Picking over the rubble?
A very fine spot by Marc Mullholland of Kathederblog, pointing out that despite being a signatory of the Euston Manifesto, Nick finds it hard to resist "picking over the rubble" from time to time. In the piece already Watched below on government consultants, we have the following two asides, meant to illustrate the incompetence and venality of the politicians:
[...]
Nick's past articles on Hutton have been slightly nuanced; he didn't buy the whole Harry's Place/Oliver Kamm bill of goods that it was a complete exoneration, but he did come up with the priceless paragraph:
But this stuff about building democracy in Iraq "failing on a grand scale"? Nick, as a very wise man once said ...
"If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology."
you should listen to Aaro, Nick, he's often quite good.
Whatever they do, the odds are that it will not work, because they will listen to advisers who all but guarantee failure. By “not work”, I don’t mean fail on a grand scale in the same way building a democratic Iraq or abolishing child poverty isn’t working
[...]
More than anything else, Lord Hutton’s inquiry into the decision-making before the Iraq war showed how the old lines have been blurred. If you blot out the names from the transcripts of meetings, it is impossible to tell who is the politician and who is the civil servant, who is the spin-doctor and who is the spy
Nick's past articles on Hutton have been slightly nuanced; he didn't buy the whole Harry's Place/Oliver Kamm bill of goods that it was a complete exoneration, but he did come up with the priceless paragraph:
As those who put their trust in the BBC come to terms with the disquieting thought that Alastair Campbell is more reliable than John Humphrys, new Labour has every right to feel pleased with itself. Once again, predictions of Blair's demise from the Mystic Megs of the lobby have proved false. Once again, the PM has triumphed against all odds. Once again, he has been vindicated in every respect except one: there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the reason for their absence needs investigating.
But this stuff about building democracy in Iraq "failing on a grand scale"? Nick, as a very wise man once said ...
"If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology."
you should listen to Aaro, Nick, he's often quite good.
posted by The Rioja Kid at 5/23/2006 11:07:00 AM
7 Comments:
How much does Nick earn? He admires Cherie Blair so maybe he should have made a bid.
I can just see Aaro striding into the Times one day, all of a lather, and saying in breathless tones: "have any of you heard of a journalist called Thomas Friedman? He's really rather good..."
embarrassed coughs, eye rolling, whispers to the effect that the new kid's a bit slow on the uptake, etc...
To be fair to HP, I don't think they (or at least not Harry) bought the Hutton line wholesale. Norman Geras, on the other hand, was channeling 'Biased BBC' for about a fortnight afterwards.
Nick Cohen wrote the most ridiculous piece on Hutton for the Big Issue in 2004 (Jan 2004, renamed "The Big tissue" for that edition) . Will Self was guest editor, and commissioned him saying to the Evening Standard
"the political journalist Nick Cohen writes an article about the tissue of lies in Downing Street."
except he didn't . Cohen's piece briefly apologised for Blair making neccessary "lawyerly lies" over WMD, then wrote a few hundred words claiming the anti war movement was all a lie because they pretended they didn't support Saddam, when he knew they did, etc etc.
You might be interested in this: disgraceful smear of Chomsky by aaronowitch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/readerseditor/story/0,,1782133,00.html
External ombudsman report
This is the full text of the external ombudsman, John Willis's, report into the handling by the Guardian readers' editor of the controversy surrounding an interview with the writer Noam Chomsky
Thursday May 25, 2006
I was asked in late March 2006 by the Scott Trust to resume the role of External Ombudsman for the Guardian - a position I had held from 1997 before leaving the UK to work in America in 2002. The role of the External Ombudsman is outlined in the Terms of Reference for the Guardian Readers' Editor on the newspaper's website.
In particular, the Scott Trust asked me to adjudicate on whether Ian Mayes, the Readers' Editor, had discharged his duties properly in relation to an interview with Professor Noam Chomsky (31/10/05). Following complaints from Professor Chomsky and others the Guardian issued a correction (17/11/05) and withdrew the article from its website.
Article continues
[Advertisement]
As a result of this correction complaints were received from others, particularly David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm and Francis Wheen, who claimed that this correction was in itself wrong and needed to be withdrawn or corrected.
As a result I was invited by the Scott Trust in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Readers' Editor to answer two questions:- a) Did the Readers' Editor discharge his duty to the readers by taking complaints seriously and considering them thoroughly? b) Did he reach a conclusion and take an appropriate action as a result of that conclusion?
