|
Cutting through the acres of newsprint and airtime
devoted to the current
debacle between Downing Street and the BBC, the message
for journalists (and their editors) is simple - get
back to basics.
At some time in our careers we have all had THAT
call - a well-connected
someone with sensational information that could wreck
the career of a public official/politician/business
tycoon.
The tempting scent of the biggest story ever oozes
from the phone...but it
is the stench of corruption. It only takes a few short,
sharp jabs from the
news editor to puncture our initial pride at having
picked up a 'scoop'.
What evidence is on offer? No documents? No leads?
Don't you realise that as soon as you try this story
out on someone else you have started a rumour running?
Suddenly you appreciate why the journalist's first
line of approach should
always be 'Why is this bastard lying to me?' Everyone
has a motive.
That doesn't mean what they say to you is necessarily
untrue, it's just that they also have a reason for
telling YOU - and 'the public interest' usually comes
second to some personal motive that is often vindictive.
The lesson - never rely on a single source, do nothing
without hard evidence, and always check the story
behind the story - who gains and who loses?
This approach should apply whether you are reporting
allegations for The Sun that asylum-seekers, refugees,
'illegals' or 'East European gangs' are
poaching and barbecuing protected birds and fish,
or if you work for the BBC and get the whisper that
a security briefing has been manipulated by the Government
to justify going to war against Iraq.
'Off diary' stories generated through personal contacts
are often the best, but the same rules apply. Defend
your source, but check it first.
The lobby system takes the whispering campaign to
new depths since the motives of all concerned are
suspect. Lobby journalists want to prove that they
are 'in the know' and the Government has every reason
for floating rumours to smoke out opposition or bury
opponents.
The security services have a long and ignoble record
in this regard.
Remember the brand of public relations known as Psy-ops
employed to
devastating effect during the Troubles in Northern
Ireland? And after '9/11' that well-known wheeler-dealer
Donald Rumsfeld wanted to set up a department specifically
to deceive the public (through the media).
We are all the losers when journalists play along
with the 'secrecy' game.
Lives and livelihoods can be at stake. The root of
the Blair/BBC/Campbell
debacle is rumour. Facts can usually be stood up -
and there are ways of
protecting genuine whistle-blowers (Public Concern
at Work was set up for precisely that reason).
If an unsubstantiated rumour has the whiff of truth,
one of the oldest
journalistic tricks is to put it to the accused and
publish the denial.
An 'unattributable source', whose motive may seem
quite honourable, must nonetheless be treated with
as much caution and scepticism as the pub bore.
Blair and the BBC only have themselves to blame for
the current crisis of
confidence.
But those who died in Iraq, and the asylum-seekers,
refugees and other immigrants (and their children)
who suffer as a result of the never-ending onslaught
of unchecked allegations published with impunity by
the tabloids, deserve better of journalism.
As recipients of daily 'dodgy dossiers' of news,
we should all be eligible to complain about shoddy
journalism, but will the media regulators be prepared
to step into either of these minefields?
|