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.