A Test for Self-Regulation as Britain's PCC Faces Extinction

Baroness Buscombe, the head of Britain's Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has finally resigned in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at the News of The World. Her departure was inevitable following the avalanche of revelations of malpractice at News International, the country's largest media company.

Buscombe's departure opens the door to a new debate about the future of press and media regulation and one that will surely see an end to the reign of the deeply-flawed PCC, whose credibililty as a watchdog was shredded when it was forced to admit that Rupert Murdoch's editorial chiefs had told bare-faced lies about the extent of phone hacking.

Two years ago when I was at the International Federation of Journalists we commissioned a report on the PCC's performance on the phone hacking scandal. That report, by Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Marthoz, concluded that the PCC was negligent, that it's own inquiries into the scandal were wholly inadequate and that it had compromised its own independence by endorsing the implausible denials of News International and rebuking The Guardian for its persistence in breaking the story. At the time Guardian editior Alan Rusbridger resigned his position on the PCC.

It may be late in the day, but Buscombe's decision provides an important opportunity for a proper discusson on media acountability and the future of ethical journalism in the British media.

Some observers fear that the government's review of media by Lord Justice Leveson will emerge with calls for tough legal controls on newspapers, but this is unfounded. Attachment to self-regulation remains strong across the press and politics in Britain, despite the shocking stories about the sleazy and illegal culture of newsgathering at Murdoch papers and increasing evidence of the "dark arts" used in tabloid journalism elsewhere.

Nevertheless, much will change. The PCC, thank goodness, will not survive. Its arrogant refusal to accept growing evidence of editorial corruption has angered many, but a new body, even one founded on the principle of self-regulation, will need to be given powers to enforce its judgements and to hold recalcitrant editors and owners to account.

     

Why NATO Killings at Libya Television Violate International Law

The government of Colonel Gadaffi in Triploi has condemned the killing of three journalists and injuries to many other media staff at Libyan State Television following a NATO air strike on Saturday as a violation of international law and a war crime. There is every reason to believe they are right.

A military strike against unarmed media staff and journalists is forbidden under international humanitarian law and runs counter to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1738 adopted in December 2006 which called on all UN member states to take action to protect media staff working in conflict zones.

The targeting of journalists is a relatively recent phenomenon and NATO are serial offenders. In January 1999 NATO struck at RTS in Belgrade, the state television controlled by the government of Serbian strong man Slobodan Milosevic. They did this only days after a written assurance to the International Federation of Journalists that they would not target the network.

Then as now NATO justifies the attack on the basis that Libyan state television is being used for propaganda by a political tyrant. That may be so, and it may understandably get on the nerves of politicians, but under international law that is no reason to kill unarmed civilians. 

Once armies start targeting journalists because they don't like the stories they tell there is a danger that every journalist in a war zone becomes a potential target.

Military action can be legitimate, but only if there is evidence of incitement to violence or if the broadcaster is being used for strategic purposes in the prosecution of a conflict. NATO have failed to provide any convincing evidence.

Of course, there are some moments when it is right to fire on media. An early strike against Radio Mille Collines in Rawanda, when it was activly promoting genocide and the killing of  Tutsis by rival Hutu gangs, for instance, may have saved hundreds of lives in the 1990s.

But in the case of Libya as in Serbia, and other similar incidents in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon in recent years, attacks on media have been designed not to save lives but to counter propaganda. And as in all of the other cases, it has lamentably failed. Within hours of the smoke clearing in Tripoli, the state broadcaster was back on the air.

The NATO strike is a dangerous action that puts in peril hundreds of journalists and media staff and not just in Libya. In dozens of conflicts zones around the world one side or another may now feel more relaxed about targeting media or journalists they don't like. If NATO is free to kill those putting out messages it doesn't like, they might say, why can't we?     

Cash for Clicks is Another Blow to Quality Journalism

In the United States reporters who specialise in salacious online journalism may get cash rewards from their grateful bosses if their stories light up the Internet.

Gannet, the owner of the lucrative USA Today and a leading newspaper publisher in the UK, is considering special bonuses for reporters whose articles register high numbers of clicks and attract online advertising.

