A round-up of tweets following the announcement that the News of the World is to close following a week of phone hacking revelations.
News of the World closure: A round-up of reactions in 140 characters
Leave a reply
Category Archives: Press freedom and ethics
Rebekah Brooks ‘won’t resign’ over Milly Dowler phone-hacking claims
Rebekah Brooks “is not planning to resign” as chief executive of News International, according to BBC business editor Robert Peston.
Writing on his blog today, Peston cites a News International executive as having told him that Rupert Murdoch is backing Brooks “100%” over alleged interceptions of Milly Dowler’s voicemail by the News of the World.
She remains in charge of the process of assisting the police in their enquiries, known as Operation Weeting, to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against those journalists implicated in hacking mobile phones and other invasions of individuals’ right to privacy.
“She is committed to find out the truth of what happened here and leading the company through this difficult time” said one of her colleagues.
“Her job is to see this through”.
An update on the post at 9:24 elaborates on the Prime Minister’s reaction to the news:
There is of course an uncomfortable feedback loop from the latest disclosures of alleged hacking to the prime minister – in that the deputy editor of the News of the World in 2002 was Andy Coulson, who became editor of the News of the World in 2003, and who also served as Mr Cameron’s communications director until he resigned in January.
BBC: Detained reporter is ‘physically and psychologically frail’
The BBC reported late yesterday that Urunboy Usmonov, its Central Asian Service journalist being held in Tajikistan, is physically and psychologically frail, according to a colleague who managed to visit him in prison.
Hamid Ismailov, from the BBC Central Asian service, said he was “horrified” to see Urunboy Usmonov in a detention centre in the northern city of Khujand.
According to the BBC, which reported Usmonov’s detention earlier this month, the reporter has been charged with association with Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, allegations which the broadcaster claims are “unfounded”.
Last week BBC journalists held a vigil to demand his release.
Related content:
BBC reiterates appeal for release of detained journalist
Living in limbo: Almost 70 journalists exiled in past year says CPJ
Journalists dealths in Pakistan prompt calls for urgent safety measures
Mea culpa? Johann Hari apologises for ‘error of judgement’
After yesterday’s storm, this morning’s calmer weather brings with it some reflection from Johann Hari about the scandal he has found himself caught up in.
Writing in today’s Independent, Hari has apologised for an “error of judgement” after being shown to have passed off unattributed material from elsewhere as direct interview quotes.
I did not and never have taken words from another context and twisted them to mean something different – I only ever substituted clearer expressions of the same sentiment, so the reader knew what the subject thinks in the most comprehensible possible words.
The front-page headline for his piece seems to have been changed at the 11th hour from “What I think about the attacks on my professional integrity” to “The lessons I must draw from these attacks on my journalism”.
Both have a certain amount of fighting talk about them. The second is softer around the edges and closer to Hari’s piece in the paper, which is an awkward mix of mea culpa and mea innocentia.
I don’t want to harp on about this. I’m not out to get Johann Hari, I don’t want to see him bullied or hounded, and some of yesterday’s frenzy left a sour taste in my mouth. But seeing people on Twitter call his piece in this morning’s paper “gracious” and “exemplary” and so on sticks in the craw a bit.
Hari is a very intelligent guy, intelligent enough for it not to wash that he was innocently doing something for the benefit of the reader. A “gracious” and “exemplary” response would be an honest one, which I don’t think this is. An honest response would admit that he knew then what he was doing was wrong, rather than sees now that it was. An honest response would admit that part of the reason he did it was to improve his own journalism. To make out that it was all about the reader is disingenuous, I think.
Commenting on my previous blog post on this, Guardian technology correspondent Charles Arthur disagreed with my claim that Hari was being disingenuous in his response. He says instead that a lack of proper journalism training is to blame. Arthur claims that the route up through King’s College, Cambridge to the New Statesman and on, didn’t give Hari the journalistic nous to know that what he was doing was wrong or the arsenal to defend himself against the allegations that followed.
It may be the case that Hari’s sentiments in the paper today are genuine, and bear out Arthur’s assessment that he didn’t know any better, but I don’t buy it. This was not about the readers. It does not do a disservice to the reader to give them an unpolished thought, the disservice is giving them one thing and telling them it’s another, and you don’t need to pass your NCTJs or come up the ranks of a local paper to know that.
