Three meters distance is what the traffic regulations prescribe between vehicles. Yes, that regulation, which few or almost no one knows, explains that at that distance the driver has between two and three seconds to react and avoid at least a slight friction. Or in the worst case scenario, a collision with unfortunate consequences.

This analogy is absolutely applicable to journalism where the regulations are not so explicit, but experience has marked the correct path for the journalist-source relationship. There, maintaining proper stopping distance is essential, although from time to time there are those who show off the new gunpowder and new hot water that they have “invented”.

The mother of all battles

Coincidentally, there are also three key tools in journalism, especially investigative journalism, that many now want to forget: professional secrecy, confidentiality of sources, and the conscience clause. A large number of those who call themselves communicators, i.e. content creators, ignore these constitutional rights with absolute ease, with the banal discourse that these are the restraints of free journalism or outdated and outdated rules, while in reality they are powerful ethical norms as they exist. in every trade.

As for the first, professional secret, the criterion is universal: not to reveal how and why decisions were made, but only the result of those decisions. And take its consequences. Doctor in the operating room; budget engineer; lawyer in an out-of-court settlement; journalist in the hierarchy of facts, and for a long time, etc. They have prepared themselves for making decisions and they do so with their like-minded people. It can be broken, it should be broken only if the situation turns towards concealing the crime.

‘Let them kill themselves’

Source confidentiality was critical in high-risk investigations. The biggest example of this is the scandalous case of Watergate, which led to the only resignation of a president of the United States, and that because of corruption. But the source will be so, and even more protected, when the communicator is convinced that it is valid, because of its proximity to the facts, because of its remorse and because it checks that it is not trying to manipulate or extort. Intimate proximity to the source inevitably creates intimate obligations that the communicator will not be able to avoid, even worse if it is organized crime.

Peace, a fundamental public good

And finally there is the conscience clause. The struggle of the communicator, hyper-informed, hyper-contacted with his inner core, which forces him to define what he wants or does not want to do in exchange for information. And on the same level of these definitions must be those that determine whether or not you believe in democracy; if you have any political opinion; or if your conscience allows you to commit a crime to prove other crimes.

Only by understanding these three rights will we be ready to attend hearings responsibly. Disobeying and circumventing the rules has no place in professional and responsible communication. They are screens behind which, in certain cases, desires for figurativeness or economic pole vaulting are hidden. (OR)