The regard I have always had for English journalism is due not only to the well-reasoned commentary and opinion pieces. Whenever I peruse an English newspaper or periodical, I am mindful also of the heritage of Whig and Tory and the rival printing presses of the late seventeenth century. I read with the knowledge that England is and always has been home to freedom of the press and the capacity to engage in political debate without risk of civil disturbance.
Recently, however, whilst in a coffee house near Whitehall, I overhead a troubling discussion about the nature of English journalism. Lowering my newspaper, I saw that it was coming from a table of eight and I recognised all of the faces. Some were current MP’s and others were well-known academics. I will relate what I heard but, given it was a private conversation, I cannot in good conscience name the speakers.
‘There is a new laziness in English journalism’, said one MP, setting down her periodical. A silence followed before others, without asking for particulars, agreed that English journalism was beginning to exhibit a tendency towards the superficial. The demands of the digital age, they conceded, were producing a faster journalism at the expense of the thoughtfulness and gravitas that have always characterised the English Fourth Estate. ‘Our journalism has always been synonymous with old-fashioned British grouchiness’, said one historian. ‘These days it is verging on the jingoistic’, said another. ‘I sometimes feel like I’m reading Time magazine’.
But the discussion took a turn after the first speaker clarified that her specific concern was the overuse of anonymous sources. ‘What do you mean? Can you give an example?’, asked one academic. She proceeded to detail what she saw as the various surreptitious means by which journalists present a quote or other information as authentic when in fact it is fabricated, in all cases doing so by omitting, overlooking or bypassing the name of the source. Others at the table, surprised that the integrity of their journalist friends was being questioned, referred to the Code of Ethics for journalists which permits them to present information in this way if the source has requested anonymity, to which the original speaker countered that appearances of anonymous sources were now outnumbering the occasions when a source was named and that some journalists were clearly using that Code of Ethics as a tool of obfuscation. ‘It is indeed an exasperating habit they have fallen into,’ said one MP. ‘They are shameless. One supposed quote after another is given without attribution,’ remarked another. ‘I find myself reading articles only with any eye for how often they do it,’ commented a third with a roll of the eyes.
I was tempted to approach the table to add my voice to the defence of the journalists but the discussion continued apace. The original speaker insisted that whilst the profession of journalism is committed to the pursuit of truth, certain journalists today are presenting fiction as fact. Nor was the practice limited to England, she said, citing a recent survey which evidenced that it was now nascent in Australia as well. According to one Professor of Ancient History at the table, there is no good reason for Parliamentarians to seek anonymity anyway. Throughout the Roman Empire every aspect of a politician’s life was to be public, even his home address, and any politician who sought to obscure his identity was seen as deviant. Others at the table thought it inappropriate to view the matter through an historical prism. One Emeritus Professor of Augustan Satire referenced the Swiftian principle that the printed text is to remain detached from the author and that it would therefore be beneath the MP’s to append their name to their work. Similarly, one Dean of Postmodern Thought considered it wise for the MP’s to withhold their names because all text is inherently layered in assumption and defies any one signified truth.
The original speaker, however, returned to what she said was the question at hand; namely, do some of today’s journalists contrive the anonymous quotes and information they present? The consensus around the table was that, given the Code of Ethics, this could not be answered. ‘It is a question that requires acceptance as one of life’s unknowables’, said one Doctor of Far Eastern Philosophy. As far as the original speaker was concerned, though, the fact that nine out of ten of her Parliamentary colleagues were supposedly requesting anonymity told her everything she needed to know. ‘The journalists are having a lend of their readers’, she said. ‘They wrap themselves in that Code of Ethics like a sheep’s clothing’, said another MP.
At day’s end whilst walking to my hotel, I pondered what I had just witnessed. The profession of journalism, which espouses opposing views for the public to evaluate, had itself become a subject of spirited debate. This could happen only in England, I thought, the motherland of free enquiry in the modern world. As for the question that the MP’s and academics had debated, I was pleased to find it resolved in the journalists’ favour a few days later. One of the eight at the table must have spoken to the press, for I came across an article in a leading London newspaper which detailed the discussion that had taken place in the coffee house. The opening paragraph stated that the debate had concerned ‘false claims that journalists are misusing the Code of Ethics by fabricating sources’.
Craig Pett, Independent journalist 