29 January 2004 – The Hutton Report is a wake-up call for journalism.

However valid the criticism that Hutton interpreted his brief too narrowly, his concluding remarks about the responsibilities of journalists should be taken to heart in newsrooms everywhere.

‘The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media. Where a reporter is intending to broadcast or publish information impugning the integrity of others the management of his (sic) broadcasting company or newspaper should ensure that a system is in place whereby his editor or editors give careful consideration to the wording of the report and to whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast or publish it.’

It is not just the BBC that must look to its laurels. The temptation to confuse conjecture with fact, over-egg the pudding, and run with a rumour rather than risk losing an edge over the competition by double checking all the facts, is common throughout the trade – especially when commercial advantage rather than that public interest rules the day.

Since before the Gilligan debacle began, it has been our view that journalism needs to ‘get back to basic’ (link to 9 July 2003 Bulletin). Journalists are not supposed to be rumour-mongers. They operate on behalf of the public – to provide reliable information that might otherwise not be generally available.

A willingness to admit to mistakes, and alert the public to them, is the best way to convince people that your primary concern is to get the facts right. It should be a cause of great concern to all journalists that the most trusted journalistic institution in the world should have been found wanting. Rather than rush to its defence or join in the kicking it has received, newsrooms everywhere should be considering how they can help to rebuild the compact of trust that should exist between citizens and journalists.

It would help if all newspapers and magazines introduced a regular ‘Corrections’ column, so mistakes can be rectified quickly. There is no harm in providing a right of reply – many European countries do. Broadcasters could strengthen their own on-air review of journalism (we would all relish the return of programmes like C4’s ‘Hard News’).

And since the media regulators (the PCC and Ofcom) are currently reviewing their procedures fresh opportunities exists for the public to join in the debate about what is required of journalism.

PressWise is changing too. Over the coming months, as MediaWise, we shall be seeking ways of initiating dialogue between journalists and the citizens they serve to promote change in the newsroom culture.

With the benefit of 10 years experience in assisting the public with complaints about the media and in developing materials to assist journalists covering problematic issues, we shall be contributing to the review of media regulation and the BBC’s Charter.

We shall be publishing a report on complaint procedures (Satisfaction Guaranteed?) and, if we can find the funds, we shall be launching an on-line forum for debate about media ethics, and an on-line right of reply facility so that journalists and the public can check whether the protagonists in major stories have evidence that contradicts the media’s version of events.

Meanwhile we would like to hear from journalists who believe that the time is right to strengthen the role of journalism in a democracy, rather than risk further unnecessary constraints on press freedom – which is, after all a responsibility exercised by journalists on behalf of the public rather than a licence to make money from the misfortunes of others.

Mike Jempson
Director, MediaWise

(Bulletin No 97)