Of course, phone hacking is worse, inventing quotes from scratch is worse, and there are probably plenty of other things that happen in our industry that are worse. But we don’t need to judge one thing by another, as if the worse of the two mitigated the lesser. Those other bad practices just serve to show that the reaction to this situation was way out of proportion. As James Ball pointed out in a discussion with me this morning, the fact of this 2003 Private Eye piece about Hari adequately demonstrates the amplifying power of Twitter today.
This is the last thing I’ll write about the issue, I hope, but I do think it merits further discussion. It’s a shame that the debate about the practice itself has been somewhat hijacked and deformed by the brouhaha on Twitter. I know these things aren’t black or white, and that Johann Hari is no Jayson Blair. There are shades of grey in between. And I don’t want to see a campaigning writer and someone who is a force for good in journalism end up on the scrap heap over something like this. But I’m just not sure that today’s defence stands up. As Samira Shackle notes in her New Statesman post today, Hari still hasn’t addressed the charge of lifting material from other interviews as well as from the writings of his subjects.
I’m sure that over the coming months Hari will vie with his Independent colleague Robert Fisk for the dubious honour of most-scrutinised journalist, and I’m equally sure they won’t find any new copy and paste jobs. The level of coverage of this has been sufficient to teach anyone a lesson.
It remains to be seen whether an inquiry into his 2008 Orwell Prize will find that his submissions are affected.
UPDATE: A discussion on Twitter between myself and the Guardian’s Charles Arthur followed this post after he commented on it below. You can see the whole thing at this link, starting at the bottom of the page. The first tweet should start “Interesting comment from @charlesarthur…” and the last “@charlesarthur @jeremyduns Sobering. Threatening to escalate…” – if this is no longer displaying properly please let me know: joelmgunter@gmail.com.
Image by internets_dairy on Flickr. Some rights reserved.
‘Is there a better way of doing this?’: Johann Hari responds to plagiarism accusations
Independent columnist and interviewer Johann Hari has come under fire over the past week for so-called copy and paste journalism.
First the DSG blog pointed out the remarkable similarities between Hari’s 2004 interview with Tony Negri and Negri’s own 2003 book, Negri on Negri. Then Brian Whelan, an editor at Yahoo! Ireland, did a little more digging around and unearthed more similarities. Whelan took a close look at Hari’s interview with Gideon Levy, published in the Independent last year, and found that chunks of it had been lifted from both Levy’s own writing and interviews he gave to other journalists.
It’s important to note the copied passages are not cited as quotes from their original source, which would be perfectly acceptable, but rather passed off as having been said in Hari’s own interview, complete with such dramatic additions as: “With a shake of the head, he says…” and “After saying this, he falls silent, and we stare at each other for a while. Then he says, in a quieter voice…”
What is perhaps more surprising than the evidence that the Independent’s star interviewer has been lifting quotes from elsewhere to neaten up his work, is a blog post from Hari last night defending the practice.
The post, titled “interview etiquette”, explains that he occasionally replaces quotes from an interview with quotes from elsewhere in which the subject has better expressed the same idea.
So occasionally, at the point in the interview where the subject has expressed an idea, I’ve quoted the idea as they expressed it in writing, rather than how they expressed it in speech. It’s a way of making sure the reader understands the point that (say) Gideon Levy wants to make as clearly as possible, while retaining the directness of the interview. Since my interviews are intellectual portraits that I hope explain how a person thinks, it seemed the most thorough way of doing it.
Hari claims to be bemused that a blogger considers this plagiarism, and says that he has called round “a few other interviewers for British newspapers” who told him that they do the same thing from time to time.
But Hari’s defence that he would expect somebody interviewing him about Martin Amis to replace something like: “Um, I think, you know, he got the figures for, uh, how many Muslims there are in Europe upside down” with something he’d written “more cogently about him a month before” is disingenuous. No journalist is expected to quote so verbatim as to include ums, uhs, and you knows. Features would be a complete mess. But they should, without doubt, be expected to not pass off other material as having been said in their interview.
