X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Long life

Long life

24 November 2012

9:00 AM

24 November 2012

9:00 AM

The Daily Mail last week risked alienating its millions of women readers (whom I assume from its normal priorities to be interested only in health, beauty and plastic surgery) by running pages of indigestible stuff about a conspiracy to curb the freedoms of the British press. It was perhaps a selfless initiative in the public interest, disclosing things that the Mail felt its readers ought to know even if they probably didn’t give a fig about them.

The burden of its message was that a network of ‘elitist liberals’ from the Blair era had been exerting undue influence on the Leveson inquiry to get it to recommend statutory regulation of the British press. It identified its chief villain as Sir David Bell, a Leveson ‘assessor’, a former chairman of the Financial Times and a man with a stake in a number of strange organisations united by a common urge to impose some sort of ethical discipline on the British press.

They have names like Common Purpose, which trains high-flying people in ‘networking’ and ‘leadership’; the Media Standards Trust, ‘which aims to foster high standards in news media on behalf of the public’; Hacked Off, a group of celebrities begging for protection from the glare of the tabloids; and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which seeks to educate the media and the public in ‘the value of honest reporting’. Well, you can’t be on as many trusts and committees as Sir David Bell without sometimes having a tangential involvement with cock-ups of one kind or another. And we shouldn’t hold it against him that the Millennium Bridge across the Thames, of which he was chairman, should have wobbled; or that the Orwell Prize for political journalism, of which he was also chairman, should have been awarded in 2008 to Johann Hari of the Independent who turned out to be dishonest and a plagiarist.

[Alt-Text]


But what of the BIJ of which Sir David is a trustee? This is the outfit that is supposed to show us all how journalism should be done, and to set an example of excellence and diligence to the shoddy and corrupt papers of Fleet Street. In its self-regarding evidence to the Leveson inquiry, it said it aimed to be ‘a masterclass, a gold standard for evidence-based journalism’, to be ‘a hands-on training ground for journalism students’, and to produce reporting that would be ‘as close to incontrovertible as possible’. Well, this is the organisation that ‘exposed’ Lord McAlpine as a paedophile and in doing so brought disgrace upon one of the BBC’s most admired news programmes, Newsnight, and provoked a blizzard of libel actions against all and sundry. It pleaded at Leveson for charitable status and legal protection to enable it to afford its noble work, but then went on to show a disregard for routine checking procedures that would shame even the lowliest tabloid hack.

The first lesson to emerge from the McAlpine affair is that strict regulation of the press and commitment to the highest standards of journalism are no protection against catastrophes of this kind. The reliance on one source, Steve Messham, to identify Lord McAlpine as his abuser, and then not even to show Messham a photograph of the accused man, is quite incredible. You don’t have to go to journalism school, or to aspire to ‘a gold standard for evidence-based journalism’, to realise that it is grotesquely irresponsible to make this vile accusation against anyone on such a flimsy basis. You don’t even have to be a journalist. To be a normal human being would be enough. Yet the BIJ and Newsnight itself, with its state regulation and elaborate bureaucratic systems of upward reference, failed the most elementary test of good journalism.

And I think back to the case of Jayson Blair, a young black reporter on the New York Times who in 2003 was found to have routinely lied and plagiarised in his news stories, and I marvel at how he got away with it on a newspaper obsessed with the highest journalistic standards, and with an editorial staff of 1,200 there to enforce them. The Times admitted no fault by anyone but the pushy, scheming young reporter who had let everyone down and dishonoured the paper. It was implicit in its defence that deliberate, systematic deceit by a reporter is almost impossible to detect. But if it had happened on the Sun or News of the World, I bet it would have been detected. The mere fact that for six months Blair submitted no expenses claims, although pretending to file reports from 20 American cities during that time, would have been quite enough to arouse the deepest suspicions in Fleet Street.

When I was young, journalism schools barely existed, and I never knew anyone who went to one. But we were nevertheless terrified of getting things wrong because our news editors would get so angry with us if we did. There was nothing pious or sanctimonious about Fleet Street, but it was simply accepted there that whatever stuff it printed, however trivial or tasteless or offensive, had at least to be true. Unless journalists themselves believe this, and work with editors who insist upon it, I don’t see what anyone can do.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close