But as everyone knows it is gossip, sex and celebrity stories that drive web traffic, so is this another nail in the coffin of quality journalism? Reporters and editors rightly worry who will cover budget deficits, social policy stories, and political intrigue when editorial cash prizes only go to the glamour and glitz end of journalism.

This attempt by traditional media to bolster profits in a failing market follows the lead of gossip-peddling web sites which have pioneered this approach. A similar scheme was introduced by the Gawker web site three years ago when bloggers were paid bonuses of up to US$7,000 when they registered 1.4 million page views.

Many journalists oppose this but some industry leaders and academics are shameless in their efforts to promote models of profitable online journalism, even at the expense of newsroom standards. Columbia University, for instance, recommends that journalists should “gain a fuller appreciation for how advertisers now reach their customers.” The message is clear -- get down and dirty if you want to rack up the clicks, and the bonuses that go with it.

Strasbourg Defends Press Freedom and Gives Mosley a Smack

Great news from Strasbourg where the European Court of Human Rights has thrown out a case brought by Max Mosley, the former head of world motor racing, who was seeking a ruling from judges to force journalists to give people advance warning when they plan to publish juicy stories about their private lives.

Mosley had his long-time addiction to sado-masochistic sex exposed bythe News of the World some years ago and won sixty thousand pounds in compensation over reports that he had indulged in "Nazi-style" orgies. The newspaper got that wrong. There was nothing particularly "Nazi-style" about his old-fashioned upper class preference for group sex with a bit of pain on the side. But his compensation was granted not for inaccuracy or defamation but because the British court recognised there had been "gross intrusion" of his privacy by journalists.  

Mosley then went to Europe to try to get the Strasbourg judges to go further and rein in the press whenever they threaten the privacy of people like him. By forcing journalists to tell people affected by their stories before they go to press, he said, individuals would have the opportunity to go to law to prevent publication.

But the court has decided that media are not obliged to warn their victims in advance. If they did in some cases it might limit press freedom by opening the door to mischievous injunctions designed to prevent the people's right to know about the private lives of the rich, powerful and famous.

The case is important, because although journalists are bound by an ethical responsibility to give people an opportunity to answer allegations made against them, they must also have the right to publish stories about powerful people who may use their power to suppres the truth. And the tales of super-injunctions that have been the talk of the Twittering classes recently show how dangerous that can be.

Shoddy journalism gave Mosley an opportunity to try to make his case, and there are many like him in the UK who will use injunctions -- super and not so super -- to protect themselves from legitimate scrutiny. Now the courts have given a clear signal that people who live in the spotlight of publicity and for whom public image is key to their livelihood must accept that they are subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary people. It's the price of fame.

  

Bias in Media and Politics That Threaten Roma

The Roma story is a complex and fascinating one. It's about the traditions, cultures and languages of a people who travelled many hundreds of years ago from northern India and made their homes in Europe where they are better known as travellers or gypsies.

Today Roma are much less engaged in the nomadic lifestyle of earlier generations; they live within a specific cultural space in a Europe of diverse peoples and, like everyone else, they aspire to jobs, security and a decent future for their kids.

The problem is that this side of the Roma story is rarely if ever told by European media. Across the continent Roma are a community targeted by unscrupulous politicians and biased journalists who together generate a dangerous and racist cocktail of intolerance that paints a very different picture of Roma.

Roma have been victimised by right-wing extremists for generations. They have been the resident scapegoats for social ills in Europe for a century or more.The Nazis targeted them for extermination.

Today the attacks are more subtle, but potentially just as lethal. Roma communities are regularly portrayed in media as feckless, criminal, and anti-social. Anti-Roma campaigns are often initiated by irresponsible journalists who don't check their facts and accept without question the intemperate claims of bigoted politicians. All of the available evidence shows that the Roma, Europe's largest ethinic minority, are the community most vulnerable to policies that lead to poverty, social dislocation and inequality. But it's evidence that rarely shows up in newspaper reports.

