Thoughts from London

Media should stop playing god
The media, like everybody else, get taken for glorious rides by people and institutions intent on misleading them for motives that may not be immediately apparent. But the media, which consider themselves incapable of being deceived by what they perceive to be scrupulous sources, rarely like to admit the error of their ways.

Even when they do, the admissions are often buried in some back page or inconspicuous corner that it appears as a grudging concession rather than a correction or apology, as fellow columnist Thalif Deen writing from New York pointed out last Sunday.

So it was a refreshing change when the editors of the prestigious New York Times wore sackcloth and ashes recently and admitted they had been duped by carefully planted stories in the run-up to America's war on Iraq and thereafter.

But how many journalists are ready to plead mea culpa when they have made serious mistakes simply because they have taken their informants at face value and failed to take the elementary precaution of checking and rechecking the information.

While the New York Times was going down on its hands and knees seeking forgiveness, the British media were also going through a torrid time. Lord Hutton's report a few months back passed damaging strictures on the editorial practices of the public broadcaster, the BBC.

A couple of weeks ago, the tabloid Daily Mirror lost its flamboyant editor over what was said to be bad editorial judgement. These developments have turned the searchlight on both the print and electronic media here.

What is more, it has even caused the British media that usually stand remarkably unrepentant over allegations of overstepping the boundaries of accuracy, impartiality and decency, to engage in an unusual bout of soul-searching.

If such introspection - and what the Chinese would call self criticism - lead to more considered journalism reflecting the original norms of the profession that we in the developing countries had been advised by our mentors in the West to emulate, then the cause of journalism and public service would be better served.

But if this is merely a temporary gesture to assuage for the moment political and public anger and hurt at the media's excesses, then like the Bourbons of France the British media would have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

The British media rank poorly in public esteem. They occupy a place slightly above that of politicians and estate agents. That is hardly an enviable position, especially when in times gone by the newspapers of this country had a reputation for accurate reportage and sound, incisive commentary.

Interestingly, the Hutton report and the events that led to the sacking (or resignation) of Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan are commentaries on both the electronic and print media.

Lord Hutton called into question the editorial practices at the BBC. He concluded that had the BBC followed stricter editorial control that now notorious reporter Andrew Gilligan would not have made the allegations he did make about the Blair government 'sexing' up the intelligence dossier that was used to convince parliament and public that Britain had to go to war against Iraq.

The Daily Mirror published photographs of Iraqi prisoners purportedly being humiliated and harassed by British troops in violation of human rights and other laws, pictures that later were said to be faked.

It might well be argued that Lord Hutton's strictures on the BBC were far too excessive, particularly when weighed against his clear exoneration of the government of any wrongdoing in the run-up to the war on Iraq.

Still both episodes that focused so much public attention on the media, claimed the heads of the BBC's two top men and that of the editor of the tabloid.

The important lesson here is that both the BBC and the Daily Mirror defended their respective corners to the bitter end. It is one thing to stand by the journalistic product of one's institution. It is another to defend with aplomb shoddy journalism and not have the graciousness to relent when such journalism is found wanting.

In the days when western journalists and practitioners were - and still are - sent out to Britain's former colonies to teach the struggling and backward natives the basic principles of journalism, they used to be told, among other things, the importance of checking and double checking their stories and having more than one source of information.

The former colonists having now emerged from their backwardness and graduated into proficient journalists continue as often as possible to practise what they had been taught.

But the journalistic descendants of their early teachers have abandoned those basic lessons of accuracy and the tenacious pursuit of corroborative evidence. British journalism also seems to have forgotten one of the first lessons that our editors taught us more than four decades ago-when in doubt, leave out.

Admittedly, most people are liable to make mistakes and journalists are no exception though some might consider themselves infallible. But there can be no excuse when the media refuse to accept their errors and apologise, preferring to hide behind explanations and constructions that tend to obfuscate more than illuminate or publish so-called clarifications weeks after the original story.

The British media could learn a salutary lesson from the New York Times. In a 1,200-word article signed "From the Editors", the newspaper confessed that it was "not as rigorous as it should have been" in questioning the credibility and authenticity of some of the information it had received from Iraqi defectors on terror camps and weapons of mass destruction.

As one who used to write for the New York Times in earlier years, it was indeed gratifying to note that today's editors were ready to admit their lack of scrutiny and failure which is not the kind of admission that can be squeezed out of the British media even if some of their journalists were incarcerated in Abu Ghraib.

Such humility is beneath British editors who seem to believe that they are above reproach. If there is any redeemable feature in this sorry saga of today's British media, it is that the British political establishment, particularly the present government, is partly responsible.

The government's attitude towards the media in general, its attempts to nullify an already castrated Freedom of Information Act that comes into operation next January, is making the media dig for information that the government tries desperately to hide.

Instead of making information readily available under the law as Tony Blair promised while in opposition and Labour ministers promised while the information bill was before parliament, what is on offer today is an emasculated law that is determined to hide information rather than release it, as the parliamentary ombudsman discovered to her chagrin when she tried to extract some information from the Department of Health.

While this does not excuse shoddy and careless journalism, if governments try to frustrate genuine journalistic activity by placing official obstacles in its way, politicians and public might be faced with over-zealous reporting that falls short of the rigorous standards that should be observed.

Back to Columns