Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

Journalists do what they’re told – or face the consequences

Do we all stand up to managers when they make us do something we know is wrong, or do we keep our heads down?

By Steven Baxter Published 07 March 2011 11:42

The resignation letter from the ex-Daily Star journalist Richard Peppiatt, complaining about an anti-Muslim agenda that many of us have suspected for some time, raises a few ethical questions. Would you fold your arms and tell your boss you refused to do a story that you found morally wrong, or which went contrary to the tenets of your profession? Or would you get on with it, knowing you were representing distortion as the truth?

Peppiatt's letter appears to confirm what a lot of us have suspected for some time: that the seedier end of tabloid reporting is a world not so much of grafting in the mud for jewels but plucking stories out of thin air (or, as Peppiatt memorably puts it when describing a celebrity revelation about Kelly Brook, "I simply plucked it out of my arse".) He says journalists concocted tales about Muslims, for example about Muslim-only taxpayer-funded public loos, knowing they were nothing of the sort.

I know a lot of people will wonder how Peppiatt could have stuck it out for so long, or why he decided to put his byline to some deeply unpleasant stories that he admits have fanned the flames of prejudice in the first place. He says: "I was too scared for my career, and my bank balance, to refuse." It's a refrain that many of us will find familiar.

Before anyone rushes to judge Peppiatt or suggest he should have got out earlier, we should reflect on our own experiences in a corporate environment – not necessarily journalism, but anywhere. Do we all boldly stand up to managers when they tell us to do something that we know is wrong and counterproductive? Or do we try to keep our heads down, not wanting to be seen as bolshie, hoping that our compliance might give us a reward somewhere further down the line?

We've got bills to pay; some of us have children to look after, too. It's not easy to say no to something when you know it'll mark you out as a troublemaker.

Ethical questions are another matter, of course. But journalists don't have any protection should they decide they'd rather not do a story they're told to cover by their managers. The NUJ has been seeking for some time to have a "conscience clause" for journalists who want to have the right to refuse an assignment they regard as being unethical and ensure their job stays safe at the same time. But I fear it won't ever happen.

Sadly,newspapers are the same as any other corporate environment: you do what you're told, or you face the consequences. You can take out a grievance – which will mark you down as someone never to be trusted ever again – or you can resign, and attempt the complex and stressful process of going to a tribunal. Either way, your career is over.

I suppose many of us would like to hope that, given the same set of circumstances, we would all bravely stand up to our bosses and defend our professional integrity; but then I think many of us would also secretly know that we would grit our teeth and do what we were told. We may call journalism a profession, or a craft, or a trade; but it's just a job, like any other – and jobs are pretty hard to come by right now. We should applaud anyone who's willing to make a stand.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Steven Baxter

26 comments

Tue, 2011-03-08 01:35 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

The beauty of the comments section is that you are not paid so you can write what you like. You are not told what to write by a boss nor are you influenced by the company's 'political' bias.

The problem with environments that have one dimensional political agendas is that it persuades everyone to conform to all of the ideas of the one thought pattern. If it is left leaning like the New Statesman, for instance, then journalists will try to fit in with being anti-Tory not matter what they do, being pro-immigration, being anti-big business, being anti-Israeli, etc. If someone opposes one of these 'mantras' then they are labelled as not being in their group. They are labelled as being in another group, an outsider, and therefore less likely to be promoted etc. So people will adopt certain viewpoints to fit into their group.

The beauty about not getting paid to write is you can try to cut through all of this in the company of one, yourself. And the beauty about being anonymous is that you can't be accused of promoting yourself for fame or financial gain. The third beauty is that you have no fear. No one knows who you are so how can they physically attack you. It is just words.

This is who I am:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/tbr026.htm

Fri, 2011-10-07 08:30 — Federico

Wed, 2011-03-09 05:03 — Saw Bibi (not verified)

We have a "Daily Star" in Australia too. The Daily Telegraph, I am sure they share similarities.

I understand the dilemma that journalists are facing, but somewhere along the line media organisations need to be accountable. If they are deliberately/ knowingly publishing false information they need to be held accountable.

We trust the media to provide a true report of what is happening in our world.

If I want fiction I'll pick up a Michael Crichton novel or watch some Doctor Who.

So I agree, we need protection for journalists who have morals but we also need to be able to prosecute executives from media organisation who fill our world with lies.

Tue, 2011-03-08 10:48 — Keir

Anti-Muslim agenda, eh. Fair enough, since the Qur'an is technically illegal, inciting violence. How about an anti-Catholic agenda, reporters getting into the Vatican's secret vaults to return vast quantities of stolen property- which what every brick of the RCC is? Let justice flow like a river, not like a sputtering garden tap.

Fri, 2011-03-11 00:40 — Naranja Mecanica (not verified)

"Freedom of the press in Britain is freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers won't object to."
- Helen Swaffer

Tue, 2011-03-08 14:03 — Keir

Here's a conundrum. The RCC, when its paederasty rate per annum is remarked upon, retorts that this figure is not really all that different from the casualty rates of other denominations (though that's disputable) and the world at large (and maybe that, too). Yet Ratzinger recently told the world that other claimants to Christianity are either defective or 'not true churches'. The claim of his church historically was to be the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (ok, get back in your chair). How is it that Le Grand Fromage is no better than heretics and pagans? What happened to the 'lamp set on a stand'?

But not one journalist is permitted to point out this absurdity, to ask this question. Like a lot of others like it, though they tend to be theological and not really the stuff of journalism.

Tue, 2011-03-08 14:09 — sheila d (not verified)

I have long suspected this to be the case with regard to Tobacco Control.
Anybody able to confirm?

