might the falsely accused person feel? I asked what he planned to do with my comment. He replied that an article was being written about media responsibility and such. I asked whether he would also write about other cases where unverified information is presented - no, that idea had not occurred to them, only about this girl, about this one case. In my response, I tried to explain to the journalist that by preparing this article and asking me such questions, they (the journalists) are essentially continuing to do the same thing - spreading disinformation and harming the specific person. Even though it is being done in the name of the best intentions, regardless - journalists write about people without asking them anything, request opinions from “specialists” about people the specialists have never seen, and then publish them. Sometimes journalists even conceal who the comment is needed about - they supposedly ask in general terms, but then write “Psychologist X evaluates person Y as follows…” Then try explaining afterwards to colleagues and others that it was not like that and that you did not say it. (Colleagues do believe it, because many of them have had similar experiences.) I told him that with his article he is continuing to harm an innocent girl, writing about her things that neither he nor I can even know. After all this, the journalist asked - so, as I understand, you will not provide a comment? To which I replied that, evidently, he had not understood what I was saying. He claimed he had understood and would consult with someone. At that moment, I realized he would consult with some senior colleague, supervisor, etc. Half an hour later, I found an article on the Diena.lv portal signed by Uldis Racenis. The article is titled: Psychologist: the woman falsely accused in the elderly man’s offense has suffered from media violence. Evidently, Uldis Racenis simply found another psychologist, called them, and got his article. Unfortunately, this only confirms my doubts that he understood nothing.