Journalists have been made to stop and think. And not before time

The BBC's Neil report is spot-on in highlighting the need to get back to basic journalism skills

The glib response to any mention of journalism ethics is a know-all smile and some comment about oxymorons. But that is glib, and it's also wrong. It is probably more wrong now than it has ever been. Events over a number of years have changed the climate, and to a certain extent forced change. The most recent of these is the Gilligan-Kelly-Hutton affair and its aftermath.

Last week we had the Neil report, commissioned by the BBC for the BBC as part of its mostly self-imposed rehabilitation process. At times it seems to extend to self-flagellation, but we understand why it is regarded as necessary, particularly by the new director-general Mark Thompson.

The debate over journalism ethics and standards pre-dates Gilligan, however. Most journalists are responsible, do care, and do reflect upon what they do. That may come from fear - seeing your name on top of an article does concentrate the nerves. It may come from a personal set of values, a reverence for peer respect, or a basic sense of professionalism - a recognition that if you proclaim constantly that you are in the business of "trying to get at the truth" then you ought to have respect for that commodity.

Of course there are journalists who cut corners or exaggerate or believe what they are told by an unreliable informant or succumb to the temptation of publication when the story isn't watertight. But in the vast majority of cases journalists worry and fret and check and do see a connection between disdain for those in authority who lie and obfuscate and the need for accuracy in exposing their abuse of power.

Inevitably, those who get things wrong bring journalism into disrepute, as do those who use dubious methods to gather information or are seen by the public to be over-intrusive. But probably this diminishing respect for journalists and journalism has happened more through trivialisation, through the lesser "journalism" of celebrity, kiss'n'tell, and junk television. The real journalism - of examining the actions and policies and consequences of those in power over the rest of us, on behalf of the rest of us - continues to be conducted to a high standard. There simply isn't enough of it, and that is partly because of cost-cutting proprietors with more interest in the bottom line than the headline.

Journalism in this country lacks the respect it mostly deserves, and that has to be taken seriously. Partly it is a product of the growth of the media and the public obsession with the media, a subject never more discussed. But out of that discussion has come good. There is a recognition on the part of some editors that the trust of the consumers - reader, listener, viewer - is crucial, and this has brought about serious attention to standards. Ron Neil, the former director of news and current affairs at the BBC, emphasises the "trust" word in his report.

It has brought about readers' editors, or ombudsmen, dealing seriously with readers' complaints. It has brought about a new, though still under-developed, preparedness to admit mistakes, correct inaccuracies and apologise. It has brought about self-regulation of the press and the endorsement by editors of a code of practice policed by the Press Complaints Commission, an imperfect system but one preferable to political interference.

Newspapers and the broadcast media are no longer reluctant to criticise each other (dog regularly devours dog these days) and editors are forced to defend their excesses and even pay the price for them. R.I.P. Piers Morgan. And of course Gavyn Davies, Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan.

Media academics now connect with the media more than they used to, and a constructive dialogue is developing. Media ethics and standards have emerged as a prominent theme for study, and more thoughtful journalists are participating in the debates.

The flawed and partial Hutton report has made journalists - not only those in the BBC - stop and think. The report by Neil sets out the standards required of BBC journalists and the means of acquiring and securing them. In the hierarchy of media organisations requiring such renewal, the BBC would be lowly placed - it may lapse at times, and did so under the spotlight over Gilligan-Kelly. But its standards have not been suddenly set by Neil - he would not claim so. They are laid out at inordinate length in the producer guidelines underpinning BBC journalism.

Neil, though, is more practical, putting his emphasis more succinctly on the day-to-day journalistic skills and other means to achieve the standards which the BBC requires of itself and are required of it. He stresses the corporation's core values - truth, accuracy, impartiality and serving the public interest - and the need for continuous training within the BBC to underpin them. There is a proposal for a new BBC college of journalism.

The most basic of Neil's recommendations is for accurate and reliable note-taking. Interestingly the Broadcast Journalism Training Council, which accredits the broadcast side of journalism courses, does not require shorthand in the curriculum, while the National Council for the Training of Journalists, which accredits the print side, does.

Neil emphasises the need for enhanced training across a range of knowledge and skills. "At the heart of strong journalism is a confident, well-trained journalistic force, who have a real knowledge and experience of the essential craft skills and disciplines." A message he could equally direct at the newspaper industry.

But I am coming very close to needing to declare an interest...

Found myself watching a week of Euro 2004 - remember that? - in Mauritius, which was a strange experience. No problem about availability of games. Every one was shown live on the big screen in the hotel. No problem about local enthusiasm. All the Mauritians were obsessed with the competition. They were all backing England, and everybody supported either Liverpool or Manchester United. What was hard to get used to was the studio comment. The coverage came from South Africa. So no Gary, Des, Alan or Peter. Instead there were England players of long ago, ones you remembered in their prime now looking ... well, older. There was Terry Paine, that star of Southampton, Gary Bailey of Manchester United, and Eddie Lewis from the same club. I'm afraid the only pundit who impressed was one Jeff Katala, described only as "a French soccer analyst".

Peter Cole is professor of journalism at the University of Sheffield

DIARY

Suffering for the game

No sign of Richard Littlejohn on his Sky programme on Monday. Littlejohn, whose contract with Sky is being ended, told producers late in the day that he was ill. Given that it was the night of the England vs Croatia game, unkind colleagues speculated he was suffering from "Gilchrist-itis", named in honour of the firefighter's leader, Andy Gilchrist, who heroically overcame illness to attend Euro 2004 in Portugal.

An exaggerated view

The media bitch fest over Euro 2004 audience share gathers momentum. After the England-Croatia match ITV sources claimed an audience of 30 million. Some confusion at Television Centre, where Barb figures showed 19.7 million. ITV sources explained that "at least" another 10 million were watching in pubs and clubs. It is an old argument, and ITV knows advertisers do not buy it. A BBC spokesman said: "We are claiming 50 million for England-Portugal. This includes people watching in shop windows, those sneaking a peek at work and the millions talking by phone to friends who really were watching it."

Shooting his cuffs

Dressed in what staff dubbed an "I've got the job" shirt (a bullish blue with yellow spots), Dominic Lawson, editor of The Sunday Telegraph, was in an exceptionally good mood on Friday. The runes that staff are now seeking to read are written in the faces of Lawson's senior lieutenants Matthew d'Ancona and Con Coughlin. Would they follow their boss downstairs to the daily? Would they even want to?

Labour of love

The new book by the former New Statesman editor, John Lloyd, What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics, is an opportunity for the old-lefty-turned-New-Labour-apologist to wring his hands over the failure of fellow hacks to be nicer to Mandy, Tony et al. "Politicians who court the media are caricatured as lackeys," he wails. What about the other way around? Lloyd commissioned a sycophantic profile of the PM for the first edition of the FT magazine he now edits.