Tory victory comes at a critical time for media, especially the BBC

It seems a good moment, with a clear election victor agreed far earlier than anyone had forecast, to predict the winners and losers of the media industry now that the Conservatives have returned to power. For the impact of this election on the sector at a critical juncture could be seismic.

Although David Cameron and George Osborne are likely to be kept far busier with new austerity measures, it is clearly the BBC which has most to worry about from the Conservative mandate. With the royal charter set to expire at the end of 2016, there are just 19 months to agree the future funding and structure of the corporation.

Of all the main parties, the Tories have shown signs of being the most hostile to the cost and expansion of the BBC. They were the only main party offering to freeze the £145.50 annual licence fee as a way of saving voters money, putting the pledge at the top of their manifesto’s media wishlist.

Admittedly, the pledge was hedged with the weaselly admission that they couldn’t do anything until after the new charter was agreed - ie, it simply confirmed the 19-month status quo – but as a sign of intent, it was pretty clear: the BBC’s spending and its ability to provide “value for money” will be at the heart of the charter renewal debate. That the Tories meant business was reflected in the manifesto also containing a pledge to continue “top-slicing” the licence fee to fund superfast broadband across the country, a charge taking £150m per annum out of the BBC’s £3.6bn funding pot.

As well as the manifesto focus, there is the fact that senior Tories continue to accuse the BBC of leftwing bias. Sajid Javid took time out as culture secretary in the run-up to the election to warn the BBC that the future charter renewal negotiations would include an analysis of any bias, after taking umbrage at a Today programme mini-debate. In an interview with the Daily Mail, he said: “There was a debate … they were all anti-Tory. It came across as very, very anti-Tory.”

A potentially more difficult challenge for the corporation will be BBC Scotland. Criticism of the BBC and its London-centric coverage heightened during the referendum debate. How much more difficult this will become given the entirely different nature of political control remains to be seen.

A new report by Loughborough University’s communication research unit to be published today shows how much more coverage Ukip garnered in national TV and newspapers than the SNP despite the latter going on to win 50 times more seats.

Almost double the amount of party leader quotes or story space was devoted to Ukip during the campaign period (until the campaign’s last week when negative stories of the Scottish “menace” proliferated). An SNP denied political power by a majority Tory government is likely to focus on any continued diminution of its status while the Conservatives will be in no mood to be generous during the forthcoming funding wrangles.

As for BBC governance, the BBC Trust has already been called a busted flush by a cross-party group of MPs. In bringing in figures such as Sir Roger Carr, Javid signalled that the party is keen to have pro-business leaders identifying a replacement. The other potential loser under a Tory government is likely to be civil liberties. Indeed, within 24 hours of polls closing on Thursday, home secretary Theresa May confirmed that the draft communications data bill, or so-called snoopers’ charter, was back on the agenda now the Liberal Democrats were no longer around to block it. Prior to the election Cameron said that there should be no communication that the government was unable to read.

On the plus side, newspapers will largely breathe a sigh of relief, both local newspapers promised rates relief and the nationals which feared more legislation to increase press regulation in the wake of Leveson. Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, said that the election result “removes this particular Sword of Damocles” as more legislation was unlikely.

Indeed, at the end of April Javid said his party would not back a Leveson-approved regulator as: “It interferes with the freedom of the press. It goes fundamentally against one of the Leveson principles, which is independent self-regulation.” Besides, press regulation was a job done.

Yet with nearly all major newspapers with the exception of the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times having signed five-year contracts with Ipso, the independent press standards body set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry, it will be interesting to see whether any organisation considers breaking the contracts.

Media was the 15th most mentioned issue during the campaign, according to Loughborough research, above crime. It is unlikely to leave the political agenda any time soon.

post from sitemap

Yes, rightwing newspaper coverage did cause Ed Miliband's downfall

As the Labour party tears itself apart trying to come to terms with its general election performance, it should understand this reality: the right-wing press was overwhelmingly responsible for its defeat.

I agree with my colleague, Jane Martinson, that the fact that the bulk of UK newspapers backed the eventual winner is noteworthy.

It should not be overlooked because I haven’t a shadow of doubt that Ed Miliband lost because of newspaper coverage.

