26.02.10
Today I can expose the much-trumpeted editorial complaints system at The
Guardian as a farce and a sham.
After three months of delay and obfuscation, the newspaper has finally
reached a conclusion on my complaint about two blog articles written by its
media commentator, Roy
Greenslade, attacking my exposure of “NUJ Left”, the far-left
faction attempting to hijack the national union of journalists.
No one at The Guardian seemed to want to handle this complaint,
with executives passing this particular hot potato to and fro, with an entirely
pointless detour around the office of the “readers’ editor”.
In summary, the handling of my complaint makes the newspaper industry
regulator, the press complaints commission (PCC)
– which The Guard-ian often likes to criticize – appear
thorough, considered and credible.
When I ran as a candidate in last November’s election for the
editor of the NUJ’s magazine, the Journalist, I discovered
how a political faction inspired by the socialist workers party (SWP)
– and including the socialist party, and workers power, which describes
itself as a “revolutionary communist organisation” – was
close to taking over the NUJ.
As part of its plan, the faction wanted to usher its candidate, Richard
Simcox, into becoming Journalist editor. Simcox failed to declare
that he was the “NUJ Left” candidate in the election material
sent with ballot papers, the e-mail circular sent to NUJ members, or even
on his campaign website.
However, the faction’s plan failed
after my ex-posure, with its candidate coming seventh in a field of eight.
The NUJ’s campaigns officer was forced to resign
after I revealed that he had been campaigning for Simcox.
During the election, Greenslade condemned my investigation,
and followed with an extraordinarily abusive piece
that called into question my “mental health” .
I complained to the editor of The Guardian about, first, Greenslade’s
utterly inappropriate personal abuse and, second, his failure to declare relevant
interests.
Apology
The
initial response of The Guardian was swift and resolved the first
part of my complaint: Greenslade amended the article and published an apology.
The second part proved trickier. Greenslade claimed in his first article
that he had “no axe to grind.” But it transpired that he was listed
as a supporter on Simcox’s Facebook campaign page.
Greenslade initially responded by saying that he was “baffled”
by the inclusion of his name on the Facebook campaign.
He was outed, and then pressed on the point by comments posted by one
or two anonymous “NUJ Left” supporters apparently in the name
of two characters in Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby.
The key question for The Guardian was: why ex-actly might
“NUJ Left” supporters be upset that Greenslade had denied supporting
Simcox?
In addition, I pointed out, Greenslade failed initially to declare
the nature of his working relationship with me, and only did so belatedly
and disingenuously in the comment thread. And he failed to declare his own
past membership of a far-left political group, which he avoided even after
being challenged by one commenter.
Following my complaint, Greenslade also said in his apology: “It
has been suggested that I failed to declare that I was a supporter of Rich
Simcox on Facebook. I reiterate what I have said before: I was totally unaware
of that fact. It appears that I may have inadvertently responded to a Facebook
friend request. What I can say, unequivocally, is that I am not a Simcox supporter
nor am I an ‘NUJ Left’ supporter.”
Lis Ribbans, one of the newspaper’s managing editors, contacted
me to say: “As I'm sure you're aware, an amendment and apology were
made on the [second] blog on Friday afternoon. I believe this was the correct
thing to do, and am sorry for any upset caused to you by the original posting.
I hope we have resolved the matter satisfactorily but, if you still have concerns,
please let me know and I'll pass the matter to our readers' editor (internal
ombudswoman) for her consideration.”
I replied that this only resolved part of my complaint; the issue of
Greenslade’s failure to declare interests remained outstanding.
Ribbans referred it to the readers’ editor, but not before reaching
her own immediate view, saying: “Roy Greenslade has stated that if he
joined Rich Simcox's group on Facebook, it was by accident. I can't see what
would be gained by exploring further this aspect of your complaint, as we
cannot know for certain how he came to be on the supporter list.”
“In my opinion, it is not necessary for a comment-ator always
to declare his/her distant political affiliations whenever they address a
subject that has a political aspect; it's a case-by-case judgment based on
how relevant the association, and how well the writer's leanings are likely
to be known to the audience. I would not consider it necessary in this case.
Likewise, I would not expect a media commentator to regard their ad hoc media
appear-ances as required [sic] declarations of interest. Roy Greenslade consistently
says that he supports no one in the Journalist election, and we believe
that to be true.”
Without a hint of irony, she added: “The readers' editor, however,
works from a position of independ-ence in the newsroom, and may take a different
view.”
Failure to address issues
I stressed
in response that the readers’ editor, then Siobhain Butterworth, should
consider my whole complaint in the round. However, even the final response
to my complaint fails to show that this was done.
I said that Greenslade’s extraordinary personal abuse was indicative
of his state of mind as he approached the subject. This also remains unaddressed
in the final response.
I questioned whether Greenslade’s defence that he joined Simcox’s
campaign Facebook page “by accident” was credible: this remains
unaddressed.
Greenslade had previously said that he may have signed up “inadvertently”,
which suggests that he knew Simcox so well that he did not have to think carefully
about what Simcox was asking him to join. This underlined the need for the
readers’ editor to make further enquiries about the evident failure
to declare an interest relating to Simcox. The discrepancy remains unaddressed,
and the final response fails to show that such further enquiries were conducted.
