Walkley Award judges are given judging criteria, reporting requirements, a code of ethics and guidelines for judges to deal with a conflict of interest.
Judging process
Three award finalists are to be chosen on the basis of journalistic excellence. The Walkley Board will then select a winner from these finalists.
The emphasis should be on creative and courageous journalism - the different rather than the predictable. We are looking to recognise research and dedicated journalism that seeks out the truth. This can be in the form of extensive investigations, news breaking single stories or engaging, entertaining and/or informative reporting.
In choosing the finalists, judges should take regard of:
- the resources and time available to the entrant in preparing the work i.e. if produced for a daily deadline or with longer lead-in over days, weeks or months.
- the effort expended in the preparation of the work i.e. by a lone journalist or team and the specific requirements of the medium in which the work is prepared.
- the size and location of media outlet i.e. regional vs. city etc
These factors should all be weighed up in the decision making process and in the selection of finalists.
In general, the criteria include:
- newsworthiness
- research
- writing
- production
- incisiveness
- impact
- public benefit
- ethics
- originality
- innovation
- creative flair
Reporting Requirements
Judges should supply reasons for each choice in writing. The comments for each finalist should be no more than 50 words. This information will be supplied to the Walkley Advisory Board when it meets in mid-October.
If a judging panel has a serious reservation about an entry that may impede the selection of finalists, additional time may be granted to undertake further consideration.
Any concerns over an entry by a judging panel should be flagged to the Chairman of the Walkley Advisory Board to enable time to investigate at the conclusion of the first judging panel.
Code of Ethics
The Alliance' Code of Ethics appears below. Judges should appraise themselves of the code and bear this in mind when choosing finalists.
Journalists' Code of Ethics
Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, comment and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be responsible and accountable.
Journalists commit themselves to:
- Honesty
- Fairness
- Independence
- Respect for the rights of others.
Journalists will educate themselves about ethics and apply the following standards:
1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness, and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.
2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief or physical or intellectual disability.
3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source's motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.
4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.
6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify your self and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person's vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Do not plagiarise.
11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation, and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
Guidelines for judges to deal with a conflict of interest
These guidelines are designed as a mechanism to deal with any conflict of interest, perceived or actual that may arise while judging entries to the Walkley Awards. The guidelines are based on the understanding that in all cases an actual conflict of interest in judging is to be avoided and that even a perceived conflict can be damaging to all parties.
A conflict of interest is considered to be where a judge has a personal or professional relationship with a person that is such that it throws into question their ability to fairly and independently judge their entry. It is not considered to include simply judging the work of entrants from their own media organization.
Prior to judging all members of the three person judging panel will be sent a list of entrants to the categories they will judge. This will enable each judge to identify any possible conflict of interest and alert the Walkley Foundation and the other judges. The onus for declaring a conflict falls to individual judges.
When a possible conflict of interest is raised then the invited judges will be called together in a meeting to discuss and address the perceived or actual conflict and decide whether this will have any influence over the judging of the entry or entries in question. Possible outcomes will be:
- That the person should not be part of the panel judging all entries to the category
- That the person should be excluded from judging the entry concerned, in which case it will come to the remaining two judges to consider its merits
- That a fourth judge should be invited to join the panel to fill any gaps left by judges excluding themselves from judging any entries
A unanimous decision will be required to deal with the issue. Where a unanimous decision is not or cannot be reached the matter will be referred to an independent arbiter appointed by the Walkley Foundation for decision.
