The architects of compromise

As part of my research for this blog, I 'lurk' on a number of journalists' forums. On one list recently, a former editor attempted to explain the position of editors trying to operate under ever-shrinking budgets. Under pressure from his/her publisher, s/he was forced to fun features written by journalists who had been commissioned and paid by public relations firms.

Sharp intake of breath. But, astonishingly, on a forum claiming to have several hundred freelance journalist members, not one commented on this extraordinary admission.

I also learned that a company had been targeting prominent freelance journalists in the UK asking them to write and place articles promoting their products. In other words, to use their contacts and reputation to hoodwink commissioning editors into publishing puff material under the guise of impartial journalism.

Thankfully the two or three recipients who admitted to being approached, were incensed at the suggestion. But clearly a climate exists in which this sort of practice can flourish.

Elsewhere, on paidContent.org, large sections of its content are "sponsored" by various commercial enterprises (how does that differ from advertising?) and the site invites (and gets) sponsors to pay for its 'coverage' of conference events. So that is what 'paid content' is then. Before long, I expect to see journalists turning up at events wearing corporate-branded T-shirts.

Bottom line, advertorial is being passed off as editorial, and there are clearly 'journalists' out there prepared to participate in this process. Readers beware: don't ever trust an article about products or services again. Chances are, somewhere down the line, someone's been bought off.

Code of Ethics

The US-based Society of Professional Journalists has published a Code of Ethics on its website. Given the extraordinary conversations I have encountered on various journalism forums in the UK, I would like you all to read it and count the number of points where your journalistic activity has failed to come up to their measure.

It's an interesting exercise, and probably going to be quite alien to the experience of some journos out there. But there's food for thought here even for journalists who acknowledge the responsibility of their profession. None of us are perfect and most will cross the line at some point in their careers. The dividing line is between those that learn from their mistakes and have a social conscience, and those who don't even acknowledge that a line exists.

The last section of the code covers transparency and accountability:

Journalists should:

* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
* Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

One of the most positive aspects of the current journalism revolution is how technology is breaking down the walls between journalists and readers. Monopolisation and commercialisation of news outlets are more to blame for the percieved elitism, arrogance and disengagement from readership of news gatherers than the actual traditions of journalism itself. Renaissance journalism, as Kevin Anderson of Strange Attractor has coined it, is much more than technological innovation, it's about a return to collective ownership of the news and pre-monopoly news values, taking advantage of smarter tools to achieve this.

A tale of two professions..

Take a look at these quotes:

"The concerns about conflicts of interest are much more at the top of my mind than they were 10 or 15 years ago."

On close links with industry, this person says...
"...we are going to have to wean ourselves off a dependency that is generally inappropriate. This relationship is one of those things we need to clean up. The sooner the better."

"Some conflicts are unavoidable; but that doesn't make all conflicts permissible. Conflicts of interest should be avoided when possible, and the conflict resulting from the acceptance of gifts from industry is both voluntary and unnecessary."

"Disclosure is a highly limited tool for dealing with conflicts of interest,"

Many of us would think these quotes come from academic journalists? Perhaps people working in journalists' associations? Maybe just individual journalists at some meeting about ethics? But we'd be wrong. Those quotes are actually from doctors. All of them concerned about the influence industry is having on the medical profession and how it is skewing health decision-making leading to bias in research and harming patient care. Whole issues of leading medical journals have recently been donated to covering just one issue: ethics and conflicts of interest in medicine.

Similar issues are often discussed by journalists. Many of us are worried that journalists are too easily influenced by industry; too cosy with PR departments. Others are worried about professional standards. It isn't right that, on some publications, it appears to be standard practice to dream up case studies; to fiddle around with quotes to make them fit the narrative rather than the other way around; and, to ignore even basic ethical codes.

'Embellishing' is becoming accepted practice - and not just in some of the glamour titles. Its hardly worth pointing out that readers are becoming less and less sure what they can trust. Perhaps they'll start to look for alternatives.

But if some doctors and some journalists are concerned about ethics - there the similarities between the two professions ends. Colleagues argue that ethics and publishing no longer mix. Ethics is for wimps. A culture is in place where you can't question the ethics of the advertorial - even where readers aren't aware that the copy amounts to advertising.

