Journalists who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
Unless you live in a cave, you can’t have failed to miss the outrage surrounding Jan Moir’s pernicious Daily Mail ‘article’ about the death of Stephen Gately*. I’m not going to post a rebuttal this late in the day – that’s already been done to great effect elsewhere – but I do want to raise a point that occurred to me during the last few days.
For a long time now, some elements of the mainstream media (msm) have been quite dismissive of bloggers, not all, some journalists have embraced blogging, but there are still many who see it as some kind of poor relation at best. One of the biggest criticisms has been that bloggers are not regulated, and therefore lack the ethics of msm journos. Can they still realistically claim that when one of their own published a piece that was so full of vitriol and insinuation even other journalists attacked it**? And of course, it’s not just Jan Moir and the Daily Mail, many newspapers are really not worthy of the name because what they publish isn’t news, or even factual.
Earlier this week the Guardian published the results of it’s attempts to dupe tabloid editors into publishing completely fictitious stories about various well-known people. Have a look, it makes for interesting reading. There is a market for rumour, gossip and innuendo and these publications have absolutely no qualms about supplying it. Yet, the people who write this tripe would still call themselves journalists, and would still insist they operate according to some kind of ethical code. Ironically, journalists do have a code, they are expected to “inform, educate and enlighten”. How does puerile drivel about the sex lives of celebrities do that precisely? Am I missing something? Is it really so important that we know some celeb cries ‘I love stew and dumplings’ in the throes of passion?!
Obviously, I’m not suggesting the blogosphere is packed full of positive, mind-improving, factually correct missives. It isn’t. There is a reason bloggers have a reputation for snark and it’s often appropriate. It’s also true that many bloggers make no attempt to check sources, or do any background research. The difference is, bloggers don’t claim to hold any kind of moral highground. We know we are a loose collection of individuals with widely differing opinions and ethics. Somehow, we do find common ground, and we also tend to challenge anyone who is overtly offensive, not just occasionally, but often.
Over the weekend, I listened to a radio phone-in about the Moir drivel, and heard Matthew Parris (possibly playing devil’s advocate) say that although he found the article offensive***, he supported Moir’s right to publish it because journalists have to cover stories while they are still current. That is a fair point, or would be if this had been a news story, which it wasn’t. The article in question is full of conjecture and hypothesis; it dismisses medical fact and suggests Stephen’s family and the Spanish legal system are involved in some kind of cover-up. That is not news, it’s just sensationalism. Reporting his death was news; insulting a dead man before his family had chance to bury him is not. However, it does highlight the diabolical state of journalism both in the UK and elsewhere.
The idea that an opinion piece must be written just because a news story is ‘hot’ is very wrong. If Stephen Gately had been a politician who preached morality and family values, then yes, the circumstances of his death may have been relevant. But he wasn’t. He was a harmless individual who happened to make a living doing something that brought him to the attention of the public. Should that really mean he, or anyone else, is fair game for any journalist who can’t think of something informative, educational or enlightening to write? I really don’t think so.
There was a time when journalism was an honourable profession; journalists did believe in such silly, old fashioned ideas as common decency, and the wider implications of a story were taken into consideration before publication. The phrase ‘in the public interest’ is often used, but that works both ways. Sometimes, it’s better not to publish something because it has no real value, doesn’t alert the public to anything they should know about, and risks causing pain and offence to innocent people. All that has been forgotten in a desperate attempt to sell newspapers in an ever dwindling market.
And that brings me back to my first point: can journalists really say they are more ethical than bloggers when so many are willing to resort to downright unethical tactics to make money? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
* If you haven’t read the article, Google it, I’m not going to provide a link.
** That is quite unusual, journalists usually keep their criticisms private.
*** Before anyone accuses him of being some vicious right-wing media type, Mr Parris is gay, so I’m guessing would have been quite hurt by some of the ’suggestions’ about his sexuality.
