POLIS: Can TRUST in journalism be restored?

‘Trust’ the most important keyword in journalism was discussed in all its manifestations at the POLIS conferences at the London School of Journalism on Friday April 5, 2013. Organised by POLIS director Charlie Beckett, it had an impressive array of speakers and panels.

The choice of the theme is not surprising as today journalism is probably going through its darkest phase in recent times in gaining public trust. The hacking scandal and the shout out loud tabloid journalism has led to a low public confidence in journalists and post Leveson journalists are struggling to gain trust of not just the public but also sources. My top 3 panel discussions:

1.      Nick Davies Panel

He is accused of single handedly exposing the hacking scandal; shutting down Murdoch’s News of the World last year; of sending many journalists into prison and for bringing about a ‘draconian’ Leveson enquiry that threatens to curb press freedom; yet this man in jeans and a cool leather jacket bats away every accusation thrown his way with humour and honesty.

Nick Davies, perhaps the journalist of 2012, spend over an hour in an intellectual combat with Ben Fenton, of the Financial Times. Fenton boldly asks Davies, whose investigations into the hacking scandal put several journalists in the dock, why he hates journalists?  “I don’t hate journalists, I love journalism,” came the crisp reply.

Nick spoke about who young reporters enter the profession high on ethics and with stars in their eyes only to get disillusioned by the profession once they settle in. He particularly didn’t seem fond of the tabloid culture. Tabloid journalism using unethical practises to create news that sells their papers and then justifying it, “is like a rapist sayings its free love,” added Davies.

He refused to accept the responsibility of “closing down” NoTW saying, that some involved with the paper were pushing for its closer “months before his story was published” and “to aid the company’s bid for BSkyB.”

On the “false hope” claim made by the guardian, which later the paper had to refute, Nick said he was “absolutely certain at the time of publication that it was true.” He however added, that they did get a “good kicking” by Fleet Street for it later.

However while Davies did not sympathise with journalists using unethical practises; he also had no love for the police using the hacking scandal to their benefit. “It is sickening to see how an authoritative and bullying police office has used the hacking scandal to gag officers. It is both distressing and wrong,” said Davies.  

2.      Media Policy

The LSE Media policy project panel discussed this deteriorating relationship of trust between a journalist and source.

In fact Barry Fitzpatrick, of the National Union of Journalists called this a “worrying development for just media but society and democracy.” Fitzpatrick believes that News of the World arrests have sent alarm bells ringing among journalists especially in tabloid press and damaged relationship of trust between source and journalists. “Unless common sense is applied it will have far reaching consequences,” warned Fitzpatrick.

Andrew Bousfield , an investigative reporter with Private Eye who broke several stories through his investigations in the health sector highlighted how difficult the non-disclosure agreements made it for doctors to be whistle blowers.  “These no-disclose agreements are scary,” says Bousfield.

According to him such non-disclosure agreements existed mainly in hospitals that were fearful. “During our investigations we found that people (health care professionals) were being silenced where care was going wrong.”

European law protects journalists not whistle blowers, said Gavin Miller QC, who suggested the establishment of a commission to bring proceedings to protect whistle blowers. “Law protects whistle blowers if they move towards government, MPs, court but NOT the press,” he said.

3.      Public Service Broadcasting: Trust in Journalism

In UK, BBC probably hit its lowest in public trust when the Newsnight cover-up of the Jimmy Savile scandal broke out. As one skeleton after another came out of the closet exposing the crimes on the BBC premises, BBC used the fact that Panorama programme belonged to its “family” to hail its ethics in investigating itself. This may have restored some confidence in the public broadcaster but left several question on trust unanswered nevertheless.  Earlier in the day Mary Hockaday, Head of BBC News Room said that “public trust in BBC was back to where it was pre-Savile crisis.”

Hence a panel discussed on trust esp in public service broadcasting was perhaps the need of the hour. But it wasn’t about giving audience “ethical news” but also about how audiences can be engaged in finding the “truth” and contributing their opinions to what makes news.

On other news verification, Trushar Barot, assistant editor of the BBC News UGC and social media hub believes that in the end journalist’s instincts are a better judge in helping separating the grain from the chaff. He gave an example of an extremely popular video on the internet which showed a Syrian activist “buried alive” by Assad’s men and the BBC dilemma to broadcast it or not. Barot spoke about how he used twitter to express his doubts on the video and soon citizen journalists investigated the video themselves and came up with more loopholes that collectively helped discredit the video. According to him the factors that build trust in journalism are the diversity of sources, speed of editorial judgements and ability to reach your content out. “Trust is a growth industry in journalism... great value in the ocean of chatter is journalistic judgement,” adds Barot.

One of the most interesting concepts came from Cilla Benko, Director General of Swedish Radio. She spoke about Journalism 3.0 - a two way street that uses both the traditional reporting (Journalism 1.0) and the social media journalism (Journalism 2.0). “In my news room everyone has to be on twitter, it is not an option,” she said highlighting how twitter helps find news and develop sources.

Her four important ways to connect with the audience and in turn find fodder for news stories include: creating a sort of public network where you invite contributions from people. This PublicNetwork now has 300 members signed up to contribute news and ideas expanding in multitude its reportage from just 4 reporters on the team.

They also launched a blog called ‘The Earth’ where in people discuss issues that they find pertinent and the reporter then goes on to make a radio programme about it. Using twitter to see what what “news” is.