Yet our medically qualified cousins can't stop debating the issue. Doctors commit whole journals to the subject. New professional groups such as nofreelunch.org and healthyskepticism.org are growing in strength and confidence and fighting industry influence in medicine. Doctors are increasingly questioning industry sponsorship of training, education and the notorious weekend symposium. Even more significantly, some medical journals are putting in place rigid new systems to ensure that conflicts of interest are declared. Leading journals are now starting to put real pressure on drug companies on the issue of biased research.

So what's my point? Just this - if doctors can get to grips with the issue, why the inertia among journalists?

School scoops

What are the limits to citizen media? The Association of Teachers and Lecturers is trying to lay down some of its own devising. It unanimously agreed a resolution at its conference yesterday to protect education professionals from unauthorised recordings and photographs by pupils and their parents.

The Association says it:

* deplores the continued incidence of pupils using camera phones in schools and within class;

* deplores the increasing incidence of tape recording of parent interviews by parents - a practice to which it states its outright opposition;

In public, the objection has been to kids sharing pictures between phones and uploading them - humorously doctored - onto websites.

But there may be further worries at the back of teachers' minds. The mainstream press is not averse to running stories about teachers. An enterprising school student with revealing and extreme pictures of a teacher's behaviour may well be welcomed by a tabloid paper.

You can see why educational professionals would want this stopped. But what is the principle here? Is it an age thing - kids are not mature enough to snap pics and sell them? Is there something about the job of teaching that means it should be uniquely protected from wider public exposure? If documentary-makers can use concealed cameras in schools to show kids' behaviour - why shouldn't the kids do likewise?

No answers. Just interesting questions.

Les

Times Higher Education Silence

This nib* is all I can see in the latest issue of the Times Higher Education Supplement that mentions Boris Johnson. It is sandwiched between a par on an art school's change of name and one on a funding council's performance targets:

Boris Johnson will not be sacked as Higher Education Spokesperson for the Conservatives, the party's leader, David Cameron, said this week. Mr Cameron said that allegations that the Henley MP had an affair were a private issue. Mr Johnson has been in China on a fact-finding mission.

The Sunday newspaper that broke the story named Johnson's lover as a THES journalist. Anna Fazackerley has bylined several stories about Johnson in recent weeks. The paper's silence about her speaks volumes about its relationship with its readers.

Is the paper bothered that it has been feeding words to its readers written by someone with an intimate and secret relationship with the Tory's higher education spokesperson? Does it wish to maintain any pretence at objectivity?

Does it realise how contemptible it will be if it ever reports undeclared conflicts of interest in other organisations, while censoring itself about its own?

Apparently not.

Attempts to get a statement from the THES editor, John O'Leary, or his deputy, Gerard Kelly, have so far failed. They have ignored three emails this week.

Hackles has terrier-like persistence. This is a serious matter. There will be no giving up. The pressure will increase.

Les

* A bit of trade jargon. Nib stands for news in brief. They are single paragraph (or par, as we call them) news stories, generally printed together in a column. News editors have judged that readers want to know about them, but figured they don't merit full news story coverage.

Telegraph plagiarism - another update

No answer yet from the Daily Telegraph after repeated enquiries about plagiarism and Sarah Womack.

But at least we're getting the topic aired on the paper's blog pages. Richard Burton, editor of telegraph.co.uk, wrote scathingly about the 1970s, freesheets and "one-man band editors" who "suddenly appeared to produce 'editorial' between the ads, usually revamped press releases".

This seemed an ideal time to mention his own paper's use of revamped press releases. I posted a comment and question a week or more ago. And forgot about it, to be honest. But now I see it did appear.

Might this be the catalyst for a full and frank disclosure of the paper's attitude to "editorial"? We can only hope.

Les

A journalist compromised?

Boris Johnson MP and Anna Fazackerley have, according to the News of the World, been having an affair.

He is the Tory's spokesman for higher education. She is a journalist for the Times Higher Education Supplement.

His boss, Tory leader David Cameron, today told a radio programme that the affair is a private issue. Politicians are human, he said. "We all are flesh and blood and make mistakes". Politicians should be judged on "whether they are honest and straightforward in their dealings with colleagues and whether they are straightforward with the public".

Agreed.

But what about Anna Fazackerley? A quick scan of the Times Higher Education Supplement shows that in March she bylined four articles that mentioned Boris. Some quoted him extensively. The diary in the Sunday tabloid's story suggests that their liaison was active at that time.

In what sense can it be said that Fazackerley was "honest and straightforward" in her dealings with colleagues and the public? This is not nudge-nudge innuendo or prurience. Adults can do what they like. But it is hard to see how readers can be honestly served when a journalist has an intimate and undeclared relationship with a senior figure who she writes about frequently.