I appreciate you dropping by,
Please leave a comment, don’t be shy
Find me on: Twitter | LinkedIn | Google Buzz | Friendfeed
Follow this blog on: Facebook | Google Connect | Networked Blogs
Diddums
1injaynesworld
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 19:12
Oh, Kate… The U.S. apple certainly has not fallen far from its Motherland tree when it comes to the msm. Our latest hysteria is over a supposedly balloon boy who turned out to be only a box boy. The only place you're likely to get relevant reporting on this end is on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. The corporate takeover on the news business in this country has been devastating. We will never see the likes of a Walter Cronkite again.
2lordmatt
Twitter: lordmatt
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 19:39
The Daily Fail seems to thrive on being rude, insulting and bigoted. I long ago took to boycotting it as I'd feel it an insult to any garden to have it used as compost.
3Kate
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 19:58
Hi Jayne
Coincidentally, Walter Cronkite was one of the people who came to mind when I was writing the part about 'old fashioned' journalists.
We do still have some good ones here – the Guardian I mention in this post still mostly adheres to journalistic ethics – but there are so many who don't live up to them. I know the news corporations say they are giving people what they want, but really they aren't; they're just pandering to the lowest common denominator because it's cheap and easy.
I saw the news about Balloon Boy. I can see why it warranted a mention, but yes, it was overkill. Of all the events of that day, it can't possibly have been the most important. Oh and lol @ box boy
4Kate
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 19:59
Funny you should say that Matt – a while ago I suggested we use it to line the cat litter tray, but the cats sent me a note saying that if we did, they'd poo in my shoes.
5Andrew
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 20:34
One of the things I always felt bloggers had over journalists was the right to an opinion. Journalists were supposed to report, use facts, get to the bottom of things, but bloggers were free to just tell us what they thought however wrong that might have been.
Now we find that there are journalists writing blogs in their own newspapers. That makes them just bloggers. Nothing more. They have to fill some space or else they will lose their coveted position as a blogger with a mainstream media masthead.
Circulation doesn't make their opinion more relevent. In fact, the oposite is true since that circulation comes from a hundred or so years of brand awareness, unlike bloggers who have started from scratch.
6ProfessorWorm
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 21:17
“. . . a desperate attempt to sell newspapers in an ever dwindling market.”
I think this is the basic problem. We are down to one newspaper in a city of close to 4 million. There is no longer any investigative reporting, with or without fact-checking. The best reporters have been let go, as well as the best national columnists, and replaced by what seems like journalism students who cannot write (there is no copy-editing either). I no longer read it except for the weather page, and that has never been reliable.
Two of the best local columnists have gone to the newspaper's web site where they are indeed blogging. To give them their due, they allow unedited comments like most of us peon bloggers, which is not possible in the print version.
Will there ever be another Walter Cronkite, or an Edward R. Murrow before him? Yes, but he or she will come from the ranks of bloggers who have integrity.
7Kate
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 21:36
That's a very good point! We aren't competing on a level playing field. A journalist for a national newspaper can turn to blogging and instantly eclipse the readership of someone who has spent a couple of years building up a solid body of work. Plus, because they have the weight of a wealthy news organisation behind them, they can and do take liberties with the truth that bloggers would shy away from – and all because it means more eyes on the page. The fact that they have such high profile credentials automatically makes their opinion more credible than that of an independent blogger, which isn't right. Jan Moir proves that. How is her opinion more valid than yours or mine?
8Kate
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 21:47
We have 2 local papers, and although they aren't terrible, they do little more than report basic facts and/or feel good stories about centenarian birthdays and kids who do sponsored swims. Saying that, they do cover a very small area, so probably don't have the resources to do much more. The regional paper is still ok, but not what it was 10 years ago. Saying that, it's still closer to real journalism than many of the nationals.
I agree about the next Walter Cronkite being a blogger. Brush aside all the dross and there are some incredibly talented and deeply principled people in the blogosphere. Blogging is probably in the equivalent of the early days of newspaper publishing, there are a lot of bright-eyed idealists who want to make a difference. I don't see that in journalism anymore.
