A Question Of Integrity For Flaks And Hacks

Two incidents today that don’t do a lot for the reputation of journalism, both of which raise issues for hacks and flaks.

First, Ofcom issued a rebuke to GB News for breaking impartiality rules by having politicians present certain shows.

Ofcom said: “Politicians have an inherently partial role in society, and news content presented by them is likely to be viewed by audiences in light of that perceived bias.

In our view, the use of politicians to present the news risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news.”

Other broadcasters reported this with glee. Sky News in particular, I think.

GB News responded that it is “deeply concerned” by this “chilling” decision from the media regulator since it hurts free speech and media plurality.

Ofcom says the channel is “on notice”.

I’ve some sympathy for GB News here, but if it is going to survive it needs a greater level of credibility than it presently has.

For hacks, the question is, would you work there? Some would say “if the money was right”, I’d say, “Christ, I’d have to be desperate.”

(They have not asked me, to be clear, and I doubt they would.)

For flaks, a similar conundrum presents itself.

If a flak says to a client – great news! I’ve got you an interview slot on GB News! – does she say that through gritted teeth, or has she already politely turned the offer down?

Meanwhile, Observer food critic Jay Rayner is having a right go at the Manchester Evening News for what he calls “an astonishingly crap piece of ‘journalism’”.

The MEN ran a story about something Rayner said on Twitter (it really doesn’t matter what).

Rayner complains: “I didn’t ’speak out’ or hit back. I replied to a tweet. Is it that slow a news day? They didn’t even approach me…”

Sadly, reporters running stories based on what someone even semi-famous said on Twitter is here to stay.

MEN, like other Reach publications, is all about clicks. Replies to Rayner include, “it was once a good newspaper, the biggest selling in Britain in fact, but now it’s just awful. Doesn’t help that most of their contributers aren’t in Manchester, and know nothing about the place”.

I feel sorry for the hacks forced to churn this stuff out. One described it as “soul destroying”.

Reach’s approach to “news” ought to make it an easy target for PR people. PR people tell me that dealing with its websites is so exasperating that they find it no better an experience than the poor (in every sense) journalists do.

If getting a client into a Reach paper isn’t worth the bother, do they get boycotted by flaks along with GB News?

The owners of these businesses are not thinking about this possibility. They should.