First of all, let me say that I am happy to be part of this conference and to be around such a good group of open-minded and professional journalists from three Central Asian countries. I have been involved with the media in Central Asia for three years now, first through my journalism studies at the University of Dortmund in Germany and now through my work with Internews here in Bishkek.

We have already talked a lot about the rights of journalists and that we should do everything to defend these rights against anybody who wants to diminish the amount of freedom that journalists in this region and elsewhere deserve to have. When talking about "Professional ethics", we are not talking about journalists’ rights anymore that much, but about their duties and obligations. Journalists do have a lot of rights, but they also do have a number of duties that they have to live up to if they want to serve the public in a professional way.

One of these duties, and I think the central one of all the duties, is to report facts. To be honest, to do good research and not to spread rumors or to announce things they have no proof for. Sometimes there is very fine line between a fact and a rumor, or a fact and a commentary. Let me give you a short example that doesn’t have much to do with journalism, but which will show you exactly what I mean when I talk about the fine line between a fact and an assumption:

In Germany, as you might know, we have lots and lots of laws. One of these laws is the insult law - another one is the law on freedom of thoughts and freedom of speech. If you, for example, have an encounter with a police officer and he is giving you troubles, you can say to him: "You are an idiot!" or you can say: "I think you’re an idiot!" If you say the first, "You are an idiot!" then you might have a problem, because you state his possible stupidity as a fact. If the police officer is smart, he will file a law suit against you and you will have to pay a fine, unless, of course, you can prove that he is an idiot, that what you said is a fact. He might be an idiot after all, but YOU have to prove that, and you will have a very hard time doing so. In the other case, when you say "I think you are an idiot!", the policeman will not be successful with a law suit. You are completely on the safe side as what you did was just saying what you think. And this is protected as freedom of thought and freedom of speech in the constitution. You are not stating any facts with this, you just say what you think and he has no means of challenging your thoughts.

What does this mean for a journalist now? The devil is in the detail – it matters not only what you say or what you want to say, but HOW you say it. The difference between "You are an idiot!" and "I think you are an idiot!" is minimal in terms of the meaning that you get across to the policeman. But the small word "I think" is the detail that in this case distinguishes between a fact and an assumption. If you say something, print something, broadcast something, you are responsible for your actions. You have to provide the proof for your words. If you can’t, then it’s better not to say anything. If you can, you will be protected by the law and you should have no problems whatsoever.

Another very important point is, that on the encounter with the policeman, you are talking one-to-one and your assumption that the officer might be an idiot will not become public. As a journalist, you have to take into account that your words reach a big audience and that you do not act as a private person but as a journalist. Your personal assumptions should not play a role in your work. Saying "I think you are an idiot!" is an assumption, it is your very personal perception of the police officer. It is, in a way, a commentary. And commentary does not belong in a journalist’s report unless it is clearly and openly marked as a commentary. So, in this case, as long as you don’t have the proof that the policeman really is an idiot, you should not go public with your thoughts.

Let’s turn away from the police officer again: Probably the most important duty of a journalist, a professional journalist, is to do proper research, to gather facts and to report on these facts with accuracy and outspokenness. If you do your job right, if you try to get all the information possible and if you produce this information to the public in a non-biased, objective manner, then the law is on your side and it will protect you from anybody who is opposed to the facts you are giving. A journalist’s job is it o be a mirror of reality and to spread the information gathered to the public. It is not your job to spread rumors, to publish things that might be true, or might be wrong. If you stick to the objectives of professional journalism, you will always find a way to say things that are important, because they are true.