Journalists and their contacts. Periodistas y sus contactos.

Aquí dejo constancia del último trabajo de clase entregado.

La verdad que tengo sentimientos encontrados. Por una parte estoy orgullosa de que después de un año haya sido capaz de escribir casi dos mil palabras en inglés; y por otra, estoy segura que esta manera de explicarme en español me parecería infantil, pero en fin... ahí queda:

Being close to getting a scoop, yet being far enough away to not get involved.

Journalists and their relationship with their sources, is one of the complex issues to be tackled during our career. Although many professionals know how to maintain the right distance, there are many who enter uncertain territory that may become dangerous ground to deal with.

Talking about specialised journalism it seems to be even more difficult to point out the boundaries between it and advertising, since many organisations pitch information they create as a way to promote themselves. Journalists have to be able to distinguish when information has a public interest or is simply beneficial publicity or it is used for the purposes of propaganda.
One of the main lessons we learn as students and unavoidably we put into practise when we work is the importance of a list of close contacts and obviously, the bigger the better.


John Illman during his lecture about health journalism gave us a good example of this. If the medical industry releases a new medicine, detects an unknown illness, discovers a promising cure etc, as a specialist journalist, the first thing we have to do is to research and secondly contrast information, while being fast and accurate. The easiest way to do so is by ringing your doctors, contacts up and interviewing them; all their knowledge is our source to tap into. Therefore, being close to them is going to be necessary. We use them, yet somehow, we assume that at some point they might do exactly the same to us.




About this, reading on the internet about a conference in the South by Southwest Conferences and Festivals in Austin, Texas, 2007, given by Daniel Irvin Rather (the former longtime anchor for the CBS Evening News for 24 years, whose career featured for the controversial and questionable 2004 documentary report about President George W. Bush's military service, which may have led to Mr. Rather's departure from CBS) the journalist says that journalists get too cozy with their sources. “They make either stated or silent agreements that if you’ll take care of me I’ll take care of you”. According to Rather, this is very dangerous. “You can get so close that you become part of the problem. Journalists use the sources, and sources use the reporter. But the second the source begins to believe that the reporter can be pulled in and be ‘on the team,’ then it’s gone too far. When the reporter begins to feel the same way, it’s gone too far.”


Hence, the question is how to know to what extent we will be close to getting the scoop or breaking news but without forgetting the second principle of the NUJ’s code; or, how not to become a tool and, as a result, lose trust in our audience.


The answer is not easy.

In the attempt to find some clarity, and relating this to the job that I would like to do the most, which is being an international correspondent (in my view it is a great opportunity to be abroad and have the ability to merge travel journalism, investigative and cover current international affairs), I was wondering how often practicing international journalism it may happen that the limits could be confused.

Danny Wood is one of the correspondents working at the moment for the BBC in Spain, besides cooperating with other media in Germany. During his career he has had different experiences in several specialities as a freelancer and I thought that he might be helpful to clear up some of my doubts.



- In your opinion, how dangerous is getting too close to your contacts and how beneficial?



- There's certainly the danger that a specialist reporter's reporting will be influenced negatively by close contact with the people they report on.
Journalists would argue that it's their job as professionals to ensure that this close contact does not bias their work. In fact, to get that breaking story, for example an important piece of new information on a government health initiative, or whatever, close contact and confidence with sources is essential. Without that close contact there wouldn't be as many breaking stories.

-So, Would you even recommend it?

-It's difficult to imagine a political correspondent doing their job properly without wining and dining and generally schmoozing with politicians.

Besides, no doubt politicians change the way they present the content of what they say and do in an attempt to please journalists but not out of pressure from those journalists, but out of the need to get their message out to the public. No doubt questions and the political pressure brought to bear by specialists with their questions and queries does influence the content of political policies to some degree...or at least provoke debate and discussion, which is a good thing and if that changes a policy then that's probably a sign that the journalist is doing their job


As for the result of that constant close contact and whether it ends up corrupting the journalist's work will depend a lot on the journalist. There are poor journalists, journalists who are already biased and lazy journalists - all of whom could become tools of their sources without the need for much close contact.


-Is it more difficult for specialist journalists to mark the cutoff point, perhaps?