9Kate
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 21:48
Two saying thats .. sorry for the repetition. I'm obviously not one of those talented bloggers lol
10Kate
wrote on 21 October 2009 at 18:32
Just testing a change to the comment system – sorry if you've subbed and have to see this.
11michaelmartin
wrote on 23 October 2009 at 18:02
A really thoughtful post Kate, worthy of a place among the best msm “feel-I-have-to-respond articles back in what we perceive of as the halcyon days of balanced, researched journalism.
However, I'm inclined to question the validity of a case for a golden era, inasmuch as msm output has to my mind long been the highly effective veil certain power-bases have drawn over their interests and aspirations.
Last night's edition of The Book Show, featuring Melvyn Bragg, former Times Editor Harold Evans and Shappi Khorsandi touched on the notion that far from being a dumbed-down society with blame firmly at the door of msm, we ought to acknowledge a rennaissance in intellectual pursuits, theatre, the arts and reasoned thinking, championed by certain media luminaries. Bragg put forward a succinct argument, citing the capacity audience as evidence for the defence, asserting more people visited the Tate Modern last year than watched the football team Arsenal.
The problem I see is that this broadcasting, no doubt complete with follow-up commentary in this morning's papers (which I do not buy) represents a dualistic sideshow distracting the masses from what is really going on. Anyone notice another story last week involving Stephen Fry's Twitter lead contributing to the forced overturning of a Guardian gagging order? Carter-Ruck, lawyers representing the British oil trading company Trafigura, were accused of parliamentary contempt after insisting an injunction be obtained against the paper to prevent reporting of a question tabled by MP Paul Farrelly. Outrageous? Well, I think even THAT is a sideshow.
Woodward & Bernstein were rightly canonised for their diligence in pursuing Watergate in a fashion we may consider as exemplary journalism. Kronkite was a towering anchorman. But perpetuated over decades is the rampant misuse of a monetary system, pharmaceuticals, the escalation of wars – someone tweeted the other day that the US military spend is $65b on a country with a GDP of $125m so why not just give them the cash and go on home? – the removal of presidents, holes in the official 9/11 account so large that emperor's new clothes spring to mind and much more. We are overwhelmed with the minutae you so eruditely posted on Kate, that the perpetrators of henious policies can almost get clean away with it. Fortunately, almost is not completely. I cannot speak in absolutes and I'd like to think I do a balanced take on conspiracy but I have faith in the wisdom of corruption corrupting absolutely. We are bearing witness to the fall of the empires, even though it looks like they're winning. We win because for the most part, we have nothing to lose. They force fear upon us, projecting their own fears of losing power over us. Power over self is all that matters, which Jan Moir clearly has yet to learn.
12Kate
wrote on 30 October 2009 at 19:09
Sorry for the late reply, I've had connection problems this week which have left me very behind.
That's interesting about the visitor figures of the Tate Modern compared to Arsenal, I would have thought it would be the other way round (I was going to say it might be down to their performance, but they beat us this week, so I won't). Saying that, if you added the people who watch or listen to tv and radio coverage of their matches, the figure would be considerably higher.
I saw the tweets about the Carter-Ruck affair. You're right, it was a smokescreen. Apparently, there are still injunctions against the Guardian. I've no idea if they relate to the same case, but it seems likely whatever they're covering up is far more serious. However, it's also true that it's harder for such things to remain secret now; as Carter-Ruck discovered, it only takes a hint of a cover-up to slip out and the news can spread like wildfire. I also agree about corruption corrupting; we do seem to be entering an age when people who use the law as a blunt instrument against us and to protect themselves are being uncovered and those in high places are finding themselves held up to more scrutiny than ever before. They no longer have to simply keep a lid on papers such as the Guardian, there are blogs, social networks etc. where people are only too willing to publish things they'd rather keep hidden. And the global nature of the internet makes it hard to control that because if someone is outside the jurisdiction of the country concerned it's not so easy to shut them up.