尊重新闻事件的当事人,是新闻工作者应有的职业道德。 以平等的态度对待被采访者,准确地反映当事人的言行,等等,都是这种尊重的表现,毋庸赘述。这里要说的是,对与新闻事件有关的各方,尽可能均予采访,也是尊重当事人的题中应有之义,而这一点有时却被某些新闻工作者所忽略。 对一些涉及多方面的新闻事件,有的同志往往以“事情已弄清楚了,不必多此一举”,“那是批评对象,何必跟他纠缠”,或其他理由,有意无意地在采访中回避某一方。且不说不向有关方面采访能否把事情弄清楚,是否该批评、批评到什么程度的结论应产生于全面调查之后,即使事情真的清楚了,还有一个尊重当事人的问题。不采访当事的某一方,不给他陈述的机会,谈何尊重?就是某人该批评,也不能剥夺他讲话乃至申辩的权利,因为尊重其权利不等于肯定其意见。而忽略这一点往往是一些报道程度不同地失实的原因之一。 Respect for the parties to news events, journalists should be the professional ethics. To treat respondents with an equal attitude and accurately reflect the words and deeds of the parties, etc., are examples of such respect, and need no further explanation. What should be said here is that all parties involved in a news event are interviewed as much as possible and that they should also respect the issues of the parties, which is sometimes overlooked by some journalists. For some news events involving many aspects, some comrades often deliberately or unwittingly sidestep a party in an interview on the premise that “things have been clarified and need not be exceeded”, “what is the target of criticism, why should we be entangled with him?” Or other reasons . Not to say that the interview with the parties concerned can make things clear whether the criticism or the level of criticism should come to a conclusion after a full investigation. Even if the matter is really clear, there is a respect for the parties concerned. No one interviewing one of the parties concerned will not give him the opportunity to be presented. What is his respect? It is one who criticizes this and can not deprive him of his right to speak or even defend himself. Respecting his rights does not mean that his opinion is affirmed. Ignoring this is often one of the reasons why different levels of coverage are not true.