Hari’s simplistic take on the practice is also disingenuous, and I suspect he knows it. There are all sorts of problems associated with this kind of fudging, not least the question of whether his subjects can be confident of having any control over an interview, or whether his editors and readers will be able to trust what they get given. And once misrepresenting what was said a little bit, where do you stop?
It should be acknowledged that all journalists pick and choose quotes from an interview as they see fit, eschewing thousands of words for a few quotes sometimes, and this can carry with it its own forms of misrepresentation. There is a fine, but important line, however, between that and falsifying what was said in an interview.
Hari finishes his post by saying that he is “open to suggestions from anyone who thinks there’s a better way of doing this”.
I have one: ask the right questions, get the answers you are looking for if possible, or if not work with what you’ve got. If your subject has expressed an idea more cogently elsewhere, point your readers in that direction and let them decide for themselves. If they um and ar, cut out the umms and arrs. No one is going to write an accusatory blog post about you doing that.
Hari’s actions aren’t a far cry from the recent case of Brian Walski, who was fired from his job as a staff photographer on the LA Times for filing a composite image. There were few objections to Walski’s sacking, and none from the man himself who issued a contrite apology. Alterations and composites are unacceptable in professional photojournalism, why should it be any different with the written word?
Image by internets_dairy on Flickr. Some rights reserved.
BBC CoJo: New opposition newspaper launched in Libya
A post on the BBC College of Journalism site reports on a new opposition newspaper in Libya.
Middle East media analyst at BBC Monitoring Muhammad Shukri says Mayadin, a pro-opposition newspaper distributed in Benghazi but printed in Cairo is just one of dozens of new media outlets that have appeared inside and outside Libya since February.
Mayadin is temporarily published on a weekly basis in a tabloid format, with plans to publish daily in the future. “This is the first newspaper, in the full sense of the word, to be published in the wake of the 17 February revolution,” the London-based title, Al-Sharq al-Awsat quoted Ahmad al-Fayturi, the editor-in-chief, of the new newspaper as saying.
Al-Fayturi said the newspaper’s primary concern is to “document the 17 February revolution in Libya at all political, economic, social, cultural and legal levels”.
He explained that the name Mayadin, which means ‘squares’ in English, “sums up the spring of Arab revolutions”, as all of the revolutions broke out from public squares in Arab cities and capitals.
The post goes on to explain the challenges of printing in one country and distributing in another.
Al-Fayturi said: “We knew in advance that we are running a risk surrounded with problems and hardships. But perhaps what mitigates this situation is the fact that we have enthusiastic Egyptian friends who help us with the work.”
The full BBC CoJo post is at this link.
Related content:
AFT and Getty journalists released in Libya
Press Association photographer shot during Belfast riots
Living in limbo: Almost 70 journalists exciled in past year says CPJ
Reporters Without Borders: Life sentence for Bahraini blogger
A Bahraini blogger has been handed a life sentence, another has received 15 years in prison, according to Reporters Without Borders.
The two were among 21 activists to be accused of belonging to terrorist organisations and trying to overthrow the government, the pressure group says on its site.
Blogger Abduljalil Al-Singace was handed a life sentence; Ali Abdulemam, who was tried in absentia, was given 15 years, Global Voices, an international bloggers network Abdulemam contributes to, also reports on the sentencing.
“The only crime committed by Abdulemam and Al-Singace was freely expressing opinions contrary to those of the government,” Reporters Without Borders said in its post. “These sentences, handed down at the end of trial that flouted defence rights, are typical of the intransigence that the authorities have been showing towards those identified as government opponents, who have borne the full brunt of their repression. The international community must call the government to account on its strategy of stifling all dissent.”
Singace was rearrested on 16 March after being held from September to February. He was previously arrested in 2009 for allegedly trying to destabilise the government because of articles posted on his blog.
According to Reporters Without Borders, Abdulemam is regarded as one of Bahrain’s internet pioneers and is an active member of Bahrain Online, a pro-democracy forum that gets more than 100,000 visitors a day despite being blocked within Bahrain. He was also detained from September to February but avoided being rearrested and has been in hiding for several months.