However, this view is not based on a simplistic, and narrow, Sun-wot-won-it analysis. We know that Britain’s best-selling national daily, in company with the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph, consistently ran virulent anti-Labour material during the weeks of the campaign.

We also know that, based on newsprint sales, 57.5% of the dailies backed the Tories while 11.7 % backed Labour and, on the same metric, 66% of the Sunday nationals urged their readers to vote Conservative.

Related: How the Tories won the general election air war

I also agree that Miliband suffered a pounding from those newspapers that was reminiscent of the bitterly personal attacks on Neil Kinnock in 1992 and Michael Foot in 1983.

I am sure that the relentless ridicule over the six-week campaign may have played some part in the voting decisions of the floating voters who buy the Sun and the Mail (and yes, there are plenty of them).

But that factor, in itself, did not make the really significant difference to the Tory victory in England and Wales.

Instead, to understand why Labour lost, look at the overall polling figures for Nigel Farage’s Ukip. It secured 4.8m votes across the UK and its effect on Labour has not been sufficiently understood.

Despite Ukip winning only one seat, it delivered the best performance by a new independent party in post-war English politics, as the Telegraph rightly reported.

Many, many traditional Labour voters abandoned the party in order to vote for Ukip. In several seats that Labour regarded as winnable marginals, expecting to tip out Tory incumbents, the party was foiled by Ukip.

Just look at the results for Pudsey, Keighley, Cleethorpes, Warrington South, Rossendale & Darwen, Nuneaton, Cannock Chase, Northampton North and Ipswich (and other marginals). In every case, Labour failed because of the votes for Ukip.

I concede that it’s difficult to be sure whether the majority of Ukip’s support came from the Tories or Labour. But there is a big clue to Labour defections by looking at Ukip’s support at the expense of Labour in very safe Labour seats.

In Dagenham and Rainham, for example, there was a 12.5% swing from Labour to Ukip despite the popularity of Labour’s excellent MP, Jon Cruddas. In Hartlepool, a 13.9% swing from Labour to Ukip helped the latter to finish in second place.

In the three seats in Hull – East, North and West & Hessle – Ukip managed second place finishes. Elsewhere, in Merthy Tydfil for instance, there were swings away from Labour to Ukip. And in many safe Tory seats, Ukip pushed Labour into second place.

Ukip’s twin policy plank - halt immigration and pull out of the European Union - clearly appealed to voters in traditional Labour areas. I am not alone in pointing this out. Here’s Oxford university’s Stephen Fisher:

“The rise of Ukip that was expected to disproportionately hurt the Tories, in fact seems to have undermined the Labour performance more”.

Yes, yes, yes. Before Labour beats itself up about its supposed failure to attract support from the middle class, it needs to grasp the reasons for Ukip’s polling success in its working class heartlands.

Related: Tory victory comes at a critical time for media, especially the BBC

But why did Ukip do so well? Because in the five years leading up to the election, the rightwing press lent it, and its policies, credence.

In an effort to ensure that David Cameron’s Conservative party followed a largely anti-EU agenda, newspapers gave disproportionately favourable coverage to Farage and his party.

They certainly poked fun at some of his supporters and, at various points, questioned Ukip’s credibility. Yet they treated the party’s policies, including its anti-immigrant stance, with undue sympathy. And that includes the Sun, which – under instructions from its owner, Rupert Murdoch – has been careful to avoid overt criticism of immigration.

It’s true that only the Daily Express actually endorsed Farage’s party (“Vote Ukip for a patriotic Britain”) after its owner, Richard Desmond, gave it £1.3m.

Much more significant than that single last-minute endorsement was the overall support for years across all the papers of the right.

It has, of course, worked out well for those publishers who favour Brexit or, at the least, some kind of radical reform of Britain’s EU membership. Cameron might well have avoided holding an in/out referendum without Ukip’s existence and its newspaper support.

What remains troubling in the long term for Labour is the possibility that it can never win back support from those who left it to vote Ukip.

Unless Labour comes to terms with the fact that many of its former voters are concerned about immigration and about the EU’s open borders policy, the party’s discussions about its future direction, and about its choice of leader, will be irrelevant.

