8 Aug 2011 | Index Index, minipost
Adão Tiago, an Angolan radio journalist for Radio Ecclesia, has been arrested for reporting on an outbreak of mass fainting. The faintings, involving more than 500 school children since April, have been linked, in some report, to criminals allegedly spraying institutions with gas. The Angolan government has rejected this claim, blaming hysteria triggered by “sensational news reporting” instead. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Radio Ecclesia operates under “intense government pressure and self-censorship”.
8 Aug 2011 | Index Index, minipost
Norawase Yospiyasathien, a university graduate and blogger, was detained on Friday while police investigate allegations of lese majeste — offending the Thai monarchy. According to online newspaper Prachatai police are scrutinising his blog posts. The person who filed the charge was said to be a vice rector for students affairs at Kasetsart University, who reportedly said he was pressed to do so by the University Council in a bid to protect the school’s reputation. The student could be charged under both lese majeste law, which carries a maximum 15-year jail term, and the Computer Crimes Act, which has a punishment of up to five years in jail.
5 Aug 2011 | Americas, Mexico
The recent murders of three journalists have spread fear throughout the small community of night police reporters in the coastal city of Veracruz, southern Mexico. All three victims worked for Notiver, a tabloid known for its lurid crime reporting. The latest murder, of journalist Yolanda Ordaz, created such collective fear that several journalists from both Notiver and other news outlets have fled the region in fear for their lives.
Causing outrage at Notiver, a statement from local authorities denied Ordaz’s murder was related to her work, claiming instead that there were indications her killing was connected to organised crime in the area.
Notiver itself has also received criticism. Media critic Marco Lara Klhar commented thatin continuing to publish lurid violent pictures and deriding local citizens such newspapers were putting their journalists at risk. He also lamented the government’s claim of the murders being connected to organised crime, predicting that the killings will remain unsolved.
Mexico remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for reporters, with seven journalists being killed in 2011 alone.
5 Aug 2011 | Uncategorized
The Daily Mail’s new review of editorial controls and procedures is one of several now under way as the British press prepares to face the probing of Lord Leveson’s inquiry into phone hacking and related matters. Every newspaper will need to show the inquiry that it has responded to the public crisis of confidence in press standards.
There is little detail on what the Mail proposes, and there is no hint of a historical investigation into newsgathering methods at the Mail, though we can be sure that the Mail has already put a great deal of work into preparing for Leveson’s scrutiny. (It knows, for example, that it will have to explain its extensive use of private investigator Steve Whittamore, as revealed in the Information Commissioner’s report What Price Privacy Now? [pdf])
So what can a review of editorial controls and procedures do that might affect the Mail’s standards and impress the inquiry? Here are three suggestions.
First, it could examine standards of attribution. When somebody is quoted in the Daily Mail, what measures has the paper taken to ensure that the quotation is accurate and fair? Has the interview been recorded and the recording preserved? If not why not, and is there a good written note instead? If the quote is second-hand, has its authenticity been checked? If a quotation is used in a story without specific attribution, is there a good reason? Has it been satisfactorily explained to the reader why the speaker could not be identified in such a way that he or she might ultimately be traced? Does the relevant news editor know the speaker’s identity?
These simple if often tedious steps are marks of conscientious news reporting in the modern, accountable world. They make news credible and they make reporters virtuous. There is no reason why a well-resourced newspaper like the Mail could not establish and enforce clear rules along these lines, and such rules would undoubtedly impress the Leveson inquiry.
Second, the review could look at lines of command. When a reporter files a story, how much responsibility does the editor on the desk take for its content? Is there systematic fact-checking? If not, is the reporter questioned about the content to ensure it is accurate and fair? Where appropriate, is the reporter challenged about the methods used to gain the information, to ensure they conform with relevant codes of practice? And is it always clear to all parties which news editor is taking the appropriate responsibility?
Again, many journalists will find this tiresome and onerous, but they owe it to their readers and to the people they are writing about to make every reasonable effort to get things right, and to have measures and pressures in place to check. A culture of ‘don’t ask; don’t tell‘ is likely to flow from the absence of such checks, and inevitably leads to low standards.
Third, there is accountability. When something goes wrong, is there a satisfactory process to establish (for example, relying on the structures and rules above) how it went wrong and where the fault lay? Is there a clear understanding of who is responsible for what, right up through the system? And if there is, are there appropriate disciplinary procedures and are they used?
All very bureaucratic, no doubt, but again journalists — and particularly, it has to be said, journalists on the Daily Mail — need to remember that these are standards their paper demands of people in every other walk of life, from social workers, teachers and nurses to politicians, bankers and the people who run the railways and airlines.
Yes, journalism is usually done in a hurry and yes, it can be untidy and unpopular and it will sometimes get things wrong, but those are reasons to do everything possible to get things right. They are not reasons to opt out of a culture of responsibility that the most of the rest of society already accepts.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart.