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:08 — bat020 (not verified)

I think you're underestimating the extent to which journalists can take a collective stand against their management. See this incident from 2006 when the NUJ chapel at the Daily Star forced the paper to back down from an anti-Muslim stunt: http://bit.ly/nujstar

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:22 — 5cc (not verified)

What? An anti-Muslim stunt in the Daily Star? But the Star isn't anti-Muslim. It said so in its response to Peppiatt's resignation so it must be true.

Haw haw haw.

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:35 — Peter Naysmith (not verified)

It's not just the 'seedier' end of the newspaper industry.

I have worked for broadsheets where similar things have gone on; not so much making things up, but being forced to maintain the newspaper's political agenda.

It has happened to friends too. An ex-colleague went to work for The Guardian, but was repeatedly criticised by management for not giving his stories a liberal enough spin.

It happens everywhere.

Which I suppose begs the question, how many of the Daily Mail's hacks hate doing what they do?

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:39 — bedminsterbugbear (not verified)

Somewhere between churning a press release and completely fabricating stories to inflame racial tensions there exists a line which a journalist with any integrity would not cross. Yes, people get pressured into doing things they disagree with. But there inevitably comes a point where you have to take responsibility for your own actions. That point probably comes before you agree do don a burkha as a cheap derogatory stunt. There are plenty of aspiring journalists who choose not to attempt to pursue careers in the gutter press precisely because it's no secret how they behave. so while it's encouraging to see some criticism from the inside, I would be cautious about turning this guy into a hero.

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:39 — Jonas (not verified)

You're right - we're enslaved by economics. Freedom only exists when exercising it does not carry a penalty to one's well-being.

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:44 — Elderly Cod (not verified)

Oh god. Oh my poor eye. I was just doing some writing with my pencil and I poked the end with the eraser on it and it ACTUALLY WENT INTO THE PUPIL OF MY EYE and now I have this pencil sticking out and I can't see out of that eye and I can drag it on the paper and make little graphite marks but that is when it hurts a bit.

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:48 — writeoff (not verified)

You still illustrated this piece with a picture of Ms Brook though, rather than Peppiatt's arse.

Mon, 2011-03-07 12:54 — Elderly Cod (not verified)

Ohhhhh. And now I tried to move the pencil and this stuff is coming out of my eye and it's not blood it's all sort of black and see through at the same time. My poor eye.

Mon, 2011-03-07 13:48 — Rankersbo (not verified)

I have to concur with BedminsterBugbear's side point, that there's a whole spectrum of bad practice. The argument that all news outlets churn to some degree, and all have their political outlooks does not mean that they are all the same.

There are degrees of bad practice, one piece of churnalism does not equal another piece of totally making stuff up. A story written to appeal to the readers perspective does not equal total and utter distortion.

But I also agree with Steven that we should not be quick to judge someone who refused to rock the boat merely for their own job security.

Wed, 2011-03-09 13:39 — dashingchap (not verified)

Yes, yes, this is all very well but what the hell has happened to Elderly Cod? Has he had his eye seen to? Doesn't anybody care any more?

Mon, 2011-03-07 20:25 — Daniele1

I am appalled that any one would be prepared to write straight lies just to keep their jobs. It is disgusting and can explain the state of British media today.
Surely you must take responsibility for your actions, in your job as well as in your personal life. As a journalist, what can be the excuse for accepting to work for the gutter press in the first place?
If it happens at a better quality paper, surely they should respect you as a professional if you don't want to write a particular story. If all fail, there is that thing which is called "SOLIDARITY" and you all get up and go and see your boss and say "we are not having this. This is unacceptable!".
That would require some bollocks and some organisation and some principles which unfortunately I don't see much of in British society today!

Mon, 2011-03-07 20:40 — andyg (not verified)

@ Daniele
Have you never heard of the sun or news of the world?
Maybe you should stick with the Daily Sport. The mind boggles.

Tue, 2011-03-08 22:01 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

"I was too scared for my career, and my bank balance, to refuse".

But really if we want to stay ahead of the curve then moments like this should be treated with the contempt they deserve."Get thee behind me, satan" is one well known phrase which springs to my mind -the point being I suppose that the long term gains to be made when one sticks to one's principle (even when everyone about you is losing theirs and perhaps blaming it on you) are surely bound to be more valuable in the end.

Tue, 2011-03-08 22:09 — Keir

When the RCC fails, the KJV is usually the next recourse.

Mon, 2011-03-07 21:53 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

What about the rubbish that the Morning Star publishes? Twisting the facts to suit their agenda.

Mon, 2011-03-07 21:59 — Daniele1

andyg:
what is your point exactly??

Mon, 2011-03-07 22:29 — Des Demona (not verified)

Anyone who actually pays money to read the Daily Star is probably beyond redemption. Someone who writes for it is a whore, as most writers trying to earn a living are. As Hunter S Thompson said 'writing is like sex - a lot less fun when you're being paid for it'

Sun, 2011-03-13 22:59 — Steve (not verified)

This is true of any corporate environment. They aren't democracies, they are dictatorships. They do what's good for them and the worst of them are as amoral as any 3rd-world dictator. People don't like it risk killing their career stone dead. This is how so much evil is done by corporates, enabled by people who would prefer to honest and moral...but afraid of the consequences. Next time someone tells you with a straight face that unaccountable, unelected corporates are better for you than your own elected government...laugh anyway. The evidence to the contrary is too weighty. Chances are, your job will be going to China, India or somewhere else shortly anyway.

Mon, 2011-03-07 14:29 — Darryl W Bullock (not verified)

There are plenty of us in this industry for whom ethics count for more than financial gain. I've worked as a journalist for 16 years now and have never once sold my soul for the Desmonds, Dacres and Murdochs of this world. The resignation letter was funny, but this is not the work of a hero, just a shill.