I said that whether to declare political affiliations in particular
circumstances was a matter of judgement. Greenslade’s past political
affiliation with a far-left group was hugely relevant to the subject in hand:
a controversy about a far-left political group. Greenslade had shown poor
judgement in his articles on the subject, at the minimum, so far as the “mental
health” comment was concerned. The issue of Greenslade’s judge-ment
and state of mind remains unaddressed.
Greenslade put himself forward as an independent commentator on the
subject: it is plain that he was not, I wrote. A failure by The Guardian
to deal with this properly would, I said, undermine the newspaper’s
claim to be providing credible coverage of media issues.
The blog sought to influence the outcome of an NUJ election, the deadline
for which was fast approaching, I wrote, and MediaGuardian had even
failed to report my reply
or link to it so that “at least some semblance of balance can be offered.”
This remains unaddressed.
In my initial complaint, I raised another issue about Greenslade’s
abusive comments, particularly on my “mental health”, saying:
“I want to know what disciplinary measures you propose to take with
respect to Greenslade.” This also remains unanswered.
Failure to act promptly
I urged
the readers’ editor to deal with the case as a matter of urgency because
of the imminent voting deadline. I heard nothing from the readers’ editor
by the time the election ended. I e-mailed her in early December, checking
on progress.
There was still no response by mid-January, so I e-mailed again.
There was still no response, and next a friend on the paper told me
that Butterworth would soon be leaving her post, so I telephoned her office
in late January. Helen Hodgson, the assistant readers' editor, assured me
that Butterworth would complete all outstanding complaints by the end of that
week, before her departure.
Still no response. I telephoned again in early February. Hodgson confirmed
that Butterworth had left, and said that the complaint had been passed back
to Ribbans, who had already pre-judged the issue before a proper examination
of my complaint was conducted. Hodgson said: “Lis assures me that she
will contact you shortly.”
There was still no response, so I e-mailed, then left a voicemail,
twice.
No response. Until, finally, another managing ed-itor, Chris Elliott,
e-mailed me to say that Ribbans had “passed your complaint and her response
to me to review.”
He referred to no further enquiries having been made, and concluded
that her view was right. He wrote: “Lis accepts – and I have seen
no reason to disagree with her – Roy Greenslade's assertion that he
clicked on Simcox's Facebook request by accident. He also disavows him unreservedly.
That disavowal came before the election, which would further reduce any impact
his appearance on the list of supporters might have had.”
Of course, my complaint was not that Greenslade was on a list of supporters,
but that he failed to declare his support. And, of course, no one can see
a reason if no one is looking. The Guardian, like the PCC, seems
unwilling or unable actually to investigate a complaint.
Elliott said: “Roy Greenslade has repeatedly outed himself over
the years as a former member of the communist party 20 years ago.” Greenslade’s
involvement with the far left is neither active nor significant, “and
therefore does not fall within the remit of the Guardian
code.”
I did indeed dig up an obscure reference from a 1997 edition of the
New Statesman showing that Greenslade identified himself as a past
member of the communist party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). However, Greenslade
failed to make that declaration with his articles attacking my exposure of
“NUJ Left”. He was even coy about making that declaration when
challenged in the comment thread.
The fact that Greenslade had previously outed himself is, however,
irrelevant. Under parliamentary rules, an MP cannot justify a failure to declare
an interest in a debate in the house of commons by saying that the interest
was declared in the register of members’ interests.
Such a defence would simply fail to meet the notoriously low standards
of integrity required of MPs. The Guardian, however, evidently requires
of its journalists standards of integrity that fall far short of those demanded
by parliament from MPs.
Mark Watts is author of The Fleet Street Sewer Rat that revealed
how standards of integrity at The Guardian – which often reports sancti-moniously
on the misconduct of rivals – are sometimes lower than at other national
newspapers, including “red-top” tabloids. The book is available
in hardback for £10.00 from www.fleet-street-sewer-rat.com.
Comment
on this article
Dear brings in LPB
‘overseers’ from ‘NUJ Left’
NUJ campaigns
officer forced out over faction
Why Dear was wrong
about ‘NUJ Left’
‘NUJ Left’ is ‘trying to take over new branch’
Ex-Times journalist
elected to edit NUJ mag
Socialist Worker
backs ‘NUJ Left’ candidate
‘NUJ Left’
NEC candidates ‘failed to declare’
Why Greenslade was wrong
about ‘NUJ Left’
Revealed: SWP helped to
re-launch ‘NUJ Left’
‘Hanky panky’
in NUJ election revealed
Union
staff campaign for ‘NUJ Left’ candidate
NUJ extends voting period
following request
Four election candidates
seek vote extension
NUJ peer raises election issue
in parliament
Watts unmasks ‘NUJ
Left’ candidate in circular
C4 News anchor Jon
Snow backs Watts for editor
Former BBC political
reporter supports Watts
Top journalists back
Watts election campaign
More journalists
support election bid by Watts
Watts campaigns for independent
Journalist
FOIA
specialist in election for Journalist editorship
Journalistic background
of Mark Watts
Comments
on Journalist election (7)
Headlines
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
|
||||||||