Thus the Terms of Reference from the Scott Trust to me made it clear that my task was to judge the adequacy and fairness of how the complaint was handled not the complex underlying historical debate which surrounds the Bosnian conflict.
Timeline
1. On 31st October 2005 an interview with Professor Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes is published as the lead article in the G2 section. This followed Professor Chomsky being voted as the world's greatest intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine.
2. Publication sparks an immediate storm. Noam Chomsky sends a letter for publication to the Letters Editor. On November 1st two letters condemning the interview are published.
3. The following day, November 2nd two letters are published under the letters page headline "Falling out over Srebrenica". One letter is from Professor Chomsky and the second, from Kemal Parvenic, is about Omarska.
4. Chomsky continues to be unhappy, particularly with the juxtaposition of his letter with that from Parvenic. His complaint intensifies when he receives a hard copy of the original article including photographs and headlines.
5. On November 5th a spoof article under the pseudonym Norman Johnson which attempts to satirise Chomsky and more generally former left wingers who have changed their political alignment, is published.
6. Acrimonious correspondence with Noam Chomsky continues and an e-mail campaign, largely from an organisation called Media Lens, sparks off several hundred e-mails. Their website ('Smearing Chomsky - the Guardian in the gutter 4/11/05) urges readers to e-mail the Guardian editor and others.
7. On November 17th a correction is printed and the article is deleted from the website. Five days previously a 'holding note' from the Readers' Editor had been published saying the findings would be published when the complaint was resolved.
8. On November 23rd a comment piece from Diana Johnstone whose views on Srebrenica are referred to in the original interview is published.
9. On December 2nd a letter of complaint about the correction is received from David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm and Francis Wheen.
10. On December 12th Ian Mayes examines the issues in his Open Door column.
11. Correspondence between the three second wave complainants, the Guardian and the Scott Trust continue. They are unhappy with the unwillingness of the Scott Trust to ask the External Ombudsman to examine content as well as process. As a result on March 20th two of them publish their lengthy and detailed complaint on their websites. It runs to approximately 4,500 words. On behalf of the three complaints Oliver Kamm later explained publication "We did not want to go outside the Guardian's appeals procedure until our complaint had gone through all the hoops. We have been extremely patient". (11/4/06) The heart of their complaint is that the Guardian should not have issued a correction because in their view Professor Chomsky "most certainly does seem to believe that...Srebrenica was not a massacre and that therefore Emma Brockes had been done "a serious injustice". Their complaint claims that Professor Chomsky had on a previous occasion put the case that Srebrenica was not a massacre "directly and unambiguously".
Correction
12. The correction of November 17th "found in favour of Professor Chomsky" on three significant complaints. Principal among these was 'a statement by Ms Brockes that in referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian War he (Chomsky) had placed the word 'massacre' in quotation marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other comments by Ms Brockes, that Professor Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been a massacre'. For this the Guardian 'retracts the statement with an unreserved apology'.
In addition the headline, about which Professor Chomsky also complained, 'added to the misleading impression given by the treatment of the word 'massacre'. It read: "Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A : My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough." No question in that form was put to Professor Chomsky'.
The correction made it clear that the headline was not justified by the text. It related to Professor Chomsky's support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as in the original interview) over the withdrawal of a book in which she dealt with issues concerning the war in the former Yugoslavia. Ian Mayes wrote: "Prof Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, which was made in the form of an open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech". He also stated, "Neither Professor Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone ever denied the fact of the massacre".
Finally, Noam Chomsky complained about the juxtaposition of the letter from him with a letter from Kemal Parvenic, a survivor of Omarska. The Guardian acknowledged that "with hindsight the juxtaposition has exacerbated Professor Chomsky's complaint, and that is regretted". However, the Readers' Editor also stated that he believed that these letters were published together 'in good faith'.
Method
13. I have read through all the complaints, relevant e-mails and drafts of the correction. I have also been in contact with the key participants in this process, including Ian Mayes, Emma Brockes, Noam Chomsky and the three complainants about the original correction.
Background
14. Ian Mayes has been the Readers' Editor for eight years. The system is embedded in the culture of the newspaper with journalists, by and large, understanding the principles and practices that underpin this role.
The relationship of the Readers' Editor to the newspaper is different from other journalists. He has access to any necessary meetings and correspondence and any decision he takes is independent of the Guardian management. No doubt on occasions he has reached a conclusion on a complaint that the Editor or Managing Editor has not agreed with.
Ian Mayes says, "I have no brief to defend the Guardian but I have a responsibility to be fair to all sides including the journalist".
