Month: September 2014

Thinking of doing your student project online? Here are 5 mistakes to avoid

Excellent post by Paul Bradshaw which should be read by ALL online journalists.

Online Journalism Blog

Journalism courses often expect students to spend a large part of their final year or semester producing an independent project. Here, for those about to embark on such a project online, or putting together a proposal for one, I list some common pitfalls to watch out for…

View original post 1,399 more words


First test for IPSO as Tories cry entrapment over Sunday Mirror Tory sex sting

The new newspaper regulator,  IPSO, is facing its first test after the Sunday Mirror’s sting on a Tory MP was attacked as a “fishing expedition”.

Brooks Newman resigned his post as civil society minister after being caught sending compromising pictures of himself in paisley pyjamas to someone he thought was a twenty-something Tory PR girl called Sophie. In fact, “Sophie” was a male reporter, using a picture of a Swedish model, who had emailed a number of MPs and it was Newmark who took the bait.  (more…)

BBC reporter caught red-handed manipulating video in Scottish indy campaign

Pride's Purge

(not satire – it’s the BBC!)

Even a hardened old cynic like me is a little bit shocked by this.

The BBC’s Political Editor Nick Robinson edited out an answer by Alex Salmond and told viewers the Scottish First Minister didn’t answer his question:

But Mr Salmond did answer the question. Compare Robinson’s version with this unedited footage of what really happened:

There was a time when a clear case of factual manipulation by a BBC reporter like this would have been a sacking matter at the corporation.

No longer it seems.


Please fee free to comment. And share. Thanks:

View original post

16 reasons why this research will change how you look at news consumption

Online Journalism Blog

one man reads a newspaper; another reads his phoneImage by Zilverbat

Most research on news consumption annoys me. Most research on news consumption – like Pew’s State of the News Media – relies on surveys of people self-reporting how they consume news. But surveys can only answer the questions that they ask. And as any journalist with a decent bullshit detector should know: the problem is people misremember, people forget, and people lie.

The most interesting news consumption research uses ethnography: this involves watching people and measuring what they actually do – not what they say they do. To this end AP’s 2008 report A New Model for News is still one of the most insightful pieces of research into news consumption you’ll ever read – because it picks out details like the role that email and desktop widgets play, or the reasons why people check the news in the first place (they’re bored at work, for example).

Now six years on two Dutch…

View original post 1,732 more words

As the Met police threaten one of the fundamental freedoms of the press do we need to go back to the old school to protect confidential sources?

There was a time – when the internet was just a bunch of computers in a hippy paradise in the US – that when a decent copper or a conscientious public official thought the public should know about something dodgy going on, they would stick a document in brown envelope and send it to a trusted journalist.

Or they would meet in the bowels of a multi-storey carpark or exchange coded messages via public phones. Much sexier and more romantic than pressing the send button.

When my good friend and former crime reporter, Steve Panter, exposed the fact that Greater Manchester Police had identified a prime suspect for the 1996 IRA bombing in Manchester but had not attempted to arrest him, the information came via such a brown envelope.

Satisfied the information was genuine, Steve, backed by his paper, the Manchester Evening News published the story in 1999, naming the suspect and asking why there had been no arrest.

Greater Manchester Police responded by investigating with great vigour to determine who had leaked Steve the information.  They arrested a senior officer – Det Ch Insp Gordon Mutch who was charged with misconduct in a public office. Steve was a witness in the trial and maintained Mutch was not the source. When facing a charge of contempt of court  and asked to reveal the source he steadfastly defended one of the basic principles of journalism. It was a principle for which Steve was willing to go to prison and following a national campaign all charges against him were dropped.

The police went to great lengths to extract information from Steve, obtaining a court order to examine his telephone calls and credit card transactions. But the only evidence GMP could produce was an encounter in a hotel in Skipton, arranged to discuss a potential book about the Moors Murders. Mutch was cleared and the identity of Steve’s real source remained safe.

The protection of sources  principle isn’t there to turn journalists into heroes or boost their egos. There is a fundamental public interest in journalists being able to protect sources – recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights – so that whistblowers can feel safe in exposing wrong-doing. Without these protections, public interest stories would dry up and there would be even more cover-ups.

Now, these fundamental principles are under threat, as police wield their powers like a big stick to sieze information and spy on journalists using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Had the Manchester bombing story appeared a decade later the outcome may have been very different. Under RIPA police don’t need to go to court to seize information from telecoms providers and smartphone data can reveal information which present challenges for journalists trying to protect the identity of sources.

The latest example of this is the “plebgate” affair in which a Sun journalist had his mobile phone records seized by the Metropolitan Police, without his knowledge, to out police officers who had leaked information about the exchange between police and government minister, Andrew Mitchell at the gates of Downing Street. No legal action was taken against the officers identified but as far as safeguarding whistleblowers is concerned, the damage has been done.

Apparently, the police have acted within their powers and have been condemned by the National Union of Journalists, Index on Censorship, Liberty and the Society of Editors.

Anyone who cares about media freedom should be campaigning to curb what is clearly an abuse of power. Meanwhile. maybe journalists should be thinking again about how to ensure sources remain confidential to maintain confidence in public interest journalism so whistleblowers can feel safe in approaching journalists with important stories to tell.

Going back to the old school, means an aversion to email, the internet, smartphones and computers. Once initial contact is made by the whistleblower, by phone email or text, it is probably safest for subsequent contact to be made via more archaic media ie. a meet-up, public telephone or using that good old brown envelope. There are also steps that can be taken to minimise the risk of detection in electronic communication, outlined recently in Guardian reporter James Ball in a presentation to Hacks/Hackers London.

Of course, no method of communication can be 100 per cent safe, but journalists need to be much more mindful today of the dangers to their sources if they are to defend that central principle of public interest journalism. Suffice to say Steve Panter’s source remains a secret.