What it’s like to write for an online tabloid
The Media can handle difficult topics sensitively too
Usually it is the media that first attempts to give some meaning to communal loss, most perniciously in the ascription of blame. This week, the Scottish Crown Office announced that the lorry’s driver, who lost control of the vehicle after he collapsed unconscious at the wheel, will not face any criminal charges, paving the way for a fatal accident inquiry into the crash. And I was minded again of the marked lack of blaming, or naming and shaming, in this case.
I reported on the crash from the immediate stunned aftermath at the scene, through a Christmas week that felt as dimmed as the festive lights around the square. Tough questions were asked of the authorities about vehicle safety and staff health checks. But the driver, Harry Clarke, was not named in the Scottish press until well into the new year, and then in an un-bylined piece in a broadsheet. There was no floodgate of follow-ups, and when Clarke himself issued a single interview to the Daily Record earlier this month, he thanked both the public for their support, and the media “who have not hounded me as they could have”.
Informed – according to local colleagues – by concern for the driver’s state of mind, as well as a tightly controlled police inquiry, it was also reflective of the public mood that regarded a sick council worker as one of their own. As the city council slogan goes: People make Glasgow.
Christopher Jeffries – Guardian article
Christopher Jefferies is the sort of man who owns two copies of Tolstoy’s War and Peace. They sit together somewhere in the middle of a huge wall of books that takes up one side of his study.
Before the shelves is his antique desk with everything in its place: stamps, a magnifying glass, a printer and an article on French tax. There are signs that Jefferies, 67, who lives in the Bristol suburb of Clifton, was recently delayed by rail company First Great Western. A compensation form awaits completion.
But then Jefferies has been a busy man, not just recently, he says, but ever since his ordered life was violently thrown into disarray two years ago by press reporting that was described as “vilification” by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, as a “monstering” by his solicitors and, in his own words at the Leveson inquiry into media practices, as a “mixture of smear, innuendo and complete fiction”.
On New Year’s Eve 2010, the day after Jefferies was erroneously arrested on suspicion of the murder of 25-year-old Joanna Yeates, a tenant in the building he still lives in and owns, and from where he talks today, the Sun reported its take on “The strange Mr Jefferies”. Similarly, the Daily Mail splashed with “Murder police quiz ‘nutty professor’ with a blue rinse” and the Daily Mirror told its 1.2 million readers: “Jo suspect is Peeping Tom”. The stories in the Sun and the Daily Mirror explained how the retired English literature teacher scared children and was obsessed with death; one paper, in the words of the Leveson counsel, Robert Jay, linked him with a past murder and a paedophile.
Jefferies knew nothing of the vilification at the time because it occurred while he was in a police cell waiting to be exonerated. Another tenant of Jefferies, Vincent Tabak, was arrested a few weeks later and has since been sentenced to life for murder.
Jefferies only learned of his treatment as he was being driven away from the police station and told his lawyer that he wanted redress against the police. He has since successfully sued eight national papers, is in line to settle a suit against the police, and is one of the key participants in the Hacked Off campaign group seeking reform. Jefferies’s last interview in his study was conducted by perhaps its most visible activist, Hugh Grant, for the Hollywood actor’s documentary on the media, which will be screened the night before the Leveson report is released.
Jefferies has received considerable financial compensation. Richard Wallace, then editor of the Daily Mirror, told the Leveson inquiry that he regarded the treatment meted out to Jefferies as a black mark on his career as a journalist. “I give him some credit for that,” says Jefferies. “I have not had a letter of apology from any of the editors, any of the journalists. The editor of the Scotsman described it as a mistake. He didn’t elaborate,” he says holding his stare.
Indeed, while Jefferies is amiable, personable and quick to smile, there is a quiet anger about him as he speaks out just days before the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s report on Thursday. There has been some talk that the prime minister will not wholly accept Leveson’s proposals, which would be particularly egregious should the high court judge include a recommendation for a new independent body to be legally enshrined, able to deal with the newspapers using the full weight of the law. The industry, and many others, complain that Leveson doesn’t understand freedom of speech and a law will open the doors to political meddling in the media.
Jefferies disagrees. Vehemently. He says that while he only dipped in and out of watching the Leveson sessions, he was pleased by the way in which the inquiry operated. He had no doubts about giving evidence himself. “This was part of the fight back against the defamation I was subjected to and it was, I suppose, a chance to underline how hideous the process was but also to show people how I was, rather than how I was depicted by some parts of the press,” he says.
