There are some wonderful gems to be found in the annual statements of publishing groups now available on the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) website.
I particularly like some of the details in the pocket guide given to journalists at the Mail titles. The 16 paragraphs of advice include: stick to the facts; take care with contentious issues; don’t make assumptions.
No. 12 (Very few journalists are good at maths) is a delight. It states: “If your story depends on your own calculations get a colleague to check them.”
Presumably, that colleague will need to be one of the very few journalists on the staff who is good at maths.
And maths plays its part in a key portion of News UK’s editorial policy document to ensure “a safe, professional and effective working environment.”
Under “expenses, approvals and contracts”, the publishers reminds its journalists they can “only claim back expenses incurred in the performance of your duties as an employee” and that “valid receipts” are required.
As for technology”, the company that gave us phone-hacking tells reporters it must be used in a “responsible and lawful way.” I think some former Sun staff arrested under Operation Elveden will fail to appreciate this statement:
“Everyone has a duty to protect the confidential information of the business and the wider News Corp group. This means, for example, not discussing confidential matters in public places and keeping confidential documents secure.”
Richard Desmond’s company, publisher of the Daily Express and Daily Star, is acutely aware of the reputational damage that might occur if employees engage in “trash-talking”.
According to its advice to its journalists, they should think before they respond to provocation because “it is very easy to become engaged in a slanging match” and they must not “engage in bad language or name-calling.”
Lest that is not ironic enough, given Desmond’s newsroom history, it also states: “You must be respectful towards your colleagues.”
Regional publisher Johnston Press places a lot of responsibility on its editors who, apart from editorial oversight, are expected to review advertising copy as well. They are “free” to operate “without interference from general management, although this does not preclude management from making its views known.”
The shortest annual report appears to be that of Fusion Flowers, the online magazine for floral design, flower arranging and floristry courses. It states that has had no complaints in 14 years of publication, doesn’t train staff and has no internal guides. A blooming ethical success story.
By contrast, the annual statement of Slimming World - which has also been free of complaints - runs to 11 pages. Dare I suggest it need not have been so bloated?
Finally, accepting that confession is good for the soul, I appreciate the admission by the editor of the Congleton Chronicle, Jeremy Condliffe, that he was responsible for his paper’s worst error.
Referring to himself in the third person, he tells of writing “a too-hurried editorial” in which he implied that a councillor cleared of a complaint might instead have been guilty of it.
As recompense, he writes of apologising to the councillor in print and then in person, adding that he served him with “a nice cup of tea.”
Perhaps, the Daily Mail’s editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, might like to consider this remedy for complainants in future. Then again, is there enough tea in China?
