Former Reader’s Editor at The Guardian Advises Media on Best Practice

Interview

With the “Terror Raid” of Tbilisi on November 22 making international headlines around the globe, there was one crucial aspect that wasn’t touched upon by international outlets, yet seemed to be a subject of much vexation in Georgian society: how Georgian media opted to report on Special Forces operations broadcasting detailed live coverage from the areas they shouldn’t have been allowed to enter, thus inadvertently assisting the sieged combatants and potentially even providing them with important logistical information. Where is the fine line that separates competitive professionalism and ethics? That was the question GEORGIA TODAY and Panorama Talk Show asked Chris Elliott, former Reader’s Editor at The Guardian, who kindly agreed to share with us the Western know-how on the matter.

Despite the potential logistical risks [mentioned above], the media says it’s their duty to inform the people. What’s your take? How should media behave in such situations?

The first thing is to borrow from the Google code of conduct: do no evil, do no harm. I remember there was quite a lot of criticism two years ago, when, two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, there was an attack on a supermarket during which some people hid from the gunmen in a refrigerator. There was huge criticism, I think even a civil law case, against the 24/7 live TV station which was broadcasting, in real time, telling their viewers and the terrorists in that supermarket, that there were people hiding in the fridge. That could have led to the deaths of those people. Clearly, that is not responsible media! Of course, it’s our duty to give viewers and readers the clearest picture on what’s going on, but do no harm! Do not reveal information that may allow terrorists to kill more people. Responsible media would see that as a first guideline on covering any terror attack or counter-terrorism operation.

Media outlets were trying to compete with each other to show the most shocking live material. Journalists were going into a restricted area to film

We had a conference yesterday where we talked about media ethics in the modern age. Christina Nikolitis Squires, the head of content at Sky News UK, made an unequivocal point: we want to be right, not first. So, you do not release info that you are unsure about and you definitely don’t’ release anything if it could lead to someone being killed. One could almost call it slow journalism, because you have to wait until you are certain with your reports. I don’t know everything about the raid in Tbilisi but I think if competitive media organizations are more concerned about competition than people’s lives, then something is quite clearly not right. You have to make a judgment. This is where news organization professionalism comes in. On the one hand, if we tell the public that there are people hiding in the fridge, knowing that terrorists are monitoring live broadcasts and that it could lead to their deaths, that’s clearly wrong. If, on the other hand, state authorities restrict reporting without clear reasons, then that’s more problematical. It comes down to the professional judgment, but the interests of saving people’s lives should come first. Competition should come second.

The gov’t came under heavy criticism for not having a media strategy for such a scenario

All big public authorities in the UK have incident plans. Of course, media should accept its responsibilities, but it would be a lot easier for media to be responsible if there was a thoughtful, guided process run by the authorities, be it police, army or special forces. Journalists around the world need to learn that to be credible, we should do our best to verify info and put it into context. One of the major ways we can do that is to have nominated spokespersons from the public authorities dealing with the incident. Therefore, they have to have plan, do rehearsals and so on. Actually, it would be sensible if authorities talked with journalists and the journalists pushed for such a system themselves.

The comments sections of some outlets were swarmed with hate speech against the ethnic group that the terror suspects were thought to belong to. What are the guidelines of the British media on reporting the semantics of terror attacks?

Hate speech is a serious problem. I suppose you mean the language of describing the terrorists in a way which suggested that everyone from that community is a terrorist. You’ve got to be really careful about the language you use in these incidents. One of the other problems in social media. Last week, we had an incident in London’s Oxford station: reports of gunshots right in the heart of London at the busiest time of the year. 16 people were injured in the crush. At least two British newspapers were ramping up twitter reports that it was actually a terrorist attack. And in one of the tweets last night they used an image used two weeks ago from some other terror attack.

So it’s not just a problem in Georgi

Far from it. We live in more fearful age. When you look at the coverage of migration, and we are in the biggest period of migration since the end of WWII, millions of people are leaving their homes seeking better lives. Newspapers, especially mainstream media, which is losing ground in terms of advertising, are edgier than ever and eager to increase clicks on their website. I think that’s a real danger. It really borders inciting violence. I think hate speech is a real danger these days and we should aim to avoid it.

In Georgia, Pankisi Gorge is being turned into a black spot because some of its inhabitants went to fight for ISIS

That is foolishly discriminatory because it won’t solve the problem and you’re actually playing the terrorists’ game. They want you to do that because it creates further pain and suffering and is therefore, likely to draw more people into terrorism. News organizations have a responsibility to avoid that- not just a moral responsibility; it is sensible commercially, too. If we want to build a commercial model for journalism in the future, journalists have to be credible and people have to trust them. While it is actually a moral imperative (in saving lives and having happier communities) it is also really important if you want people to pay for journalism, be it broadcast, print, web, whatever: you have to show you can be trusted. And that’s why you should be really careful what you say, when you say it and the images you use.

Vazha Tavberidze