The press’s role in the 2015 election requires more investigation. As so often, the coverage over six weeks tells us little more than we could have anticipated before the campaign began. Agenda-setting over a longer period is far more important.

post from sitemap

Telegraph email backing Conservatives faces investigation by watchdog

The Information Commissioner’s Office is investigating a “small number of complaints” about the Telegraph’s email urging people to vote Conservative.

The email, signed by editor Chris Evans and including links to the newspaper’s election-day leader article, other political coverage and an offer for a free 45-day digital subscription, was sent to the newspaper’s database of emails on the eve of the election.

Some recipients took to Twitter to complain that they either did not know how the Telegraph had got their email address or saying they had only signed up for specific emails such as its technology or finance newsletters.

— Harriet Smart (@harrietlcsmart) May 7, 2015

Eew how have you got my email address @Telegraph - I'm not a 'reader' of yours pic.twitter.com/TsSextE7oJ

The email contained a disclaimer saying that recipients had either “agreed to receive marketing messages by email from Telegraph Media Group” or “signed up for this newsletter”.

The regulator is assessing whether the email breaches either the Data Protection Act or the privacy and electronic communications regulations, which cover electronic marketing including calls, emails and texts.

Some of the Telegraph’s selection of newsletters provide the ability to opt-out of marketing messages, however others, including the technology newsletter, do not.

Sending the email to people who had not indicated they were happy to receive other messages would appear to breach the Telegraph’s privacy policy, which states that if there are no opt-in or opt-out boxes on a signup process “it’s because we will not use your information for any other purpose than that for which you give it (e.g. to administer a subscription).”

A Telegraph spokesperson said: “The Telegraph’s email leader, urging our readers to vote for the Conservatives, was sent to our customer database and the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

“If any readers did receive this email in error, we will, of course, take steps to make sure this does not happen again.”

A decision from the ICO is not expected for at least a few weeks.

post from sitemap

Labour gets almost half as much positive press coverage as Tories

The UK press ran almost twice as many articles on issues that were negative for Labour as positive during the election, according to research from Loughborough University.

Of 2,495 news items examined by the team from the Communications Research Centre at Loughborough, 682 focused on issues that were broadly negative for Ed Miliband’s party, compared to 358 on positive issues.

In contrast, 614 items covered issues deemed positive for the Conservative, compared to 502 considered negative.

The contrast in fortunes was even more stark when print circulation was taken into account, with the country’s two best-selling newspapers, the Sun and Daily Mail, even more focused on issues that would play well for the Conservatives.

Loughborough used a ratings system giving a score of one for positive issues and -1 for negative, assessing each news item and then working out an average for each party and each week of the campaign. It then weighted the figures based on the circulation of each title.

Key conclusions on coverage from the report include:

  • Levels of positive Conservative coverage remained stable during the final stages of the campaign.
  • Levels of negative Labour coverage reduced in the final days, but still remained significantly high.
  • There was an appreciable increase in the negativity of SNP coverage in the final stages of the campaign.
  • Lib Democrats started to register some degree of negative evaluative coverage in the last sample period. Previous to that, they received little evaluative coverage of any kind.
Loughborough University directional election coverage graph
Loughborough University directional election coverage graph Illustration: Loughborough University/Loughborough University

The difference between print press and broadcasters, who are required by regulator Ofcom to avoid bias, is clear in how much more frequently Conservative sources appeared in print than on TV compared to their Labour counterparts.

Labour sources appeared slightly more frequently on TV than Conservative ones, whereas in print the Conservatives accounted for 37.5% compared to Labour’s 31.8%.

post from sitemap

Election aftermath: memos to the media for May 2020

No ifs, no buts. This, in the small, stifling area of the universe where journalists and politicians mingle, was a bonfire of the certainties, a pyre of punditry. No one – except John Curtice and his exit pollsters – emerges with reputation intact. No prophet of a columnist saw this coming. No editor believed it possible. Everyone settled for the supposed stasis of a parliament hung, drawn and divided into multi-party segments. So the one great lesson for May 2020 and elections beyond is inescapable.