Related content:
Press Association photographer shot during Belfast riots
Guardian journalist beaten in Pakistan
Living in Limbo: Almost 70 journalists exiled in past year says CPJ
BBC to hold vigil for journalist detained in Tajikistan
The BBC is to hold a vigil today for detained journalist Urunboy Usmonov.
Usmonov, who has worked for the BBC Central Asian Service for the past decade, is understood to have been detained by security staff in the country last Tuesday.
The vigil will take place at 1pm on the steps of the World Service building, Bush House.
Reports from the Tajikistan news agency Press.tj on 18 June, accused the BBC correspondent of being a member of banned Islamist group Hizbut-Tahrir.
According to the BBC, Usmonov was brought to his home by security agents and appeared to have been beaten up. The agents then searched his home and took him away.
The BBC has repeatedly called for Usmonov’s release, claiming that the accusations against him “represent a breach of legal practice and a serious violation of presumption of innocence”.
Related content:
Foreign Office pledges extra funding for BBC World Service
Bastiat Prize fund increases to £43,000
Panorama documentary found in serious breach of accuracy and fairness rules
BBC and CPJ: Mexican journalist, wife and son shot dead
It was widely reported late yesterday that Mexican journalist Miguel Angel Lopez Velasco had been shot dead along with his wife and son after his house was entered by gunmen.
BBC News this morning claimed authorities had not yet determined a motive for the murders which they called a “cowardly” attack.
Mr Lopez Velasco, 55, wrote for the daily newspaper Notiver, where he was also an editor. His columns focussed on crime, drug trafficking and political corruption. In its coverage, Notiver called for a swift and transparent investigation to find those guilty of the three killings.
The Committee to Protect Journalists’ senior program coordinator for the Americas Carlos Lauría said the organisation was “shocked” by the killings and called on the authorities to fully investigate and effectively prosecute those responsible.
The Mexican government must put an end to this endless wave of violence that is eroding the democratic system.
A CPJ report on the killings added that drug-related violence has made Mexico one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the press, with 13 Mexican journalists, including López, killed since the beginning of 2010. According to CPJ’s research at least three of those were known to be in direct reprisal for their work.
Related content:
Living in Limbo: Almost 70 journalists exiled in past year says CPJ
Iraq tops impunity index for fourth time over unsolved journalist killings
Mexican news outlets sign crime coverage pact
You lose your freedom whether you’re a journalist or not – reporting Mexico’s drug wars
Guardian journalist beaten in Pakistan
A journalist working for the Guardian in Pakistan has been badly beaten by men in police uniforms, according to the newspaper.
According to the report, Waqar Kiani, a 32-year-old local journalist, was stopped while driving through Islamabad and beaten with wooden batons and a whip.
The alleged attack follows an account, written by Kiani and published five days before the attack, of torture and abduction by suspected Pakistani intelligence agencies.
The attackers then reportedly said: “You want to be a hero? We’ll make you a hero”, and: “We’re going to make an example of you.”
Kiana told the Guardian: “I don’t feel I did anything wrong. Journalists can’t be silent forever in Pakistan,” he said. “If we don’t bring up the facts, then it’s no longer journalism – we become spokesmen of the government.”
This is the second time that Kiani has been targeted, according to the Guardian, which reported last week that he was abducted from central Islamabad in July 2008 and taken to a safe house where interrogators beat him viciously and burned him with cigarettes.
Pakistan was rated by the CPJ as the deadliest county for journalists in 2010, with eight confirmed killings. The country continues to be dangerous: Reporters Without Borders said in March this year that 13 journalists had been killed in the previous 13 months.
Earlier this month, Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, who was investigating links between the military and al Quaeda before his death, disappeared. He was found dead two days later.
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency has been widely accused of being behind the death but has fiercely denied any involvement. Note: we also recommend trying the VAT calculator from our developer Antony Kidless. This handy online tool will help you calculate tax in one click.
Two young Pakistani journalists, Shafiullah Khan and Abid Naveed, died after a double bombing in Peshawar on 11 June.
Related:
Journalists deaths in Pakistan prompt calls for urgent safety measures
Threatened by war and abandoned by employers, Pakistan’s journalists won’t back down
Pakistan’s first woman photojournalist: inspired by the husband she lost to war