The Decline in Journalistic Standards and Its Relevance to the Anonymised Posting of Comments

 An article I published on LinkedIn.

Once upon a time journalism was a respected profession, its job to relay the events of the day, investigate wrongdoing and holding the powerful to account.  Being a journalist offered an individual some measure of respect.  A journalist was a crusader for truth and, in some respect, justice and their words held a kind of gravitas that no one else could lay claim to.  The powerful were afraid of the journalist because their integrity meant that any negative press coverage would destroy them but they also held them in awe because any positive coverage could bring popularity.  It’s not to say that there wasn’t bias in the Press but it was kept to a minimum, coverage was weighted towards truth.

In the last few decades, however, truth and justice are low on the priorities of the Press.  Bias has become the norm and has slowly been replaced by ideological propaganda.  The powerful in politics have become so entwined with the press barons that it is the Press that seems to control government policy, not directly, however, subtly and insidiously.

In order to cover the Press influence over government, the public are fed a constant stream of non-stories and complete inanity in which non-entities are raised to the level of celebrities, devaluing both the profession of journalism and the meaning of what it is to be a celebrity.

Press coverage has been dumbed down to the level of early years reading books in the tabloids and so infused with ideology in the broadsheet-type of newspaper that it is little more than a brain-washing tool to convert those who haven’t already succumbed to the predominantly Right-wing political view espoused by the media and to reinforce those beliefs in those already of an authoritarian bent.  Unfortunately, what little there was of independent or Left-wing media has dissipated to the level of almost non-existence or slowly moved to the political Right.  Thank Heavens for the new breed of Left-wing online media to give people a counter-narrative to the one pushed by the print and television media.

Local media outlets were slightly less affected by the degeneration in journalistic standards.  Their output, although sometimes biased, contained much more news content than a national newspaper.  The content may not have been the kind of hard-hitting journalism that would set the world to rights or worry too many people in power but local journalists did serve at least one of the old pillars of quality journalism – the truth.

Local newspapers made heroes of local residents for minor accomplishments but didn’t try to make them into celebrities and, although they allow local politicians of the ruling political party and local MPs access to a platform to push their ideological agenda, what news was covered in their pages was fairly untainted by political bias.  The local politicians were still, although in diluted form, held to account for their decisions and local celebrities were considered human beings who were only made to justify bad behaviour.  Members of the public were off-limits unless they were the subject of a news story – criminal, victim or hero.

Sadly, it seems that even local media is succumbing to the decline in journalistic standards.  Members of the public who are simply commenting on news stories have become fair game.  You don’t have to be a criminal, victim or hero any more to be targeted by an unscrupulous journalist and their ethically-challenged editor.

The new age of journalism has brought about the rise of the Left-wing online press who employ professional journalists of the political Left with their inherent bias and the local online newspapers (or news blogs, depending on your chosen terminology) who rely on a small team of professional journalists of whatever political persuasion the publisher happens to favour and amateur journalists, those enthusiastic writers who never had a chance to become ‘proper’ journalists but have some talent and like to uphold standards in their work and those people who happen to be friends with the publisher who lack standards but get published anyway to fill space.

I have become a victim of one of these amateur journalists, a gentleman named Peter Perrin, an elderly person who happens to be friends with the owner, editor and publisher, a gentleman named Michael Casey, of one of these online newspapers, Your Thurrock.

Perrin decided to use my full real name in one of his columns back in January 2019.  It was in reference to what he referred to as a “war” between myself and some other commenters in the comments section of the various articles published.  It was not a conflict I started because it initially began after I defended people with addiction issues from some nasty comments by another commenter and I was attacked by the other person so I defended myself.  The attacks by the other person, who posts anonymously under a screen name, kept on coming so I had to defend myself each time.

And that’s where my complaint lies.  Perrin referred to every person involved in the so-called “war” but was unable to identify any of the others as they all used anonymous screen names whereas I use my preferred name, Valen, together with my real name as my screen identity thus I am called “Valen (Myles) Cook”.  Perrin used my full name including my full real name when he could have just referred to me as “Valen” or not even used any names at all and just referred to ‘the individuals involved’.

You might say that I brought this on myself for using my real name but, at the time Perrin referred to me by my full name, another of the referenced commenters had also included his real name as part of his screen identity.  Perrin didn’t refer to that person by their real name although he had access to it.  It was an act that can only be considered as a direct personal attack, an act of persecution on his behalf.

I demanded an apology that never came.  Perrin stated that he wasn’t a journalist and had done nothing wrong.  He is wrong on both accounts.  As soon as you have an article published, whether paid or not, you are a journalist.  A commenter on a news story or article is not a public figure, they post as a member of the public and therefore should be off-limits to attack as being no criminal, victim or hero in a newsworthy story.