We’re used to the pollsters telling us what’s happening (as opposed to finding out for ourselves). We somehow believed the politicians have an inside track – until we saw their mouths gape incredulously on Friday morning. Data journalism is only as good as the data it deploys. Shoe leather and inquiring minds still count.

But there are other campaign things that matter to take away from the wreckage of hopes and careers, other media lessons to help make coverage of May 2020 better.

For the broadcasters

The two most influential and appreciated TV election outings had one element in common. ITV’s seven-plinthed debate was tightly run and intelligently organised. It didn’t allow talking over or shouting back between combatants. The BBC’s three solo Question Times from Leeds had exactly the same virtue.

Has the performance on the right – and (to be fair) on the left – been sensible this time round? Hell, not entirely

Making it clear? Nothing is clear amid almighty din. And the Leeds questions themselves – posed precisely by ordinary members of the public – tended to leave the commentariat trailing. The Paxman interviews, the Humphrys, Marr, Snow and Davis interviews? All of them arrived meticulously prepared, taking the evidence of the polls and building. But too many of them seemed not so much interviews as arguments. For instance, the John Humphrys argument with Dave/Ed/Nick in which (shades of 1984) the great interrogator offers a loaded hypothesis about future developments and demands a yes or a no that no politician in his right mind would think it remotely sensible to provide. Nick Clegg wouldn’t lay out his favoured partner for coalition – which was just as well as it happened, because the whole scenario was meaningless.

You can get overcomplicated, overbearing. And, on 2015 form, you can also be too clever by half. There will be more debates in 2020. They’ve happened now for two elections in a row. No windy Downing Street incumbent will be able to dodge them next time – and next time will need organising early, via the Election Commission, rather than staggering into some bedraggled studio late in the day after another negotiation between broadcasting’s awkward squad and the shrinking violets of No 10. But those individual Question Times deserve a traditional slot as well. Democracy means giving the public an authentic, unmediated voice. It can be done, because Yorkshire just did it. Perhaps, somewhere in there, you could already hear the voice of the people who actually went to the polls. Let’s do it again.

Meanwhile, that boring, hermetically sealed campaign the TV teams spent so much time complaining about? The infantile video Polyfilla of people who aspire to run the country playing ball with infants or lecturing small crowds of extras on industrial estates? They – the politicians – only do it for you, the TV producers: weeks of photo ops without point or human content except a few eyeball minutes on the television news each night. But it isn’t news. It’s the precise opposite. It’s political spam. Why not give it up for a few days next time and see whether anyone applauds? No non-news might be very good news.

So would be a full-throated onslaught on the automatic tedium of fairness and balance as inflicted by law and policed by Ofcom. Of course, at least in theory, we like our public service broadcasting to be fair: which means independent and honest when reporters travel out of their offices to a rally. But independent honesty doesn’t mean the kind of mathematically balanced coverage, measured in seconds and minutes, that academics – this year at Loughborough University – rate as statistically fair.

It entails the ability for the journalist on the spot, speaking to camera, producing his witnesses, to posit that candidate A or B is winning, and say why. He or she could do that if this were an Israeli or Nigerian election. Fairness and balance doesn’t mean no verdict, no enlightenment overseas. But in UK elections, by law, we turn constituency reporting into pretty pictures without a point, vox pop interviews without a bite. Tedium self-inflicted.

For the newspaper editors

Hallelujah! cried the Mail on Friday morning. Hail to the precious commodity we call press freedom? Of course. That freedom inevitably means the right to run lead headlines like the Telegraph’s “Nightmare on Downing Street” or the Sun’s “Save Our Bacon” – from the “pig’s ear Ed made of eating a helpless sarnie”. It includes the “right” of the Mail to be named Britain’s “most influential” newspaper on a poll that also put Labour two points ahead. But the question here isn’t about rights, more common sense.

It’s important on many levels that your readers see something to trust in you, so that your scoops count and your leaders may be read with respect. So there’s always a line to be drawn: not to stop you going over it, merely to indicate what’s advisable and what’s merely hysterical.

