11 Oct 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
As already mentioned on this blog, at least one editor has said the libel laws made him nervous of printing allegations of broadcaster Jimmy Savile’s abuse of young girls. There are certainly more complex reasons behind the failure to properly report the story in the past, but it is worth looking at the broader ethical questions the case raises. Former trustee and long-time associate of Index on Censorship Mark Stephens has posed one such question on Twitter this morning.
Or, to generalise the question: what kind of issue justifies intrusion and subterfuge on the part of journalists? And what level of intrusion and subterfuge? It’s a problem Lord Justice Leveson’s panel of assessors is bound to be discussing. What do you think?
24 Feb 2012 | Index Index, minipost
Mandatory membership to a professional body for journalists has been proposed in the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Journalism Guild (CDP) proposed mandatory membership which would penalise those who act as journalists without relevant degrees with prison sentences and fines of approximately $25,700 (£16,300). The draft bill suggests that media organisations would be able to freely contract employees, but only those with bachelors degrees or the equivalent from an “accredited school of journalism” would be employed as journalists. The CDP would also provide the media with a list of employable journalism graduates, according to the bill.
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.
9 May 2011 | Americas, Mexico
Mexico City is the third largest city in the world. And like every major city, its citizens have a love hate relationship with governability. But in the 2010 barometer of the Americas, conducted by Vanderbilt University, 40 per cent of Mexican citizens believed that the rule of law must be respected, a higher ranking than Argentina and Chile, an important comparison given that Mexico is facing unprecedented violence due to its drug war. But citizens want to get involved, and there is a proliferation of citizen journalists.
One of the most interesting citizen groups is called Ciudadanos en Red, or Citizens Connected, an internet portal that was founded in 2004 and has grown to be one of the most important independent citizen journalism groups in Mexico City. The group is consulted daily by journalists, analysts and just curious city residents. It’s director, Rene Solis Brun, says they are different than any other group because they don’t apply filters and only place in their portal the information submitted by citizens. Unlike other citizen internet sites in Mexico, it is not an activist group. It receives announcements, denunciations, and criticisms from 1700 citizen committees, from throughout the city, which it runs on its site without changes. The site has comments on events in the city, including incidents of corruption by government workers. In another the site runs a story of violence at another elementary school in a working class neighborhood. The group Citizens Connected is a project of Metrópoli 2025, a citizen awareness group.
Brun says the site is evidence that people in Mexico City care about their city. His only worry is that most of those involved in citizen groups are people 40 years and older. His organisation is working towards engaging the youth in the city, and has joined Twitter in an attempt to reach out to a younger audience, you can follow them at @ciudadanosenred