I have asked the editor of the THES for his view. Will keep you posted.

Les

If Tory leaders are hucksters, what are the press?

Hucksters is Observer columnist Nick Cohen's name for senior Tories and their families who use journalistic coverage to promote their careers and businesses.

George Osborne slipped a plug for his wife's book-signing into his Observer diary. A few weeks earlier she puffed his mother's chocolate shop in her diary for the London Evening Standard. Samantha Cameron, wife to Dave, used press interest to promote a distinctive range of handbags. Her mother has been capitalising on her son-in-law's celebrity by plugging her furniture in the lifestyle sections, with, for example, a piece in the Mail on Sunday advertising the chairs and curtains she sells.

In his column yesterday Cohen implies that this lot don't know how to behave.

Perhaps he has the wrong target. It's hard to blame the tacky tradespeople of the new Tories when the papers are conniving in such blatant product placement. Why don't subs strike out the gratuitous plugs that sound so hollow? Crop the pictures to leave out the products? It's not difficult.

Les

PS - Having no shame and not being bothered about being called a huckster, I'm thinking of instituting product placement here at hackles.co.uk.

As soon as I can work out how to upload an image, I'll be putting up pictures of my writing shoes in action. Footwear retailers will be welcome to show their appreciation.

A reporter compromises

Richard Littlejohn (Daily Mail) and Charles Moore (Spectator) have been trying to take shots at Lindsey Hilsum (C4 News). She wore a headscarf while reporting from Iran.

Her reposte in the New Statesman is excellent:

Wearing a headscarf is a wonderful thing because it alerts the audience to the compromises a reporter has to make; it's a symbol of the constraints under which we operate and the complex reality in which we work. Unless we are columnists living in London or the Home Counties, in which case our world-view is not tempered by reality at all.

This isn't just knockabout, putting down Littlejohn & Moore. That would be fun, but poor sport for someone like Hilsum. It's an important piece on the realities of reporting in the modern world.

Les

Monkey quotes hackles

At last, a response to the plagiarism of Sarah "Scoop" Womack...

Sadly, not from her paper, the Daily Telegraph. But it's some consolation to see the Guardian's Media Monkey pitching in to help spread the news of the double standards operating at the Telegraph.

Take note of the effort Monkey makes to find a few original phrases. See, too, the essential ingredient that distinguishes plagiarism from scholarship - a full and accurate name check and credit to Les Hack and this hackles site. A gentlemonkey and a scholar.

Les

Telegraph condemns copy cats. Ha ha.

Plagiarism was big in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

It's "rife at Oxford" said John Clare, education editor. A current student said everybody's at it. And an opinion column had harsh words. Many students "don't even bother to read the work that they cut and paste from the net," it said.

And there was a cartoon from the consistently fresh & cheering Matt. (No, I'm not reproducing it here. Register on the site and look at it for yourself.)

Which makes the silence so far emanating from Sarah Womack, the paper's social affairs correspondent, rather puzzling. Or completely understandable, depending on how pious or generous you are feeling. A story appeared under her byline this week, apparently lifted entirely from an LGA press release.

I've emailed Sarah Womack twice this week for a comment. Today will be the third. Then I'll have to ask elsewhere in the paper for an explanation.

Les

Persistence pays off

Excellently prompt response from technology Guardian freelance Michael Cross about his outside other earnings. [correction made at MC's request, see below]

He points out that, as a regular freelance, the Guardian requires him to declare possible conflicts of interest, including corporate work. But doesn't seem to publish them anywhere.

He contrasts this policy with the BMJ's, which requires him to publish competing interests dating back five years. And suggests it might be one for the readers' editor to look at.

Hard to argue with that. Meanwhile, the gist of his response:

For the record, my competing interests are:

1: I am retained by Civica Ltd to write items for a corporate blog, under my own name.

2: Over the past year, public speaking engagements paid for by Capgemini, Telephonetics, Northgate and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

3: Author of a New Local Government Network report, sponsored by O2.

Michael Cross

The crown jewels article argued for the free availability of tax-payer funded data. It held up the US as an example to be admired and copied.

If US journalistic standards were being admired and copied, Mike Cross would have a choice to make. Either he could take money from those corporate clients. Or write on topics relevant to them for a respected major newspaper. He couldn't do both.