Has your performance on the right – and (to be fair) on the left – been sensible this time around? Hell, not entirely. There have been good pieces of analysis to cut out and keep (Kettle, Freedland, Rentoul, Collins, Aaronovitch and more). There have been excellent leader articles (in the FT, Indy, Guardian and Times) putting an eloquent point of view. There were unpredictable endorsements – the Indy and FT – that made an impact because they were unpredictable. But there has also been too much malign abuse and dodgy dealing. I sadly agreed with writer Ed Caesar’s tweeted summation of front-page coverage as the campaign closed – “mostly dire, partisan, shouty rubbish”.

And to what purpose? To bolster the reputation of Ipso, the new regulator and its clause number one: “The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information…” Nightmare on Fleet Street.

The good/bad thing is how little difference all the shouty rubbish seemed to make. The pollsters aren’t using it as an excuse. And the interesting thing was how little account the press took of digital reach (counting, for instance, the Tory press at 5.2m copies against 1.6m on the other side, as though online’s millions didn’t exist). This wasn’t some transformative election on the net. The might of Vice made a stereotypical late effort (“How Five Years of Coalition Have Totally Fucked the Young”). The bravura of BuzzFeed remained undiminished. (“17 Hot Men who Really Want You to Vote in the Election”.)

Election Question Time:
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Election Question Time: tightly run. Photograph: Reuters

… in fact, for all media futures

It isn’t just our electoral system that can’t cope in a complex multi-party world. It’s the media’s way of covering it. Consider the Sturgeon phenomenon, the rise and rise of the SNP. That catches a unique mood. Did Ed Miliband understand that mood when Johann Lamont, walking out as Labour leader north of the border, accused him of trying to run Scotland “like a branch office of London”? Can a devolved press and, particularly, a devolved BBC, treat what happens in Holyrood as British news needing consistent British coverage, or does devolved somehow mean “foreign”?

Crucially, now, how SNP fortunes rise or fall as the fortunes of a new Tory government rise or fall will be vital. The 2016 Holyrood elections will be the springboard for 2020 too. Either the embrace of hated London will trap the SNP in its coils and drain the confidence from Scottish voters – or it will be onwards to a new referendum that could change the nature of Britain once and for all. How many correspondents on the ground in Scotland will that need? How great a break from the current state of things where Glasgow looks after its own broadcasting affairs, the Scottish Sun goes its own sweet way, and most upmarket UK papers manage with two or three reporters north of Watford, let alone Berwick-upon-Tweed? Basic message: Scotland isn’t just up there. It’s down here as well.

For valiant service

■ A Golden Toupee to Andrew Neil, asking incisive questions and pothering stupendous statistics for day after day. Nice to see young talent coming through at the BBC. Andrew won’t even be quite 70 in May 2020.

■ A Golden Horlicks mug for David Dimbleby, who’ll be 81. Thursday night was his last stand, surely: and he stood up straight and sure.

■ A Golden Rinse for Julie Etchingham (45), the cool hand and cool head at ITV’s seven-ring circus.

■ A Golden Welcome Back to Nick Robinson (51), croaking bravely back into action, wit undiminished.

■ And numerous silver medals to the writing press, including first-class travel scholarships for Marina Hyde and John Crace at the Guardian, Ann Treneman (once foreign editor of the Observer) at the Times – and a bronze Poison Pen for Quentin Letts at the Mail to mark his amazing, indefatigable service to bile production at the hustings, in the theatre, or indeed anywhere where bile flows free. Watch it, Dave: Quentin, the hindrance without let, is waiting for you now. Hallelujah!

post from sitemap

Where is the 'Ed Stone'? Tabloid hunt for Miliband tablet

A case of champagne is among the rewards being offered by tabloids and rightwing pundits in return for the whereabouts of the so-called “Ed Stone”.

The 10 commandments-style tablet, engraved with five promises and unveiled in the final days before the election, was meant to symbolise how Ed Miliband would keep his pledges and restore trust in politics.

But the gimmick was perhaps the greatest gift Miliband gave to his opponents – and the mockery shows no signs of letting up even after his resignation and the quiet disappearance of the stone.

An 8ft 6in-high, two-ton limestone hulk is not the easiest thing to hide. But the stone, which was rumoured to have cost up to £30,000, is proving remarkably elusive and Labour sources are staying tight-lipped.

