Ethics in Journalism: You always pay for what you break
There are generally only two occasions when journalists rise above the curtain of obscure anonymity into the full gaze of the public eye: when they bring down the President of the United States of America - and inspire the rest of the media to add the suffix “gate” to any subsequent political scandal for decades afterwards - or when they themselves are dragged into the limelight of a particular political scandal as a result of breaking, or being perceived to have broken, the ill-defined and murky journalist’s code of conduct.
Last, week, The Scotsman’s political correspondent Gerri Peev entered the latter category when she published off-the-record comments about Hilary Clinton made by a key political aide to US presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The resulting article forced the resignation of Samantha Power, a fearsomely bright advisor on foreign policy, Harvard University Professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, but also brought fierce condemnation to the Edinburgh doors of The Scotsman for, in the laughably hypocritical words of American polemicist Tucker Carlson, the “dramatically lower” standards of British journalism, compared to the US.
Mr Carlson does have a point when defending the sanctity of off-the-record comments; however, he is being very much disingenuous in giving the impression such a code is anything less than one which, in the words of one Washington Post correspondent, “depends on winks, nods and, ultimately, some level of trust between the participants.”
And herein lies the problem. With The Scotsman unlikely to ever again need access to Ms Power, there is no incentive to keep the journo-politico bond in tact. There is no sense of duty between the parties to honour the unspoken code as there are no repercussions incurred by breaking it. Ms Power should have known this, but her political naivety and sense of indignation got the better of her.
However, while The Scotsman was not necessarily wrong to publish the comments, it was not right to do so either.
The political reporting that matters, the reporting that earns the media the title of “The Fourth Estate,” the reporting that represents the fulfilment of a democratic duty, is only possible when information is leaked from the inside. Those doing the leaking face serious sanctions if exposed and must be able to rely on the integrity of the journalist to keep them safe.
In America, as Carlson’s words imply, the protection of a source—of which the trust in being able to make off-the-record comments is a key part—is sacrosanct.
During the Watergate investigations and right up until his death, the identity of “Deepthroat” was kept a secret by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, went to jail in 2005 to defend the identity of a source in the CIA.
In Britain, our journalists’ records are less admirable, demonstrable by events of the last five years alone. In 2003, Dr David Kelly, the government scientist, killed himself when it was about to be revealed he was Andrew Gilligan’s source in the “sexed up” WMD dossier scandal. This year, Derek Pasquill, a civil service whistleblower, faced trial after the New Statesman and The Observer failed to adequately protect his identity when revealing the UK’s involvement in extraordinary rendition flights. In this respect, Carlson’s point about journalism standards being lower is hard to dispute.
The breaking of the informant-journalist trust, be it in failing to protect a sources identity, or by printing a comment clearly identified as off-the-record, damages the willingness of future whistleblowers to take a stand against corruption at the top. It risks reducing journalism to the rewriting of pre-approved press releases.
Journalists in the UK are on a par with politicians in terms of public mistrust. The Scotsman has done our collective reputation no favours by breaking the confidence of Ms Power.
Comment on this article
Related articles
HMO Quotas: The right to decide »
10p Tax: Robin Hood-ism in reverse »
National identity: Our allegiance must be earned »
2 comments on Ethics in Journalism: You always pay for what you break
Martin Bright 5 months ago
What is this? An anonymous article criticising other people's journalism? Or is it a leader? Either way, it's most peculiar.
As the journalist who broke the rendition story thanks to the courage of the whistleblower Derek Pasquill, I'd like to know where your evidence comes from that the Observer and the New Statesman "failed to adequately protect his identity". This is a very serious charge and one that no other publication has made.
Who are you and where is your proof?
Ben Judge ( Administrator ) 5 months ago
Dear Mr Bright,
Firstly, may I say that we at The Journal are humbled to know that such an esteemed journalist as yourself has visited our student newspaper website. Your work has set a high standard to which young reporters such as ourselves aspire to reach.
To answer your question, this is a leader article in relation to the Scotsman's publishing of the off-the-record quotes from Samantha Power and is there to highlight the murky nature of what it means to be off-the-record and also of the potential damaged caused by publishing such comments. Like most other publications, our leaders are written anonymously.
The comment with regard to the Observer and New Statesman failing to protect Mr Pasquill's anonymity is not an accusation that you gave him up to the authorities. Rather that, as evidenced by the Government discovering his identity, something went wrong in making sure he was untraceable as the source.
For the basis upon which this statement is made, I need only refer you to an interview you yourself did with The Guardian on 6 August 2007. You were asked how you thought Mr Pasquill was caught and you said: "I'm pretty sure emails were traced. What I do know is that the Foreign Office is well aware of the relationship. My initial reaction would have been to say absolutely nothing at all. But obviously even in talking to you I'm confirming that that relationship existed."
Firstly, that email was used as a form of correspondence is arguably a failure to protect Mr Pasquill's identity, as email is easily traceable. However, that you then confirm the relationship existed - 2 months before Mr Pasquill was charged under the Official Secrets Act - is surely proof enough to warrant such a comment.
If you still feel this comment to be unfair, please do let me know, as obviously the research I have been able to do in light of your comment is inherently limited and there are doubtlessly caveats of which I am totally unaware, and I am more than prepared to be convinced that we are in the wrong and hence publish a retraction. However, given my current knowledge of the situation and as editor of The Journal, I am prepared to stand by the comment.
Yours,
Ben Judge
Editor