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.
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slowly been replaced by ideological propaganda.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.