15. The technique that has evolved since the appointment of a Readers' Editor involves widespread participation. Indeed, this was probably important in winning the confidence of the staff so that the principle of a Readers' Editor is supported and therefore journalists are more unafraid to admit mistakes.
Part of this approach is to be open enough to let Guardian journalists be involved, see drafts and have an opportunity to put their views or seek alterations. In this way the opinion of the Readers' Editor is tested against other parties to a complaint.
Nonetheless Ian Mayes is clear that he is in charge of any complaint and that his decision is final. "When I took this formal complaint over it was made clear to everyone involved at the Guardian that I was in charge," he says. (28/3/06)
16. There is no doubt that this was a difficult complaint for the newspaper. Professor Chomsky was extremely angry. Even in correspondence with me several months later he writes of the Guardian editors, "I have never seen such a disgraceful performance, and that covers quite a wide range".
As a world figure and an icon to many, Chomsky gathered significant support for his campaign. The Editor, Alan Rusbridger, received over four hundred letters and emails. The vast majority were stimulated by Media Lens. This lobby, as the Guardian would describe it, was dealt with directly by Alan Rusbridger. The Readers' Editor did not see these complaints to the Editor and dealt only with that by Noam Chomsky. Nonetheless the newspaper must have felt under significant pressure.
17. The original interview was tape recorded but unfortunately the tape has been partially recorded over. A transcript of sorts exists but the most contentious section of the interview was not available on tape. No one seems to doubt that this was genuine.
Conclusion
18. I have no doubt that Ian Mayes acted conscientiously and in good faith. He spent significant amount of time on the original complaint.
Ian Mayes diligently kept everyone fully informed and according to his Open Door article, "all were shown my draft conclusions ahead of publication and were given an opportunity to comment or argue for any amendment". There is nothing to doubt his complete integrity.
19. Oliver Kamm and David Aaronovitch in their letters on their websites (20/03/06) are clear: 'We have never questioned the diligence and professionalism with which Mayes considered Chomsky's complaints'. However, they are clear that they disagree with the 'judgement he came to'.
Professor Chomsky seems to have no problem with the way Ian Mayes dealt with his complaint. Emma Brockes felt that he was 'professional and did everything by the book. He consulted all of us. His independence was not compromised'. Ian Katz, Editor of G2, confirmed, "Emma and I signed off at each stage of the correction process". (25/4/06)
20. Both the correction and the Open Door letter indicates an openness with readers by the newspaper and a willingness to admit fault. Many other newspapers would be much more reluctant to admit a serious mistake and apologise so clearly. As one correspondent in a largely critical e-mail to the Guardian put it, "Having committed the errors the Guardian behaved quite well - certainly a hundred times better than any other paper is likely to have done".
21. Ian Mayes is a general journalist. He deals with many complaints and corrections every year across a range of issues. He is not an expert on the Bosnian conflict, nor can he be expected to be. Scholars and journalists from many nations have written on this subject for many years and no doubt will continue to do so. As Ian Mayes put it himself, "It was not my role to investigate the history of the former Yugoslavia but, in the light of Chomsky's complaint, to put that (complaint) to the author and seek some justification".
All the Readers' Editor can do is to conscientiously examine the complaint about what actually appeared in the Guardian. His evidence had to be largely confined to what Noam Chomsky said to Emma Brockes on the day of the interview. His correction did not go into the rights and wrongs of Chomsky's view of Srebrenica but set straight points not supported by the interview itself. He was clear that the journalist had been wrong to put the word massacre in quotes and that the headline, which was not the responsibility of Emma Brockes, had not been a direct question. Both Ian Katz, the G2 Editor, and Emma Brockes agreed that a significant mistake had been made. On that basis he was surely right to conclude that the errors had been serious enough to issue a correction and an apology.
22. He read the long complaint from David Aaronovitch and others which quotes extensively from Chomsky's other writing and comments. Ian Mayes concluded (5/12/05) that having read the material sent in by David Aaronovitch 'those concerned argue that the correction concerning Noam Chomsky was flawed, should not have been made and should be withdrawn. I should say immediately that none of the material sent to me has persuaded me that I should do that'.