The Mail has offered a case of champagne to any reader who has information that “leads to the discovery of the Ed Stone”. The Sun has set up a dedicated “Ed Stone hotline” for tips about the stone’s whereabouts.

But without any apparent success in locating the real thing, the Sun also offered its readers a chance to win a full-size replica of “the Labour loser’s laughable slab”.

The Telegraph and the Mail on Sunday tried some investigative journalism to locate the boulder, contacting more than 50 masonry firms across the UK – none of whom admitted to creating the monument.

None could even agree what kind of stone it was, with the Stone Federation of Great Britain telling the Mail it could be hewn from Portland limestone from Dorset, but another stonemason claiming it might be cheaper, Portuguese limestone.

Several spoof listings for the tablet have appeared on eBay, with prices ranging from £5 to £100.

“Yesterday the world-famous Ed Stone fell over in an unpredictable freak accident and smashed into bits and pieces. The stone is beyond recognition even to the trained eye,” one tongue-in-cheek eBayer wrote. “Good news is: the leftovers are now exclusively available on eBay.”

A spoof eBay listing for the EdStone
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
A spoof eBay listing for the EdStone Photograph: eBay

Labour promised the stone would be erected in the Rose Garden of Downing Street or in the party’s HQ had Miliband won the election. It is believed the tablet was secretly moved to London after its unveiling in a Hastings car park, but no one has spotted it since.

On social media, many suggested its potential whereabouts as well as alternative uses for the stone.

— Stansaid Airport (@StansaidAirport) May 8, 2015

Ed just relaxing at home with his new kitchen table. pic.twitter.com/QzSsyM2FCb

— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) May 8, 2015

For Sale: One Edstone. Hardly used. New £30,000 but will listen to offers. No time wasters. Ring Ed on 0207...

— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 10, 2015

I think I have found #EdStone just by Googling on maps pic.twitter.com/uGlUFqfRJM

post from sitemap

12 ways NGOs can fight for a free press

It’s a tough time to be a reporter...

This fight to protect press freedom has to be global, where we all stand up to strengthen voices of colleagues who are being silenced, imprisoned, killed, in growing numbers. Journalism has always been a risky business - but now the risks are rising as never before. Lyse Doucet, chief international correspondent, BBC, @bbclysedoucet, London UK

...but there are pockets of hope

It’s almost impossible to be a reporter in Ethiopia because of systematic government repression (see Human Rights Watch’s recent report on media freedom). And the Committee to Protect Journalists recently published its top 10 censors lists, including Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vietnam and China. But there are vibrant media communities in many places, including of course citizen journalists, and you can find some of their stories here. Emma Daly, communications director, Human Rights Watch, @emmadaly @hrw, New York, US

Related: Live Q&A: How can NGOs support an independent press?

The threat of terrorism is being used to decrease press freedom

It certainly is in Ethiopia, where dozens of journalists are imprisoned under the country’s anti-terror laws – usually for stories that aren’t remotely connected to terrorism. The same thing happens in Vietnam and other countries. The UK is setting a pretty bad example by using its anti-terror laws to arrest reporters and their sources and publicly taking power tools to destroy hard disks that supposedly have “dangerous” information on them. Peter Noorlander, CEO, Media Legal Defence Initiative, @mediadefence@PeterNoorlander, London, UK

And violence is being used to silence journalists

Trauma exposure in itself can be a form of censorship. On a weekly basis we talk to journalists who fear that the tide of violence they are witnessing may be overwhelming their ability to respond. In places like Mexico and Syria , – but not only in those countries – compassion fatigue, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder can all impair individuals’ abilities to produce nuanced reporting or to just get the news out. Isis and oppressive regimes know this. That is partly why their propaganda feeds contain such a high volume of traumatic imagery. It has a bludgeoning effect. And that also highlights what a remarkably impressive job many local journalists are doing. They are continuing, despite this pressure. Gavin Rees, executive director, Dart Centre Europe, @DartCenter, London, UK

The United Nations is failing to live up to its rhetoric

The biggest obstacle we face as an advocacy organisation working for social justice internationally is the tight grip on information held by the United Nations. The UN should be the gold standard, defending a free and transparent flow of information to and from the public. It calls on governments to establish freedom of information laws and policies, to ensure that the media have access to the information, and to protect the rights of journalists who report that information. Yet the UN itself is governed by no freedom of information regulations or policies.