Les

Persistence is good

No reply yet from Charles Arthur on whether he or Michael Cross have received money from companies likely to benefit from the Crown Jewels campaign they co-launched in the technology Guardian last week.

I've reminded them both this morning, with the following email:

Dear Charles and Michael,

I wonder if you have had a chance to think about the question I asked on my blog last week - have either of you received payments or earnings in recent years from companies likely to benefit from the success of the Crown Jewels campaign?

If you are unsure, perhaps it would be best if you just sent a list of your recent sources of corporate income.

If you do not think this is appropriate, I would be grateful if you could say why. Perhaps you could also direct me to someone else in the Guardian who might be able to supply the information I seek.

Best regards
Les Hack
freelance journalist

I'll keep you posted on responses.

Les

Rip-off shame

Newcomers to the industry might be mildly appalled at how prevalent ripping off press releases and sticking a staffer's byline on them is. Here's an example from today's Telegraph:

Town halls have opened a new front in the war on the mini-motorbike craze that they say is sweeping the country. Figures show that there has been a 20-fold increase in the number of mini-motorbikes since 2001, with 144,000 now in circulation.

That was by-lined "Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent". This on the other hand came straight from the Local Government Association press office:

Town halls have opened a new front in the war on the mini-motorbike menace that is sweeping the country.

New figures show that there has been a twenty-fold increase in the number of mini-motorbikes since 2001, with 144,000 now in circulation.

See the similarities? The subsequent paras go on in the same way.

Tireless Telegraph reporter Sarah "Scoop" Womack:

Although it is illegal to ride the bikes on public land, the law is frequently flouted. There have been four deaths attributed to the use of mini-bikes, which can reach speeds of nearly 40 mph.

The bikes are very noisy and often break acceptable levels.

Although it is illegal to ride these bikes on public land, the law is frequently flouted. There have already been four deaths attributed to the use of mini-bikes, which can reach speeds of nearly 40 mph. The bikes are also very noisy and in many cases break acceptable noise levels.

It's tedious to continue. But the entirety of Womack's 530 word article is lifted, for the most part verbatim, from the press release.

It gives me no pleasure to report this. Final score: PRs 530, hacks nil.

Les

Whose fingers, which pies?

Time to institute an irregular series. Hasn't got a name yet, but its purpose is to promote transparency in British journalism.

If you know of an editor or senior journalist who uses their pages to promote their outside interests, which they neglect to tell readers about, email me. I'll use this blog to shine a light.

Proper journalistic standards apply. I don't do gossip or hearsay. I need evidence. Sources may remain anonymous. Their identity will be protected.

Awards will be made as we go. The newly instituted "Charles Arthur Award" will go to the hack who falls back most readily on the twin defence of "honest guv, I don't get paid much and the deadline was tight."

Now back to this story.

As Michael Kenward suggests, it would be helpful if Arthur could provide a declaration of where co-writer Mike Cross's vested interests lie. I believe Cross does corporate work. For whom? Are his clients always in industries entirely unconnected with what he wrote here, and in his regular column? Has he been recently paid by any company that might stand to benefit from the "crown jewels" campaign?

Les

Guardian technology editor, journalist of integrity

Charles Arthur edits one of the Guardian's weekly advertising supplements. He cleared the front page today for a long piece, pleading "Give us back our crown jewels". He presumably co-wrote it as he gives himself a joint by-line.

The piece argues that data collected by the government should be freely available. The writers say that would benefit ordinary businesses. They give two "real-world" examples. Here's one:

Many of Britain's best rock-climbing venues are on sea cliffs, and hence affected by the tides. For climbers planning a trip - and surely spending money in local shops - it helps to know if the tides will be favourable. But websites that try to offer British tide data have been told by the UK Hydrographic Office they must pay for it - a cost most are unwilling to endure. So sites have no tides, climbers make the safer choice, and shops miss out.

Imagine, if you can, local shopkeepers' gratitude to Arthur for his disinterested campaigning when their businesses are revitalised. Think how they will bless his name when the deep-pocketed & traditionally munificent climbing community unburdens its hard-earned dosh at their tills.

Disinterested? Sorry, scrub that.

Charles Arthur also happens to be editor of a website, UK Climbing. And that site would stand to benefit - from increased traffic and better advertising rates - if it could offer tide data free of charge.

Does Arthur mention this interest of his in his article? He does not. He uses all kinds of arguments in the 1,800 word article. But somehow forgets to tell readers that the particular illustration he shamelessly advocates has the potential to bring him direct benefits.

Les