Anti-Roma sentiment has been fomented in recent years by politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi whose barely disguised racism in their treatment of migrants and Europeans crossing borders to find work has been taken up by populist and irresponsible media. They target Roma communities in their own countries for deportation and they have now put the idea of a borderless Europe on notice by demanding changes in the Shengen rules on freedom of movement between EU countries.

The media role in this has been woeful. In France, Italy and the UK tabloid newspapers run sensational tales of Roma mischief while failing to provide any context or useful background that will allay people's fears by providing them with reliable fact-based reporting about the social realities of the crisis in Europe.

Current discussion within media about the need for higher ethical standards and the need for journalism "as a public good" are welcome, because they point the way towards rebuilding public confidence in media and in responsible use of information. The Internet, for instance, is full of hate-filled rhetoric that has encouraged a revival in the vote of racists and extremists and this can only be countered by value-based journalism.

Media should make a start by exposing the injustice and the political hypocrisy at work around then treatment of migrants and Roma. Increasingly, race hatred is part of the mainstream political narrative in South East Europe and even in the heartllands of European democracy and journalists worthy of the name need to wake up to the dangers of sterotyping gypsies, travellers and Roma.     

When Brothers and Sisters Go To Battle

My last words to the congress of Swedish journalists on world press freedom day 2011 this week (May 3) were an appeal to unity. Stay together, I told them, even when you can’t bear to be in the same room as your political opponent; even when it’s suffocating to breath the same air.

This was the first day of the biennial congress of the Swedish Journalists’ Federation, a group that represents pretty much 90 per cent of the country’s reporters and editors. But after decades of easy-going Soviet-style stage management of elections, the union was stepping outside its democratic comfort zone, beginning a week-long battle for votes as the leadership is hotly contest for the first time in a generation.

After years of witnessing the tooth and claw politics of trade unions -- mostly at national level (although I’ve had my own moments in recent months) -- I know that the term “union democracy” is more oxymoron than many of us like to admit.

This union has been a particularly good friend of international trades unionism for many years.  It has been a frontline fighter for journalism, taking up cases of brutally victimised reporters and editors and, importantly, organising the productive use of millions of Euros from Swedish taxpayers to help build unions of journalists in dozens of countries.

It has helped the umbrella body of journalists – the International Federation of Journalists – to establish itself as the world’s largest journalists’ group and along the way it has built a union consciousness in countries and regions where the lives of journalists are mired in social inequality and exploitation.     

This record of service is undisputed, but some wonder if the policy is sustainable in times of crisis at home where jobs are scarce and where work is precarious. Isn’t it time, goes the argument, there was more focus on “bread and butter” struggles in Sweden. Hasn’t international solidarity become something of a luxury?

The questions are not mean-spirited. It is a terrible time for journalists and their unions. Employers are belligerent and uncompromising. The economic crisis has beaten down newsroom morale. Recruiting and defending members in an industry which is struggling to keep down costs and maintain profitability is a thankless task for unions, which are themselves feeling the pinch. Resources are scarce and the Swedish union has had a freeze on its own membership fees for a decade.  

In these cash-strapped times the debate about international affiliation gets an airing every time the union annual budget comes up for discussion, but the Swedish debate has implications for thousands of journalists far beyond the borders of Scandinavia and Europe.

So my appeal for solidarity is entirely appropriate, but this is not just a call to remember the poor and needy. When opposing blocks are lining up for a bloody and bone-crushing election the bitterness that results can poison the well of goodwill a union needs to maintain its own solidarity. Unions are at their best when consensus and tolerance are the driving force of policy and when these values get sidelined the consequences may not just be a lost election, but deep divisions that take years to heal.  Delegates need to remember that the union comes first. When that happens, the spirit of internationalism will survive whoever gets the most votes.           

Shengen and Europe on the Way Out

The decision by Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berluscioni to seek reform of the Shengen agreement which gives people the right to move freely within the EU is yet more bad news for an ailing European project.

France and Italy have decided to abandon the dream of a borderless Europe in order to stem the flow of migrants fleeing North Africa's troublespots. They imagine that this will end the heamorraging of votes from the political mainstream to racist right wing parties.

