Media Scrutiny: Of the Media, by the Media
Roy Greenslade is a shining example of how better media scrutiny of the media could be an effective way of moderating press misbehaviour. His blog is many times more influential than most Press Complaints Commission adjudications. He isn't scared. He knows right from wrong. He is our own Judge Dredd.
If there is one person Lord Leveson should turn to for inside knowledge of tabloid antics, it is Roy. Or perhaps Roy could become the Press Ombudsman that Paul Dacre has suggested. In a way he's that already, with his mediaguardian blog assessing the evidence, reaching clear judgements and dishing out the public shame - see his this recent item 'Call that an apology! Mail behaving badly to actor Neil Morrissey' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/oct/27/dailymail-medialaw
He doesn't compromise. If only the PCC had shown such commonsense and guts. He's doing the proactive job the PCC is only just starting to talk about. Constant, searching self-examination is as important as actual self-regulation. Although he is a one-man band, Roy should be adopted by Lord Leveson not just as an assessor but as a model for the rebuilding of our broken edifice.
Roy Greenslade is the expert the Leveson Inquiry needs. His involvement would change it's tone, make it feel more down-to-earth and less theoretical. His presence up there with the judge would inspire greater confidence in its processes and eventual findings. In his current roles - professor and forthright blogger - he is a bridge between two worlds.In a gentlemenranters rant, he argues that our views of past reporting sins have been wildly exaggerated. In essence, he accuses us of myth-making.
Older, and departed, journalists "are being slagged off by their younger counterparts" at the Leveson inquiry. He writes:
"The current generation is sacrificing the reputation of their predecessors in order to rescue their own...
We were not angels, just as today's reporters are not angels, but we were probably no worse and – yes, I'll say it – perhaps better."
Where's the proof that family photos were stolen from the home of the bereaved, that harassment and subterfuge were common, and that people's privacy was regular invaded?
Well, I concede that I've no personal knowledge of picture theft though I recall hearing about it many times in the past. It isn't something the culprits are likely to admit nowadays.
As for the other abuses, I point to the memoirs of Harry Procter, Hugh Cudlipp, Cyril Kersh, Duncan Webb, Gerry Brown and many more - most especially including the more recent book by Sharon Marshall (Tabloid Girl) - plus a variety of contributors to the esteemed gentlemenranters site itself.
These contain anecdotes in which there is no attempt to conceal unethical practices. There may be some boasting. But the picture that emerges is one of cavalier behaviour by reporters in the pursuit of stories.
John seems to believe that there is a Greenslade-Dacre-Satchwell "party line" to "smear our history" as part of a strategy to bolster self-regulation.
For my part at least, I can say that isn't so. I was simply keen to place the current situation in context. Reporting, particularly in newspapers that rely on human interest stories for the majority of their content, has always had its dodgy side.
The editors' code of practice, in existence since 1991, did undoubtedly improve matters in certain areas. But it did not prevent the rise, only in certain papers, of even darker arts - routine subterfuge, covert filming, gross intrusions of privacy, the use of agents provocateur and, of course, phone hacking.
That said, there is much wisdom in John's piece, which deserves to be read in full. And given his long pedigree in the business (including a lengthy spell at the Daily Mail), his unilateral decision to report on the Leveson inquiry is welcome. See his website, johndalejournalist.co.uk, which is dedicated to the inquiry.
Meanwhile, perhaps there are people willing to prove John wrong by going on the record about ancient misbehaviour, including the theft of pictures.'
End of Roy's article.
John Dale comments: You can see responses to Roy's article, and to a similar Press Gazette article, on this website under 'Hacks Fight Slurs'. At the time of writing, most say photo theft is a Fleet Street myth. Of the minority who say it went on, none saw it actually happen.
Roy summonses witnesses largely from the distant past to help his cause. To bolster the PCC, formed less than 20 years ago, surely they need to come from a period not long before that? I mean, who's next - W. T. Stead?
Anyway, let me deal with them one by one.
Harry Procter turned into a drunk and was finished in the early sixties;
Hugh Cudlipp's active career was over by the early 70s (although the old Mirror did set ethical standards higher than those practised by some of today's tabloids);
Cyril Kersh - I assume Roy's referring to the old People days and editor Sam Campbell's view that 'truth was dispensible'. Campbell died in 1966;
Gerry Brown and Sharon Marshall - well, any misdemeanours they describe are probably after the PCC's formation, so actually support my case that it is not the remarkable success they are painting it to be.
I still think Roy is the expert the Leveson Inquiry needs. As a one-man band, supported by The Guardian, he has shown the effectiveness of media scrutiny of the media. His involvement would change Leveson's tone and give greater confidence in its processes and findings. And maybe his blog will prove to be just a rehearsal for the day he becomes Press Ombudsman.
johnkdale@msn.com Frank, Fearless, Frequently Flummoxed twitter: @JohnDale8
