A Guardian writer was recently seeking an interview with a well-known author
via email. In his first email the journalist identified himself and explained
why he wanted to talk to her. Although she was reluctant at first, there was an
email exchange between her and the journalist. Towards the end of the third
email the author wrote: "These emails, btw, are confidential… just so's you
know."
Therein lies a dilemma. At what stage is it reasonable to tell a journalist
to whom you have been speaking or emailing that it's all confidential and not
for use? What should the journalist do?
In this case the pair came to an amicable agreement about what could and
could not be used. But if they hadn't, would it have been reasonable for the
journalist to use any or all of the material obtained from the email exchange?
What to do in the event of such requests is not an issue covered in the
Guardian's
editorial guidelines, and it is not directly addressed in the
Press Complaints Commission's
editors' code of
practice.
A recent adjudication by the PCC involved a farmer's wife who complained
after she was quoted in the Dorking Advertiser. A reporter called her home to
discuss the theft of industrial hemp in the area. He identified himself and she
talked to him, but told him to call back and speak to her husband. The reporter
said she did not say she wished to be neither quoted nor named. When her quotes
appeared she complained to the PCC on the grounds of accuracy (clause 1) and
invasion of privacy (clause 3). The PCC found that there had been no breach of
the code: "In terms of the complainant being unaware that the journalist would
quote her, the commission made clear that it has previously issued guidance in
this area which states that people should be aware that if they speak to a
journalist and do not categorically state that the conversation is 'off the
record', it may well be regarded as 'on the record'.
"In this instance, the reporter had not informed the complainant that he
intended to quote her but, equally, the complainant – while making clear that
another individual may be better placed to comment – had not stated that she had
no wish to be quoted."
Sam Blackledge, the reporter,
writing
on the Guardian's website, expressed the wider issue: "The case raises an
interesting point about who holds the power in exchanges between journalists and
sources. If a reporter calls you and tells you he is working on a story about a
particular issue, should he be required to ask your consent before publishing
your comments? Or is the burden on the subject to make it clear that the
conversation is 'off the record'."
In the exchange between
the Guardian journalist
and the author, there was a clear request from the interviewee part way through
the process. But it can be that a reporter gets a call hours – or even a day or
so – after an interview asking for some or all of the unpublished interview to
be scrapped.
(Of course this can also happen after an article is published, perhaps years
after – when it is sometimes known as "source remorse". The Guardian's deletions
policy is robust in this area: "So-called 'source remorse' is not a sufficient
reason to remove. Just because someone has thought better of something he or she
said in full awareness of publication is not enough. What they said at the time
is part of the story of events and thus an important part of the record.")
If the interview has been gained in a legitimate fashion, clearly there is no
regulatory problem with publishing. In the past many journalists would have felt
entirely justified to run a story based on such material with little further
thought short of evidence that the use of such quotes may endanger life and
limb.
In the wake of the Leveson inquiry into press
ethics, readers may be looking
for an entirely new approach to the power balance between journalists and the
public, and the former will have to be well prepared for that
debate.
Source: guardian.co.uk,
No comments:
Post a Comment
The views expressed in this section are the authors' own. It does not represent The North Bank Evening Standard (TNBES)'s editorial policy. Also, TNBES is not responsible for content on external links.