In their dreams. If anything, this latest sign of blind panic from Europe's political elite in the face of a resurgent vote for bigotry and extremism will only confirm public anxiety over migration and will further weaken the EU.

The panic is over the final destination for some 25,000 Arab migrants that have arrived on the shores of southern Italy since the start of the year when the Arab spring began. Berlusconi refused to accpt that Italy had to take them all in. He demanded a European policy to solve this problem so he gave his visitors interim visas permitting them travel to where most of them really wanted to go -- to France.

Sarkozy stopped the trains on the borders and refused to allow them to enter, thus breaking the Shengen accord. Now the two countries -- led by men who have been ruthless in their disregard for the rights of Roma migrants during the past year -- want to renegotiate the Shengen agreement. This will, almost certainly, lead to stricter and racist border controls affecting poor, vulnerable and desperate migrants. Only the well-off and people with skills to help keep European economies on the move will be welcome in future.

It's the latest sign of decay in the dream of a unified Europe of solidarity and values. Already Greece, Ireland and Portugal are in economic intensive care and it is likely that one of them will deliver a hammer-blow to the single currency with a financial default in the coming months. The imposition of austerity cuts across Europe have devastated public services and increased unemployment.

In a few days the last brick in the wall of social-welfare capitalism will be cast aside when Germany ends a ten-year process of labour market deregulation by giving employers the green light to enforce yet more  precarious standards of employment on the country's long-suffering workforce. The worst hit will, of course, be the migrant communities.

In all of this media continue to play a disgraceful role -- sensationally muddling the figures over migration, failing to explain the social realities of spending cuts, giving voice to unscrupulous and hate-filled extremists, sapping the morale of communities.

There is little room for optimism in any of this, but it is surely time for a more humane and vigorous political movement to emerge.

Young, Gifted and Belgian?

I don't know Paul Doyle, but I know he writes well and knows more about Belgian football than I ever will, even if I stay in this troubled little heart of Europe for another 20 years. I also know that it's a remarkable coincidence that the above headline started life on the blog of John Chapman a friend of mine writing about up and coming stars in Belgian football a few weeks ago. It then popped up in the copy and on the heading of a piece by Paul Doyle in the Observer this weekend about, er, up and coming stars in Belgian football.

Coincidence? Apparently so. And that headline? Well, would you credit it, this was lifted out of Paul's copy by a lazy sub-editor. Obviously a casual.

When I mentioned this to the Observer they came back and said Paul had never heard of my friend, had never read his blog and perhaps I should send him a "placatory note" to soothe his hurt feelings.

Will do, just as soon as someone explains how Paul was following John on Twitter earlier this month. Probably another coincidence. I would hate to think that it's just another journalist who finds it hard to give a little credit where it's due.

Stop Pess: Apparently the Twitter thing was another coincidence. So I've sent off my little note.

Making News in Italy

Just back from the union of Italian journalists (FNSI) meeting in Bergamo on the outskirts of Milan where I joined Carlo de Benedetti, boss of the Espresso group, which includes La Republicca, and Fedele Confalonieri, Mediaset chairman and long-time Silvio Berlusconi confidante, on a panel to discuss the future of journalism.

These media titans have never appeared together before, and certainly not in the house of the journalists' union, but they may have a shared concern given the way Confalonieri laid into Sky Italia, Murdoch's sport and news network, a new player on the Italian media scene which is currently on a mission to break Mediaset's iron grip on the private broadcasting sector. 

Journalism is in bad shape in Italy, not least because of the appalling gulf that divides the country's high-flying media stars and the growing underclass of freelance and poorly employed media staff many of whom are working for a pittance in precarious conditions.

Not surprisingly, then, calls for "more flexibility" from the two big hitters did not go down well, but they both showed enough concern for the fragile state of much of the country's media to support calls for more investment in training and quality journalism.

They also promised more dialogue with the industry workforce to address the crisis. This is good news and if it happens could provide some long overdue support for Italian journalism.   

Cheer up, Journalism is All the Rage

Welcome 2011. You have not come soon enough. The traditional media have had another miserable year. Circulations continue to tumble and no magic formula has been found to revive the industry.

