Just before we see the old year out, it may be helpful to readers to have news of how some of the issues discussed in Open door during the last 12 months or so have developed.
On 8 September 2014, the column looked at the problem of the use of anonymous quotes within stories. Dr David Lowry had written to object about the use of anonymous quotes in a political story from 21 June and reminded us that the Guardian has a policy outlined by Alan Rusbridger, the editor in chief, in 2000, that these should be used only on rare occasions.
A senior member of the political staff defended the way the Guardian’s editorial guidelines were interpreted in this area and the news editor said he would raise it with staff. Dr Lowry was not convinced.
He has written twice more to suggest that the practice is still too common and to question whether this undermines the authority of the readers’ editor.
There are two points to consider here. The first is whether there has been any change in the use of anonymous sources. I asked colleagues in the Guardian’s research and information department to look at their use over the three months up to November using the same search terms. The numbers are, frankly, pretty similar, although the last three months has seen very high levels of political coverage because the party conferences fell into that period.
The other point is the concern over the readers’ editor’s authority and therein lies, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the role. The job is about resolving complaints, which may mean an amendment to a story or, in the most extreme cases, taking something down – never a good outcome – but changing behaviour is a different matter.
The readers’ editor’s role is not a disciplinary one. I can urge and recommend but substantive changes in behaviour have to come through the section editors recognising that the Guardian’s editorial code should be upheld. So, still more work to do there.
Another example of an area where I can express a view but only effect change through agreement is the use of the term “illegal immigrant”. On 25 August I wrote that the use of illegal immigrant is a term that human rights activists would like to see ended. The view of one reader is that: “The term ‘illegal immigrant’ is inaccurate and dangerous. Even in the case of someone deemed to have committed an immigration offence by not having the correct papers, the person themselves is not ‘illegal’.”
I believe the term should be changed too and discussed it with David Marsh, the editor of the Guardian’s style guide, who also thought it should be changed. However, that view was not universal. One colleague felt there should be further discussion before any overall blanket ban was imposed: “I do think it would be right to ban the use of the term ‘illegals’ outside of quotations which I agree is a dehumanising description.
“One major problem with banning ‘illegal migration’ is that there is no simple alternative. The column suggests referring to those who have entered the country illegally but that only covers a small proportion of those who do not have the right to live in Britain. Most have entered the country perfectly legally but overstayed their visa. They are therefore overstayers. The same logic applies to the other descriptions.”
He has written a thoughtful note that in no way denies the humanity of those who currently fall under this description but calls for more discussion on how the issue might addressed. That will happen in the new year and hopefully agreement can be reached on a new approach to the term.
One area where agreement can be hard to find is changes to the Guardian’s website. When I write about innovations to the site, the response is overwhelming. One question often asked goes something like this: “We tell you all these things but does anyone ever listen?” Colleagues certainly listen but, perhaps, don’t always agree.
There has been a very useful blogpost setting out just what has happened with all the feedback from readers about the new beta site, including density of news, comment experience and finding favourite content.
These are just some of the issues tackled in 2014, some more successfully than others.
As we enter the new year there will be one major issue facing the Guardian for the first time in a generation – choosing a new editor-in-chief, the 11th since the founding of the Manchester Guardian in 1821. It is going to be a big year.
