Anyone who’s worked in a newsroom understands the uncomfortable situations journalists sometimes face when pursuing a story.
A very good example of this – which I experienced – is the ‘death knock’, where reporters are sent to interview a family struck by tragedy.
Often, the best stories result from such endeavors. And they have shifted many millions of copies of newspapers over the years. But they can also be painful for all concerned.
I visited the family of Michael Hodder, who was the train driver involved in the Paddington train crash in October 1999, whilst working on a local paper in his home town of Reading.
Six months into the job, I got nowhere that day; Sky and the The Sun were already there. Reporters met a furious and very upset man who chased them down the street.
We had been tipped off about Hodder’s Reading connection by someone who worked in the office who knew his family. It often happens that way. But I also remember the police bemusemet at how quickly a group of tabloid reporters had turned up following the same lead. Who had given it to them?
Lacking empathy, decency and respect
Not all experiences are like this. Some people let you into their house, speak openly and at length. They say they feel later they have benefited from speaking to someone, anyone, who’s prepared to listen and using the media to tell their story.
While some people resent being asked for a few words in their darkest hour, it would be wrong to call this sort of approach an ‘intrusion’ in its truest sense. Journalists are quite entitled to ask to speak to someone, so long as they are up-front about who they are and what they want. And, if they are asked to leave, they should respect that and go away.
It’s clear to me since I left newspapers that, as far as the national media are concerned, this isn’t how it works. Often, the tactics used border on harassment. Journalists pressure people into giving interviews or trick them into providing information for a ‘tribute piece’.
Now, it looks like had their personal details obtained illegally and their phones hacked. Many rightly see as the ultimate insult.
I’ve been moved to blog about this today after hearing the line repeated this week that the current stock of tabloid journalists are ‘clean’ and carrying the can for their former colleagues’ sins.
Even if that were true, it is only part of the story. It doesn’t begin to touch on the way the tabloids routinely trample on the lives of ordinary folk who have only the widely derided Press Complaints Commission to defend them. There are no expensive lawyers or PR advisors for the likes of the Wells and Chapman families.
Look at what happened to Christopher Jefferies last Christmas after his arrest in connection with Jo Yeates’ murder. Jefferies, remember, was never charged. But tabloids shredded his character with a stream of lurid headlines which only just stopped short of saying outright that he was guilty of murder.
He’s now forgotten as the story moved on and Yeates’ killer caught and convicted. But there are many more people like Jefferies who are chewed up and spat out in the media’s quest for a story. Contempt of Court rulings against some of the worst offenders may still come from this – but it’s been a long time coming and will be of little comfort to Jefferies.
Clean up the tabloids
It’s worth sharing a story that’s appeared on the Shropshire Star website today. Local PR consultant Jools Payne writes about the tabloids’ persistent and unwelcome intrusions into her young son’s grief after his girlfriend was killed by her father in a high-profile murder case.
It makes considered points about the role social media can play in fueling these stories (journalists used Facebook to glean publicly available details about her son’s girlfriend). It is also a vivid reminder of the fact that poor media conduct goes well beyond hacking mobile phones.
It’s about stalking in bushes after being asked to leave someone’s property. It’s about tricking personal details out of friends and employers. It’s about the corrupting impact such powerful institutions can have on public life. And, most upsetting for some, it’s about the way the media has connived to shaft the very same decent and ordinary people that they claim to fight for.
A ‘phone hacking inquiry’, as it’s now been described, won’t go far enough for people like Mr Jefferies or Mrs Payne. Any probe into the way the media operates should look at the importance and relevance of ethics, legal training, the truth and the public interest in journalistic practice. It needed to address the public’s powerlessness to stop organisations from intruding into (and in some cases ruining) their lives.
This should not mean that ‘death knocks’ or tough questions must stop. It’s how it’s done that matters, not that they are approached at all. Media must respect the privacy and dignity of those who have suffered. It’s quite clear that this hasn’t happended on too many occasions. And that’s about more than hacking people’s phones.