And he is clear: the idea that David Cameron, having set up the Leveson inquiry, should now pick and choose from its recommendations, is “dangerous”. Visibly agitated by the idea that the current system of self-regulation can continue, he adds: “Many people say celebrities live by publicity and if they get the wrong sort they can’t be entirely surprised, but what one is concerned by is when innocent people are traduced by the media.
“One of the things I was particularly interested in was the evidence of Richard Peppiatt, the ex-Daily Star reporter, and the stories he was able to tell, the pressures that were put on him to write certain things the paper wanted. I was rather surprised. I have not had much time for that end of the journalistic market place but I was rather shocked, despite what happened to me. I think it was because of the sort of thing he was saying about the racism of the stories he was putting out, simply to pander to an extreme end of public opinion.
“The papers had some grounds for thinking there was a possibility that I had committed murder, simply because I had been arrested on suspicion of murder. But to effect, in a rather calculated way, to whip up a campaign against a whole section of the population that is vulnerable, is truly shocking.”
Jefferies has listened to Lord Hunt, the current head of the Press Complaints Commission, who came to tell him about his ideas for a new regulatory regime, but one that was not backed by law. He is utterly unconvinced. And he believes Leveson will be, too. The new regime will only have the respect of the newspapers, and remain undiluted over time, if it is enshrined in law, he says.
He had to seek redress from the courts, Jefferies says, but in future a proactive regulatory body would make newspapers think twice before they act, he insists. His argument is that a statutory regime will inculcate a culture that is not meek but actually has more self-respect. And he predicts trouble if Cameron does not see that. “It is going to be very, very difficult for someone who set up that inquiry – because it had to be independent of politicians – to then say, ‘Oh well, I think I prefer this,’ or, ‘Let’s have another look at the Hunt proposals’.
“Given that there appears to be a parliamentary majority in favour of implementing the Leveson proposals, I think not to accept the findings is going to put [Cameron] in an almost impossible position, politically and in the country at large.”
One suspects that the tardy train driver at First Great Western should also watch out.
Not a big fan of Buzzfeed but this is quite good about role of media
Should the Police be able to spy on Journalists’ sources?
As the world mourns the attack on press freedom in Paris, it beggars belief that our political leaders should be planning to curb journalists’ ability to protect their sources. And yet, in just seven days, consultation will end on proposals that will allow the police to spy on journalists’ phone records without proper oversight, removing at a swipe historic privileges held by the press in the interests of the public.
In the febrile atmosphere after mindless acts of violence, such as those that occurred in Paris last week, governments – and the UK is no exception – want to be seen to be doing everything they can to track and bring to justice potential terrorists. Yet this very real fear and threat is being used to convince us that historic rights should be curtailed. Not overtly, of course, but in the home secretary’s disregard for the huge opposition to the draft code on the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) which allows the police and other authorities to continue to access journalists’ communications without any independent process or judicial oversight.
Any connection to terrorism and serious crime is wrongheaded of course, as any application to access phone records when such activity is suspected would be waived through by any judge. Those most likely to be affected will be a whistleblower choosing to phone a journalist with information about anything – including wrongdoing or crime – who expects to remain anonymous. When the Metropolitan police accessed journalists’ phone records at the Sun and Mail on Sunday it was to find out who told them about a minister abusing a police officer and the details of an MP’s speeding offences; neither of them lethal.
If applied in France, or indeed in the UK before Woolwich, these proposals would have effectively meant that associates of the Kouachi brothers or Michael Adebolajo who wanted to warn journalists or other professionals about any worrying behaviour could not keep their identity secret, while doing absolutely nothing to put the Kouachi brothers back on the terror watchlist they inexplicably fell off.
Traditionally the security services and the police have always had the authority to intercept and read any letter or listen in to any phonecall as long as they have a warrant personally signed by the home secretary. Communications metadata needs no such authorisation: the draft code states that UK law enforcement agencies can continue to secretly access journalists’ phone records and approve such requests themselves. All theey need do is give requests to tap journalists’ phones “special consideration”.
Opposition to the proposed changes has united many – and not just among the usual media organisations and freedom of speech campaigners; the Home Office select committee fear the planned changes could enable large-scale data-mining or fishing expeditions of calls made by all citizens.
The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who is to speak at the Journalists’ Charity on Tuesday night to criticise the government’s plans to introduce new internet spying powers, called for a public interest defence for the press to be inserted into legislation like Ripa and the Bribery Act last October.
But he is a rarity indeed among a political class who, possibly correctly, do not see an attack on journalists as a vote-loser.
The speed with which the Ripa proposals could be made law has prompted a last-ditch protest by the Society of Editors and the Press Gazette, which has campaigned on this issue in an effort to “Save our Sources”. They are working on a joint letter condemning the plans, involving upto 3,000 UK editors.