-For a specialist, it's easy to fall into the trap of using the same contacts - having lots of close contacts would help prevent bias one way or the other. Having not been a 'specialist' reporter in this sense, at the moment (a correspondent covering an entire country has less difficulty remaining untainted) I don’t really have this problem. I don’t actively cultivate my relationships with politicians because I don’t think it’s necessary for me and that distance as a foreign reporter is important and can work in your favour. I like to feel like an outsider, but as a specialist reporter you can't be an outsider because you really do need to know what is going on, on the inside. But, as a general rule, the way we go about our work is very important.


- Would you mind telling me how you do this?

- There are correspondents who don’t think twice about joining a politician for dinner and having the politician pick up the bill. For me, petty as our individual role may be, the message we give out to the world is important. I wouldn’t, as a general rule accept a free dinner from a politician (although I could see situations where that might be necessary). If I did, I would make sure that I was accepting free dinners from politicians of all persuasions. I would then trust that my professionalism as a journalist (if I can call it that) would stop me becoming a tool.






Lately, Katherine Jarman, one of the health producers of the BBC, considering my question about her opinion of whether reporters get too close to their contacts to fully serve the readers, told me that could happen occasionally. “Though hopefully not at the BBC! It's an accusation that is sometimes, as you may be aware, levelled at specialist Royal reporters in this country in particular - that they become too close to the British Royal family."

"I think it's certainly something that all specialist journalists need to guard against, for example by refusing any offers of payment from the 'establishment' in their chosen field (in our case, the NHS, Department of Health, and health staff professional bodies or unions) to chair meetings or conferences, facilitate debates, etc etc. I think if specialist journalists regularly accept such commissions, they can end up having divided loyalties in their chosen field, perhaps without even realising it. Certainly the BBC has very strict guidelines about using one's specialist knowledge for the benefit of outside organisations in this way.”


Undoubtedly, a strong base of professional ethics is fundamental to not choose the wrong way. Recently, I was watching on CNN a report about the launching of the largest AirBus built with the funds of Germany, France and Spain. It was broadcast by Richard Quest, one of the network’s highest profile presenters, firmly established as an expert on business travel issues, in my opinion, his report was an example of fair journalism.

Despite being invited by the organisation, which chose a selected number of journalists from all over the world for the presentation to check the aircraft out, flying for several hours; meanwhile, they might enjoy all its advantages and taste a rich feast. The reporter in his interview to one of the sponsors of the project, asked many controversial questions showing the weak and bad points of a plane like that, such as carbon emissions, wasted space or the use of a huge budget while it is going to be affordable to a few privileged people. Being in his position, probably, other professionals would have written a review leaving these comments out.

Finally, before we finish, what would be a photojournalist stance?

Arturo Rodríguez is the winner of the 2nd prize Spot News single, and 2nd Award People in the News reportage in the World Press Photo ’07.

Personally, I think that nowadays it is quite normal not to take pictures of politicians, business people, etc., if this might damage their reputation or career,but this would very much depend on the close relationship between the media and their contacts.

In my case, as photographer or documentary maker, I do not have to deal with them but I do have to deal with security corps, charities, NGOs… and many times we have to face dilemmas like when you have got a picture of someone who you work with, every day for a period, and you know it may harm him/her: what should I do?.

In my opinion, I think that it is a matter of priorities. I am first and foremost a person before a photojournalist: why should I take a photograph of a Red Cross voluntier not using the right sanitary conditions when he is the one who calls me to inform me when a boat with inmigrants is coming?

I am aware of the meaning of my pictures, however, these have been used many times for other purposes, they have even been manipulated by computer, in the USSR old fashion, futhermore, I have seen how previous editors chose those portraits that showed the worst face of someone to make fun or discredit. Fortunatelly, the media I am working with now, is completely different in this matter, although is not exempt from other issues.

To sum up, taking into account these examples, I would say that one of the key attitudes is never being too close to lose the perspective and get tainted. Give contrasting views, using different sources, looking for diverse angles of the same issue, seek the most reliable information, these are all traits we should establish. In this way, over time we will accumulate a large audience to back our work while considering us serious and trusworthy professionals.
Our work, supported by the audience, will generate more interst from our sources.

Nobody said it was going to be easy, but it looks like it will definitely be enjoyable.