23. I have read the complaint about the correction. I too am not an expert on the history of the former Yugoslavia. There may be debate about what Professor Chomsky's exact views are about the work of Diana Johnstone. But as one blog on David Aaronovitch's website put it, 'Even if Chomsky supported (Diana Johnstone's) book it would not prove that he had denied the Srebrenica massacre'. In addition, he said nothing to Emma Brockes on the day of the interview which justified putting massacre in quotation marks, nor in the long complaint from David Aaronovitch and others is there a direct quote from Chomsky that supports an opposite view. In his Times column (14/3/06) David Aaronovitch wrote, 'Johnstone, certainly, and Chomsky, implicitly, had most certainly denied the massacre'. Even if you agree with this interpretation of Chomsky's views, and Chomsky and many others deny that extremely vehemently, implication is not 'direct and unambiguous", to use the words of the complainants. On that basis my opinion is that Ian Mayes was right to come to his view on the evidence sent to him directly by the complainants.
24. David Aaronovitch, Oliver Kamm and Francis Wheen also complained that by using legal advice the independence of the Readers' Editor was compromised. This was a complex complaint, replete with risks of litigation of different kinds. Any Readers' Editor in those circumstances would have sought legal advice. To not have done so would have been imprudent. The Readers' Editor does not enjoy legal privilege. He risked being sued by the original complainant or possibly Emma Brockes if he got his correction wrong. Emma Brockes was also at risk from an action. So it is not surprising that a Guardian lawyer was present at some key meetings.
Having seen drafts of the correction and explanatory article before and after the Guardian lawyers commented, nothing I have seen indicates that the independence of Ian Mayes was in any sense undermined. Indeed, a verdict so very clearly in favour of Noam Chomsky against the Guardian was not a result that the newspaper would have welcomed.
25. On the question of the letters published on November 2nd I can see how Professor Chomsky might have felt that the juxtaposition of his letter with one from Kemal Parvenic was deliberate or unfair. He points out that the headline "Fall Out Over Srebrenica" implies a dispute between the two letter writers which did not exist. However, printing letters side by side which represent different perspectives is common practice for newspapers. In his correction Ian Mayes says that "the juxtaposition has exacerbated Professor Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted". But like him, I can find no evidence that the newspaper was not acting in "good faith". It was not until Ian Mayes returned from a trip to Madrid a few days after the publication of the letters that he received a formal complaint from Professor Chomsky about the form of publication of the letters and other matters.
26. Although I am sure that Ian Mayes always acted properly and was absolutely right to issue an apology and correction I do have two concerns:-
a) Given the commendable openness of the Guardian and its willingness to stimulate debate amongst its readers it seems surprising, as Oliver Kamm, David Aaronovitch and Francis Wheen point out, that the article, albeit with appropriate changes or the apology added, should have been deleted from the website. Indeed, Professor Chomsky himself never sought to have the article removed from the website. Ironically, the article is available on Chomsky's own website.
This decision was made by Ian Mayes himself although Emma Brockes and Ian Katz were present at the meeting when the decision was made. No doubt there was discussion about this decision but no one seems to have objected fiercely. No one for a second can doubt the integrity of Ian Mayes and this particular judgement but in hindsight there must be a question of whether this was the right course of action. "Drawing a line under the affair" is not a compelling reason for withdrawal and indeed that tactic failed.
b) I am not convinced that the Guardian should have run the short comment piece by Diana Johnstone in the form it did. She was not the direct subject of the original interview and although comment and response pieces are part of Guardian culture, taken with the apology and correction letters and the Open Door article, this piece contributed to the impression that the newspaper may have over compensated for the original, albeit serious errors.
Ms Johnstone's first paragraph referred to "some of the errors" being corrected which implied that there were more mistakes in the original interview than the substantial and clear apology from the Readers' Editor had detailed and to that extent was not completely fair to Emma Brockes. The Readers' Editor was not responsible for commissioning this response article.
Summary
I was asked by the Scott Trust to examine: a) whether the Readers' Editor discharged his duties seriously b) whether he took appropriate action as a result. It is clear that Ian Mayes conducted his examination punctiliously and independently. No party on either side of the complaint disagrees. Overall the newspaper took both the complaint from Chomsky and later from others extremely conscientiously. It is ironic that they are entertaining a complaint about their process when so few newspapers have any independent process at all. The Readers' Editor was right to conclude that an apology and correction was deserved. The journalists involved agreed. This was a serious matter. He was also right, on the evidence sent to him, that the substantive complaint from Messrs. Aaronovitch, Kamn and Wheen about Professor Chomsky's views on Srebrenica should be rejected and that therefore the original correction should stand.
However, with hindsight, the removal of the original interview from the website was unnecessary and over responsive. The Readers' Editor was not responsible for the Diana Johnstone response article but the form of this too looks like an over correction.
John Willis
External Ombudsman
May 8th 2006
Thanks. I'm leaving that up because it makes the site look more popular, but for future reference, just the link will do, thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home