I complained to Michael Casey.  He ignored my complaint to begin with then exacerbated the situation but stating that “Peter is a private citizen, not an employee”, which is incorrect.  He may not be paid but even volunteers are considered employees of the organisations they work for.  Casey also stated that “As fair as we are concerned this is a private matter between you and Peter”.  This is again incorrect.  Casey is a publisher of a publically accessible news website.  Perrin’s attack was published by Casey, who is also the owner and editor, on his publically accessible news website which makes him responsible for the resolution of the situation.  A private matter is something that happens in private, this was public and personal.

Casey having washed his hands of his responsibilities as editor, publisher and employer of Perrin left me with no alternative but to take the matter up with the press regulator IMPRESS.  I received an e-mail that gave me two routes to take to resolve the situation but, and this is where the matter comes back to the decline in journalistic standards, from what I could see, my situation falls through the massive hole in their Standards Code.

The clauses of the IMPRESS Standards Code seem not to apply in any form to a direct attack on a member of the public (who is not subject of a news story) by a journalist.  There is mention, under the heading of Public Interest, of a publisher needing to show that “They could not have achieved the same result using measures that are 
compliant with the Code” but only if there is a breach of the clauses of the Code.  The fact that Perrin could have achieved the same result without using my full name or that Casey, as editor, could have removed my full name before publication seems irrelevant.

Some might say that, if a journalist can attack a member of the general public who is not the subject of a news item and get away with it, the Standards Code they are held to is unfit for purpose.  The fact that Michael Casey has further victimised me by removing my account on his site so I can no longer post comments or defend myself from any attacks that I might be subject to from commenters, or his journalists, in the future shows how low journalistic standards have dropped from the heady days of yore when journalists were respected.

It saddens me, as an amateur journalist myself, to see the profession I saw as noble fall so far in its standards of ethics.  Over the years I have written for and edited club magazines and home-produced spare-time magazine projects as well as having written for Your Thurrock itself and, in everything I’ve done, I refused to lower myself to personal attacks on members of the public in my articles and columns.  I held a belief that journalism had to be better than what we are currently offered in the media, a journalist had to be nobler and stand for truth and for what’s right.

Most of my columns and articles are comment pieces and may deal with public figures in a harsh manner but I would never stoop so low as to attack a member of the public.  I used to fiercely debate with people on a level footing in the comments section of my articles, posting as just another member of the public, and that’s acceptable.  Using one’s privileged position as a journalist - paid or unpaid, professional or amateur – to attack a member of the public is just wrong – morally and ethically.

The problem with this apparent hole in the IMPRESS Standards Code means that people who wish to post comments on news websites, YouTube or any number of blog sites will be unwilling to do so using their real name because of the possibility of attack from the writer.

People spend a lot of time complaining about abuse they get from anonymous commenters but nothing is ever done about it.  Why should anyone do anything to prevent anonymous comments when it’s that anonymity that stops people from being held accountable for their comments, views and abuse? 

The people who don’t post abuse prefer the anonymity because they can be someone different online that may upset their friends and family if they found out (a closeted gay, for instance, waiting to gather up the confidence to tell their family and friends but using the anonymity the internet provides to explore their sexuality) so they don’t want change.  The people who do engage in online abuse prefer the anonymity because they won’t be held accountable for the abuse they hurl into cyberspace so they won’t push for change either.

The subject of internet anonymity is problematical but there are some websites that could enforce an anti-anonymity policy to prevent abuse amongst the commenters on their site rather than victimising those who willingly use their real name when posting comments.

A few months ago, I suggested to Michael Casey that he should ban people from posting comments under anonymous screen identities due to some of the offensive comments people were posting on Your Thurrock.  Nothing ever came of it yet he is willing to allow one of his columnists to victimise me for using my real name.  Michael Casey allows abuse between commenters, vile and uneducated views to be posted and expletives without comment, yet he deletes my account because I dare to stand up for myself in the face of a personal attack from one of his columnists and his lack of journalistic standards.

Journalism could be the noble profession that it used to be, holding the powerful to account, championing truth and justice and informing the public of the events of the day but not while the standards to which journalists are held are so lax and while there are people like Michael Casey and Peter Perrin who can’t even maintain the moral and ethical standards at levels that surpass the official Standards Code.

Please note: I am using the names of Michael Casey and Peter Perrin under the Public Interest rules as their lack of journalistic standards should be noted as a matter of public interest and there is no other way to achieve the same result without using their names.