But this isn’t just a matter for journalists; the new code states that “communications data is not subject to any form of professional privilege – the fact a communication took place does not disclose what was discussed, considered or advised”. Which means that calls made to doctors or priests will also be included.
Even MPs, protected by the 1966 ban on the tapping of UK MPs’ and peers’ telephones known as the Wilson doctrine will not be exempt.
1981, when the Contempt of Court Act became law, may seem like a long time ago, but the rights provided seem just as relevant today. The law provides that “in a free and democratic society there is a need to protect journalists sources and presumes in favour of those journalists wishing to protect their sources”. There were four exceptions to this – justice, national security, crime and disorder – and no one is arguing that those exceptions don’t matter just as much, if not more, today. But so does the protection for sources.
Guardian article
A teenage perspective on social media sites
Interesting run down of Facebook etc.
Does it match with your experience?
What role does social media have in your life?
4 On Demand – 4OD – Catch up with “Frozen at Christmas” programme
This programme is worth a watch as it neatly explains audience appeal of the film Frozen through the character transformation scene and self-actualisation(acceptance).
The money that has been made by Disney has exceeded expectations and the programme delves into the reasons why this is. It interviews some well known “talking heads” and shows the target audience engaging with the product. Use of Youtube and Disney’s need to connect with a more technically savvy audience is also discussed – and you get to sing-a-long. Worth an hour of your time for any “Role of Media” questions about targeting audiences, marketing or making a profit.
Content is always king but most products this good don’t change audience behaviour the way this product has. As you watch, consider this – media is about connecting people across the globe these days. Media provides the soundtrack to our own lives. In the way that previous generations used to go to church and sing hymns or carols or read certain novels, people nowadays tend to talk about some moving image that they have experienced with one another. If we share certain things in common and can connect with people who do the things we do and obsess about our interests, what needs of ours are being met by the media product? Does it give us a sense of belonging? Does it make us special in some ways? Are we “in with the in crowd” or is it something more?
Role of Media – explaining the difficult topics
The former BBC director general John Birt has criticised the corporation’s current affairs output, which includes Panorama, saying it is not doing enough to address “awesomely difficult questions” about issues including Europe, the UK economy and the threat from radical Islam.
Birt, who brought his “mission to explain” approach to current affairs from LWT when he joined the BBC as deputy director general and director of news in 1987, said the BBC’s on-air current affairs presence had been progressively dismantled.
In order to restore its effectiveness, he called on James Harding, director of BBC news and current affairs, to be willing to “take on battles with other people in the BBC”.
However, Birt said the major part of Harding’s BBC News division, the day-to-day news operation, was “in really good shape; as good as it’s ever been”.
He said the corporation had to “redefine” its role in a digital era that had seen an explosion of information but a deficit of analysis and explanation. “You do have to fight for airtime and the right kind of resources,” Birt told a conference on the future of the BBC at London’s City University on Thursday.
“While I think news is in excellent shape, I think James faces a challenge on current affairs. What it’s not sufficiently doing is addressing the very big awesomely difficult questions our country and our world are facing at the moment.
“The BBC needs to be equipped in every way, including with airtime in order to be able to address these questions.”
Birt, who flagged up the importance of the BBC’s role in the event of a referendum on Europe in 2017, said: “Channel controllers will say ‘I don’t want big, weighty programmes’ … They will always resist that.”
He added that the BBC as whole needed to “redefine [itself], get back to those very high purposes which are appropriate to a publicly funded broadcaster”.
Asked about BBC2’s Newsnight, Birt said the more in-depth current affairs analysis he was calling for was not the remit of the Evan Davis-presented programme, which he said was a “programme of the day, about issues of the moment”.
“I am talking about a much more strategic need on all the big questions we face,” he said. “Every economy bar one in the G7 is more productive than the UK – these are the big issues that go undiscussed.”
But Birt declined to talk about BBC1’s Panorama, which faces an uncertain future and was criticised in a BBC Trust report earlier this year.
“I am not going to make James’s life a misery by going through his team of players,” he said. “If you take current affairs as a whole it doesn’t have sufficient presence at the moment. I am not alone in thinking that.”
Birt said new technology and digital platforms meant everyone had more information than ever before. “What it is not creating is more quality journalism,” he said.
“We get more knowledge of things happening around the world but pulling it altogether and addressing the big policy questions – what should we be doing in respect of radical Islam, the National Health Service – that’s what we’re not doing very well and nobody’s doing very much.”