But don't lose heart. Even if the days of the newspaper cash-cow are gone forever, there are still reasons to be cheerful for fans of real journalism. Here are four:

1. WikiLeaks Makes us Strong: the decision by WikiLeaks to use respected journalists working on serious newspapers to sift and analyse a torrent of information snitched from United States diplomatic sources is great news for journalists everywhere.

It proves beyond doubt what we already knew (that politicians keep secrets to save face rather than to protect their public) and also what some of us have been saying for years -- that it's not enough to have access to information these days; we need to have information made accessible.

The WikiLeaks saga has shown that this is best done by journalists who know what they are doing and have some sense of public decency. These are reporters who do not work for scandal-sheets, routinely make up stories, distort quotes, fiddle their expenses or play fast and loose with every ethical obligation journalism has to offer.

Five different versions of the WikiLeaks cables were produced for their local audiences by Le Monde, El Pais, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times. Thousands more were published by quality media following up the stories around the world. Each was distinct, relevant and to the point. People got the information they needed without having to wade through dense and impeneterable data spewed out by the WikiLeaks server. Thank God for journalists, for once.

2. Ethics are back: The big story inside journalism these days is a revival of fact-based, value-added story telling. While traditional media have made savage cuts in editorial to squeeze every last penny of profit out of the news business, journalists are getting back to basics and rediscovering the ethical foundations that made journalism relevant to democracy in the latter years of the 20th Century. Go to http://www.ethicaljournalisminitiative.org/ to see what I mean.

It's an obvious truth that ethical reporting and making money in the news business don't necessarily go together. In fact, Rupert Murdoch's US-based Fox News has discovered a new revenue model -- unethical journalism. The network's brand of fiery, opinionated and right-wing commentary feeds racism and discord. It is piling on the ratings as it reaches out to communities fearful about jobs and the economy with populist and hateful messages about immigration, muslims and the feckless poor. This is biased reporting at its worst. Balanced journalism is nowhere to be seen. It makes America small, but it makes Murdoch money.

To counter this dangerous drift to mediocre populism, the ranks of journalism are being strengthened by a new movement of reporters and editors -- many of them forced out of jobs by the traditional media -- who want to restore some of the values that made them want to become journalists in the first place.

3. Investigative Journalism is all the Rage: All around the world groups of journalists are forming investigative journalism networks. (see http://www.publicintegrity.org/ for example.) These groups are sprnging up everywhere - in Europe, the Arab World, Latin America. They are supported by charities, foundations and and local communities who see the value of good journalism for democracy and good governance.

Studies by the World Bank and the open government campaign group Transparency International show that investigative reporting is vital when it comes to exosing graft and misconduct in public life. Even the cheerless dinosaurs of the Chinese Communist Party recognise that good journalism is an antidote to official corruption.

The focus on investigative journalism also illustrates the limitations of social networking. Twittering is good for gossip and focused pressure, but the hard work of investigating misdemeanors in public life requires diligent and professional skills. Facebook and other networks get messages out, but we need journalists to work on these stories and give them direction.

4. Journalism - It's a Public Good After All: We all know why we like journalism -- fame, excitement, exotic lifestyle, money --but it rarely turns out that way. The old notions of journalism as an attractive career option are gone forever. Today journalism is about professionalism, working your socks off and telling stories that not only people are interested in, but are in the public interest.

The failure of the private sector to make sufficient profit out of public journalism means new sources of funding are being found to pay for this sort of journalism -- but not to fill the pockets of sensation seekers.

People who write well and have a social conscience will find that there is a future in their craft if they focus on stories that matter to people -- exposing wrong-doing, giving voice to minority opinion, raging against discrimination and unfairness, telling tales of ordinary lives with lashings of style and humanity.

Taxpayers' money is being increasingly used to support public interest journalism. In the last year the European Union set aside more than a million Euro to pay for independent journalism At national level public subscription and direct grants are being used to support research, training and networks of reporters who are better able to connect with the public they serve.

All this points towards a bright future for journalism after years of pessimism and decline. But it is not journalism of the old school. It is journalism driven by public interest not private gain. For many of us, it's the best news we've had in years.