How Journalism Works, pt. 94

Last night saw the verdict on the Knox/Sollecito (yes, an unphotogenic male was in the dock too) appeal against their murder conviction. (Disclosure: I have absolutely no opinion on their guilt or innocence).

As you might expect, the British tabloids were out in force. Especially the Daily Mail, which must have been wracked by the configurations of fruity girl and black man may have murdered a British fruity girl. Still, it's all good photographs.

The Mail left nothing to chance. Pressed by tight deadlines, they prepared two versions of the story… in advance. Then they posted the wrong one on the internet, leaving us to marvel at how a journalist can write an eye-witness account of something that hasn't actually happened, complete with made-up quotes from a range of people:

and things which didn't happen:

Preparing an either/or article ready for tight deadlines makes sense, especially for the print edition of the Mail, but this was the web, and making up quotes is unforgivable: how do we know that the quotes used in the real story aren't made up too? And all those in every other Mail article. It's not as if they don't regularly lie to their readers, for instance here, here, here here, and here, to mention just one story (links in reverse order).

See also the Daily Telegraph's use of made-up names for county cricket and other sports reports, to make it look like they actually had reporters there rather than simply reprinting newswire copy.

How modern journalism works

There's a story over in Ireland/N. Ireland about a Presbyterian minister who made a speech at the Sinn Fèin Ard Fheis. It's a big deal because even though 18th and 19th century Irish republicanism and nationalism was often led by Protestants, the political struggle became polarised between competing sectarian groups.

But anyway, that's not the bit of the story I want to moan about. It's this: in the Guardian's media coverage, there's some criticism of the mainstream British media not covering the event. One of the readers, Ruth Gledhill, suggests that it's not the newspapers' fault:

I am afraid, in the modern world of competing media demands and top flight PR, it is rather up to these people, or their PRs, to make themselves known to newspapers if they care about their activities being covered or not.

Ruth is the Daily Telegraph's religion correspondent. I've even got one of her books. She probably calls herself a journalist.

But I always (naively) thought that journalists chased stories, decided which the important ones were, and wrote them. But I'm old-fashioned. Nick Davies' Flat Earth News demonstrates that 80%+ of newspaper stories originate in PR and press releases, because journalists' resources and time are limited, and reporting is expensive.

What's new and shocking about Ruth Gledhill's claim is her plain declaration that this isn't a bad thing. To her, journalism is simply soaking up PR releases. If you want something covered, shout about it. This means that news isn't any longer defined by trained journalists with a nose for a story: it's defined by an industry with no commitment to the public sphere. PR agencies are answerable only to their clients, not to the public. (And if you don't have a PR agent, you're not news, to her).

Ruth Gledhill has abandoned any claim to journalistic independence or the primacy of the public sphere. This actual story isn't earth-shaking, but the Daily Telegraph's decision to hand its pages over to PR companies is.

Ruth's no longer a journalist. She's a typist.

The Day They Signed the Death Warrant For The NHS

It's not my headline. It's not the Guardian's. It's not in the Morning Star or the Socialist Worker. 


It's in the Daily Telegraph. And it goes on to say this, amongst other things.

This means that in these areas, the NHS will no longer exist. Sure, the logo will still be there, but the NHS will no longer be national, any more than British Telecom is.

There is no doubt that this signals the first wave of privatising the NHS. Yet MPs of all persuasions continue to be deluded.   

The White Paper is a docile, fluffy, patient-focused document, with much talk of choice and empowerment. This is in stark contrast to the Bill, which almost exclusively focuses on opening up the NHS to private providers. The Bill is written in dense legal terminology, making any detailed analysis time-consuming and difficult.

But anyone who does study it will find little more than a road map for destroying the NHS, turning it into a cash cow for the corporate sector. The focus is on transforming public sector provision into an entirely market-led system, throwing open every service to private providers.

Previous pieces of legislation that existed to ensure the NHS remained in public ownership are weakened or removed entirely in the Bill. Even the role of Secretary of State is altered so that he is no longer responsible for the NHS. There are 15 clauses (ss125-131, 168-175) that will allow private companies to buy and asset-strip NHS facilities. Clause s12 specifically enables the privatisation of high-security psychiatric services.

Does that sound as if the NHS, or the interests of patients, are being protected?

If the Daily Telegraph - the Tories' most loyal friend, and not known for its sympathy towards the public services - think that the NHS is being killed, then it's a) right and b) deeply worrying. 


The author even suggests that MPs are too lazy to read the Bill, and that the Prime Minister and Health Secretary are deliberately lying to us:

The health secretary and the Prime Minister assure us the NHS will not be privatised when the legislation they are pushing through explicitly suggests otherwise.

The Bill enters the report stage and third reading on September 6 and 7. At the end of this, MPs will be voting on the future of your NHS. Is it safe in their hands?

I think a reprieve may be too late. 

We shall never see its like again

What was Rebekah Brooks thinking about on September 11th 2001? The Telegraph has acquired cassette tapes which give us some insight:

 A few hours after the attack on the World Trade Centre, I was asked by Rebekah to dress up as Harry Potter. She wanted me to dress up and go to her office in the middle of the newsroom.

SK: Which date was that?

CB: That was on Tuesday, September 11. It was the afternoon, less than three hours after [the attacks]. I went into her office and Andy [Coulson, the deputy editor] was on the sofa and Rebekah was on the phone. Andy asked me where was my Harry Potter suit and I made some excuse, saying: it's not here, it's in the photo studio. [Actually], it was in the office, but it was hardly appropriate for a journalist to be prancing about as Harry Potter. Andy told me I should always have my Harry Potter gear around, in case of a Harry Potter emergency, and told me that the morning after, I was to dress up for conference as Harry Potter. So, at that time, [when] we were working on the assumption that up to 50,000 people had been killed, I was required to parade myself around morning conference, dressed as Harry Potter.

GM: I have told you that this is not going to be held against you. Charles, you should think very seriously about coming in on Tuesday.

CB: Well, to be frank, Greg, as far as my future at News International is concerned, I haven't toed the line for the editor's pet project. I didn't prance around while the World Trade Centre was being bombed, for her personal amusement. I can't just stroll in.

GM: Why not? Charles, that is what we do - we go out and destroy other people's lives. 

Wow. So this is the kind of campaigning investigative journalism which various Murdoch representatives have told us will be lost with the demise of the News of the World.

Hang your heads, carping Britons, hang your heads.

Boo! Hiss!

Commiserations to Ben Goldacre, whose Bad Science book was pipped to the Samuel Johnson Prize by Leviathan, a book about whales. I'm sure it's very good, but can't help feeling that a panel containing an editor of the Telegraph was never going to vote for a book which excoriates poor science journalism - that paper is particularly guilty (and that's only one example).

If it quacks like a duck, it's not science

The Daily Telegraph has done democracy a massive favour by publishing all the MPs expenses claims.

But you can't keep a mentally-ill publication down. If you know even the slightest thing about science or journalism, I urge you not to click on this link (hat-tip to Ben Goldacre) because you'll start to self-harm, so great will be the anguish. If you meet Christopher Middleton, feel free to beat him to a bloody pulp. After all, he can be healed by sending a hair sample to a radionics specialist…

What are little Christopher's scientific qualifications? Well, he was Property Writer of the Year 2005, and describes himself as a 'modern manners journalist'. It would be very wrong of you to email him at CMidton@aol.com to question him further, or to leave skeptical questions on his website.