She emphasised that twitter does not have to be marketing tool to promote your stories, it could also be a good source to get stories. Lastly she insisted that the public debate could also be a good source of generating stories. A debate on appropriate language to prevent racist overtones was one of the important issues that the public were debating. The radio team decided to approach the public for opinions. They put up a video on the website and created a hashtag of the issue. Over 600 potential stories were generated through public feedback. This provided a huge impetus to Swedish Radio as “many people didn’t know Swedish Radio existed before the project," adds Benko.

Also on the panel was Ruurd Bierman, former director Dutch public service broadcaster NOS now associated with Vision 2020 which looks at Trust in 2020 and gives a roadmap for PSB to be indispensable. He gave an example of Altijd Wat Monitor in Holland which has opened its newsroom to the public. Here people can monitor progress of research live, leak documents, comment on content and provide opinions.

Murder on Fleet Street

Last month I was surprised to find money credited by News International into my bank account. I had not written for the News of the World (NoW) for two years and did not understand why I received any payments now. I thought it was a mistake. I wrote to NoW and was told that the auditors must have just discovered they underpaid me then and are making it up now. Little did I know then, that in less than a month the paper will be no more.

I told my husband who joked, ‘Perhaps they tapped my phone back then and were paying me compensation’. We laughed. NoW and the phone hacking scandal were synonymous. But as long as they tapped phones of celebrities and people in power, not many cared (apart from the celebs and the suits of course, who had the money and the means to take the paper to court and get large compensation!).

My association with NoW was very brief. The interviews I did for NoW were all recorded with the subject's consent and left no room for any sleeze or scandal. Yes, I am justifying myself simply because any association with NoW now puts your credibility as a journalist under the scanner. In fact I was asked why I want to even mention that I ever did anything for the paper. I was a freelancer, so I wasn't even within the vast periphery of the paper's gambit, imagine what the NoW staff would be feeling. Reporters who had absolutely no inkling about any hacking will also now be looked upon with suspicion.

The Guardian’s recent expose of how the NoW’s hired detective used subterfuge to hack onto phones of unsuspecting civilians including a murdered teenager Milly Dowler shocked everyone. It created a huge public outrage and not without reason.

Revelations that murdered teenagers’ or families of victims of terror attacks were also targeted in the paper’s quest to dig up sleaze is incorrigible. More than 4000 such victims, the cops said. What were they hoping to get? A distraught aging father cursing the transport secretary for not investing in bomb proof trains?  Or a wife telling her lover that with the husband dead now, they were free to elope? It’s pathetic!

And where is the public interest in whose name newspapers often indulge in subterfuge? Although not a strong advocate of subterfuge myself as a journalist, I understand that sometimes it is important to resort to it to dig up information and facts not easily available in public domain which are important for the public to know. There is a thin line and editorial ethics play an important role in where you draw the line. But there is no doubt that NoW crossed that line.

Peter Burden asked a very good question in his book, News of the World: Fake Sheikhs and Royal Trapping, “Are the tabloids' pious protestations of public interest really just a self-serving attempt to halt declining circulation?”

NoW boasts of the highest circulation of any newspaper on Sundays. Unfortunately this tarnished tabloid will print its final edition this Sunday, July 10, 2011. So a newspaper known for ground breaking stories, though not often devoid of controversy, has decided to pull down the shutters. Was it necessary? Will it only re emerge as the Sun on Sunday and print it's old grit again?

And its unfair to the 250 odd staff facing the threat of redundancy who could have not been privy to NoW phone hacking scandal that operated on a much higher level. Yet Rebekah Brooks stays and James Murdoch still wears an innocent face.

The paper has been brutally murdered by its bosses. And it's blood will leave a huge blot on Fleet Street. Although almost all newspaper offices have over the years moved to different locations, Fleet Street will always be synonymous with the press in London.

I don't think ceasing to publish NoW is a solution. What is required was a revamp of editorial standards, to repent and learn from its mistakes. NoW didn’t have to die. It could re-invent itself on principles of good journalism, change its editorial board to include people with character and ethics and more importantly scrutinize the sources and contents of its news reports. 

It’s not difficult to hack into people’s phones. Mumbai Mirror, a tabloid I also worked for in India, used a small time detective to hack into a prominent lawyer’s phone in less than 60 seconds. They could eavesdrop on every conversation the lawyer had and also read his text messages.  

Mumbai Mirror's expose on phone hacking

So how are they different? They first took the lawyer’s permission before they got the detective to hack into his phone without the detective’s knowledge of course. Then they published an expose on how easy it was to tap someone’s phone on their front page giving details of the entire operation. They exposed the hacker.

Instead of publishing an expose on phone tapping, Mirror could have used it themselves to eavesdrop on conversations of celebrities, politicians, police or even the victims of brutal murders or terror attacks - we have them all in Mumbai. It could have given some great sleaze and gossip for any tabloid. It could boost circulation many folds.

But the paper didn’t resort to such unethical sleaze. It did what any good journalist/editor would do. It exposed the wrong doings and alerted the public on how easy it was for some to tap into their phones, forcing the police to find the culprits and find ways of preventing such crime. No wonder, Mirror is the best tabloid in Mumbai for investigative reporting and has a high circulation.

Good ethical journalism is all about the choices we as journalists and editors make.