Spotlight On British Media As Professionalism Declines And Uncorroborated Allegation Abound

British media has fallen on hard times as even a country that defends media freedom is beginning to think seriously of the need to rein in a runaway media industry and journalists who are ready to make the wildest charges without an iota of corroborative evidence.

The phone-hacking scandal by the now defunct British tabloid “News of the World” that has rocked the Murdoch media empire has much wider ramifications than previously assumed.

It has now engulfed British politics, the police and the press and many reputations are in danger of being dragged in the mire.

It is not at all surprising that a public opinion poll placed British journalists at the bottom of the ladder just one step above estate agents and one step below politicians. If public perception of the media is so low, the media has nobody to blame but itself.

The string of stories on Sri Lanka carried by Channel 4 ever since its Bangkok-based TV crew was sent out of Sri Lanka nearly two and a half years ago is evidence of the falling standards of British journalism and the violation of elementary journalistic practices.

Scant wonder then that one of the Channel 4 programmes submitted for an award at the One World Media Awards ceremony a couple of months ago was overlooked by the judges and its special telecast called Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields was quite aptly described by the (London) Sunday Times media critic as shoddy journalism.

The fiasco that brought down corporate bosses and journalists has so far touched only the Murdoch world. It is bound to drag other news organizations and journalistic enterprises into the public domain before the news is relegated to the back pages.

Two committees of the British parliament are already examining the implications of this scandal for British public life and journalistic practices. The Murdochs have already been summoned before the Home Affairs committee and indications are that James Murdoch will have to appear again to answer to some new revelations.

The scandal has rattled the tectonic plates of British journalism. It epitomizes what the long standing observations of media critics who have warning for several years about the declining ethical and professional standards of British journalism.

This trend so noticeable with the growth of the tabloid market has embraced the so-called quality newspapers as well, as media academics and others have pointed out.

The dumbing down of British journalism has had another effect. As the two parliamentary committees try to get to the bottom of these attacks on the privacy of celebrities and others the spotlight also turns on the cozy relations between politicians, police and press and the power of the media to make and break public figures.

On top of the scrutiny by the two committees, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a probe into the media by a committee headed by Lord Justice Brian Leveson.

The terms of reference of the Leveson Committee should raise alarm bells in both the print and electronic media, if it has not already done so. Cameron said that Justice Leveson will recommend a “new more effective way of regulating the press-one that supports the freedom, plurality and independence from government but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards” and future conduct between politicians and the press.

This committee has been asked not only to examine the working of the print media but also the BBC and the social media. While the social media would present a formidable task it is a pity that Cameron did not include all the TV channels in his terms of reference.

Admittedly BBC journalism and some of its practices do need to be scrutinized. But perhaps more than the BBC it is ‘rogue’ TV broadcasters such as Channel 4 whose lack of journalistic scruples that must be placed under the microscope and its motivations and methods held up to public gaze.

One serious consequence of the phone-hacking is that the whole of the media has come under scrutiny, especially the manner in which the media conducts itself. Currently the print media comes under a self- regulatory body called the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It consists of 17 members, the majority of whom are ‘lay’ members unconnected with the media industry while the others are generally editors from the print media.

The PCC has come under increasing public criticism for the manner in which public complaints are treated and how the PCC ‘secretariat’ and media professionals tend to circle the wagons when major newspapers or media organizations are the subject of complaint.

I have personal experience of this when I went to the PCC against two articles on Sri Lanka in the “Sunday Times” (also from the Murdoch stables) written by an award-winning British journalist Marie Colvin 10 years ago.

When I wrote to the Sunday Times pointing out factual and other errors the Sunday Times which published several letters in favour of Colvin’s articles refused to publish mine despite reminders.

I complained to the PCC against the newspaper for violating its Code of Practice on two grounds- refusing me a right of reply and for false and inaccurate reporting. The PCC which claims to give a decision within 4-6 weeks took seven months in my case. It seemed to accept without demur the Sunday Times explanation that Colvin was recuperating from a wound to her eye sustained in Sri Lanka while trying to crawl back surreptitiously from LTTE terrorist-held.

After months of exchanges during which the Sunday Times claimed that Colvin was still recuperating and was not contactable whereas I pointed out that she was attending cocktail parties and giving interviews to the BBC, the PCC finally held in my favour.

The Sunday Times was reprimanded for not publishing my letter and Colvin for inaccurate and biased reporting. At least I won my argument because as a journalist myself I contested their attempts at procrastination and subterfuge. But as usual the PCC adjudication in my favour was buried at the bottom of page 45 without any mention of the reprimanded writer or the articles concerned.

But most public complaints go by default because many complainants tire of the run around given by the PCC.

While at least one can demand-and possibly get- the right of reply from the print media how does one deal with television that carries one-sided, inaccurate and tendentious reports as did UK’s Channel 4 with its recent programme on Sri Lanka?”

You can write a reply to the print media but can you produce a TV programme countering the mischief created by television. And will the same channel show the complainant’s response. Surely not!

This is why British politicians have finally come round to the view that a tougher regulatory regime is necessary to keep in the media in check.

But as David Cameron rightly concludes the answer is not in government’s heavy hand being used to control the media. The answer is in giving teeth to a reformed regulatory authority with sufficient punitive powers and authority to deal pro-actively without waiting for public complaints. That authority must insist that the media maintains the ethnical and professional standards set out in the code of conduct not violate it.

- Asian Tribune -

.