Sustainable Journalism

I found myself in an unusual dilemma this weekend. I’ve been interested in environmental issues since my undergraduate degree in Architecture, and my projects were usually geared around sustainable technology and the like to satisfy this interest. I’m no treehugger however, I admit I do sometimes drive when I could probably walk, I shop at Tesco’s, I eat meat, I could try harder to recycle. I do however have a conscience and I believe that our general attitude towards the future (I do not exclude myself from this) needs to change so that we really don’t mess up the planet big time.

Well whats this got to do with journalism you are probably asking? My patch this year is covering environmental, climate change, transport and energy issues in South Wales, and being a bit keen this weekend I spent a fair bit of time with some activists from Climate Camp Cymru. There were some hardened campaigners, the like of whom I would more likely expect to come across every year at Glastonbury rather than Cardiff City centre. Think piercings and Doc Martens and dreadlocks. I rocked up in a leather jacket, which was perhaps a bit of a mistake.

However, we have a common interest and I want to figure out what environmental issues there are in South Wales, get under their skin, and in all honesty see if I can get some good stories from them. I was pretty candid with my intentions from the off, so as not to avoid any confusion, and I’m glad to say I was welcomed with open arms. I followed them on their protest as they went into banks and businesses armed with mops and feather dusters to give them an ethical cleanse; Climate Camp Cymru believe that they are directly funding open cast mining just outside Merthyr Tydfil. I followed them around, chatting to some of the protesters, but looking a bit odd and out-of-place. I didn’t really know what I should do.

As an aspiring broadcast journalist I am aware that I need to remain unbiased; is wielding a placard above my head with the slogan ‘Clean Coal: Dirty Joke’ daubed on it remaining neutral? I thought not. But it made me question, where do you draw the line. It was the weekend, and I wanted to go and see what they were doing and I do support their plight. We’ve been told that when we are going to do an interview with someone we need to leave our own opinions at home, but in this case I didn’t really know where I stood.

The line blurred itself even more the next day. I went along to some workshops that they held on how they would organise themselves in future protests, and how they would get publicity and deal with the media. And again I fessed up and I hope we bandied some ideas around which were mutually beneficial – I told them from my very limited experience what types of questions a journalist might ask and I got to see how a pressure group organised itself and some insider gossip on what actions they had planned in the run up to the Copenhagen summit. I felt a little of a Judas though. There was talk of trespass, getting arrested, scaling buildings, all pretty hardcore stuff. I don’t think I can commit to that. I just want to report it, however much the anarchy sounded exciting.

And that got me thinking, are broadcast journalists natural-born fence sitters, or should we be. Or let me rephrase that… can you be a broadcast journalist if you have an axe to grind? Surely if you did you’d be a rowdy print journalist wouldn’t you?

Its been twice in the space of a week that we have seen the ever powerful force that twitter commands to create a media storm. It might now be a good time to admit that I’ve spotted the humble pie and I’m not that adverse to a slice, in response to my previous misgivings. Jan Moir’s disgustingly insensitive and homophobic article in the Daily Mail being the more recent example, was first attacked using said social networking site. On this I will not dwell too much, Charlie Booker’s done a stellar job already, and I urge you to take a little bit of time to pay attention to the hint at the very end of his piece. It doesn’t take long. And he’s right, I’m sure the Daily Mail would love the attention.

Anyway, the occasion with which I am referring to is the super-injunction that lawyers Carter Ruck (acting on behalf of their client, British Oil giant Trafigura) tried to impose upon the Guardian at the start of the week. Until Tuesday I was blissfully unaware of this story at all, so if you’re as ignorant as me here’s a quick rundown. I had tried to explain this weeks furore in my own words in a previous edit of this post, but it made it almost 800 words long and I don’t trust my own ability to hold anyone’s attention for that long. Therefore I’ll bat you back over to the Guardian and Robert Booth’s ever so eloquent version of events instead.

So back to my consumption of that ever so small slice of humble pie. This whole debacle has demonstrated the power of collective wisdom and citizen journalism at work. Twitter was able to overthrow the courts, as on Thursday Carter Ruck backed down and the Guardian was free to print as it pleased. The Internet has completely bypassed the legal system, and this time has proved extremely powerful for the right reasons. Freedom of Speech in Parliament has been restored, but does it jeopardise the legal system at large? The answer is plainly yes.

When the Baby P scandal unearthed itself last year the court rightly placed an injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing the identities of those accused so as not to jeopardise the trial.  However, anyone can say anything they like on the internet, and if you so wanted you could find their names using a search engine and a few clicks of a mouse. In the old days all you had to do was silence print, radio and tv and such a media blackout would be more than capable of protecting those involved. This included witnesses and ensuring the jury could not be influenced by what they read in the paper or saw on the news. Now the almost omnipresent force of the internet can expose the details of practically anything, as it can be done anonymously and spread like wildfire.

What I am trying to say is, hoorah for twitter for unearthing the corrupt actions of massive corporations, and vilifying those trusted in the public eye for publishing extreme discriminatory views. But booooo for its potential to undermine the judicial system generally. With a lack of regulation, the Carter Ruck vs The Guardian case only demonstrates the futility of trying to keep sensitive information under wraps, and it poses rather wider questions on the inherent weakness that the entire legal system has against the internet.