The UN’s information arms, from the secretary-general’s official spokespersons right throughout the system, regularly withhold information from the media and the public with impunity. The UN asserts its right to selectively inform and withhold, and there are no official channels for “we, the peoples” to demand disclosure of information from the UN. When staff within the UN reveal information, they are often subjected to disciplinary measures, including dismissal. If the UN is to be the global standard-bearer of press freedom, it must model that principle to member states through its own actions rather than obstruct the free flow of information. Paula Donovan, co-director, AIDS-Free World, @AIDS_Free_World, Boston, US

Media companies should train journalists in the developing world

Media companies that work regularly with local journalists as fixers, translators, etc should offer training, insurance, equipment and care to keep them safe, not only from physical but also psychological harm. Some already do that (and have signed on to the new freelancer guidelines). Perhaps that’s impossible if you’re only working with someone for a day, but in my experience the relationships often last over time, yet in some locals are left to fend for themselves. Emma Daly, communications director, Human Rights Watch, @emmadaly @hrw, New York, US

NGOs should look to engage local reporters

Aid agencies need to stop trampling over local media in their rush to get to CNN when there’s an emergency. And they should do all their press releases in appropriate languages, and have linguistically appropriate spokespeople. Anything else and you are actively undermining their ability to do their (crucial in emergencies) job. Imogen Wall, freelance consultant, @imogenwall, London, UK

Related: 11 ways NGOs can work with politicians

Partnering with media companies in the developing world can bring results

BBC Media Action works in 26 countries, has hundreds of media and capacity- building partnerships and reaches more than 200 million people – so the concern that we might impose on media in developing countries is obviously one we worry about. Our experience is, I think, the opposite. Working with BBC Media Action provides our partners with the capacity to be more editorially independent and have greater capacity to resist political pressures than they might if they were on their own. Our programme Open Jirga in Afghanistan, for example, is a popular and highly influential public debate programme that is produced to BBC editorial standards of balance but goes out on the state broadcaster RTA, reaching millions across the country. It wouldn’t be as balanced or respected if we weren’t involved. James Deane, director of policy and learning, BBC Media Action, @JamesMDeane, London, UK

With the state of press freedom in the UK and US, how can western organisations work effectively in the developing world?

On the subject of what we can do inside our own glass houses while we are throwing critical stones at the absences of press freedom elsewhere, it’s very much on point to consider the concluding words in last week’s Comment is Free piece by Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning). She calls for “a clear example to the rest of the world that, in a truly modern democratic republic, the suppression of the press and sources by criminal prosecutions cannot be tolerated. Then the US could no longer be used as an excuse by repressive governments around the world to say: ‘Well, they do it in America, too’.” Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy, @NormanSolomon @accuracy, Washington, DC, US

In the digital age, physical distance matters less to those who want to make a difference

Our ability to connect through the internet, through Skype and other links, means we have an unprecedented ability to reach out to help journalists everywhere. There’s nothing better than being “on the ground”, meeting face-to-face. But we can no longer say we don’t have the means to try to connect, no matter where we are. Lyse Doucet

But new technology doesn’t mean reporters are empowered

The broader platform also means that journalists are increasingly potentially exposed. This means digital reporting training needs to come not just with ethical training, but also digital security training. Jodie Ginsberg, CEO, Index on Censorship, @jodieginsberg @indexcensorship, London, UK

Training on its own won’t transform the media

Training on its own won’t work if journalists can’t put that training into effect. We learned this the hard way and have changed our strategy as a result. There is a very useful analysis of the long-term impact of training (or the lack of it) rooted in the BBC’s experience of training journalists in the 1990s here. However, if you provide training within the context of co-producing genuinely independent, strong public interest content, that really can work. James Deane

Read the full Q&A here.

Is there anything that we’ve left out? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow@GuardianGDP on Twitter.

post from sitemap