The Guardian readers’ editor on journalism’s code of confidentiality
|
Version 0 of 1. What should a journalist do when a reader tells him or her something in confidence that nevertheless may reveal that a person is at risk? Readers are often asked to talk about their life and their experiences. Mostly these are case histories, which are interesting or helpful, or both when shared with other readers. But a few pose real dilemmas. What are the journalists’ legal and moral obligations when confronted by a true-life account that suggests a person is at risk of self-harm or a member of a family is subject to abuse? The natural instinct of a journalist is to respect confidentiality, no matter what, but is that always the right decision? Two readers with a background in the caring professions were worried after reading Annalisa Barbieri’s Problem solved column in the Family section on 28 September, which featured the mother of two young children concerned about her husband’s behaviour towards them. The mother had written to Barbieri about her husband: “He sees nothing wrong with smacking, grabbing, dragging them by the wrist, pinching, cuffing or jabbing them in the ribs with his finger and reprimanding them verbally in a way that I can only describe as nasty.” Altogether it was a very troubling story, a point immediately taken up by Barbieri: “I found your letter increasingly difficult to read. What started off seeming like two different parenting styles quickly became behaviour, from your husband, which I thought was abusive and, in parts, possibly criminal, even falling under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, cruelty to persons under 16. I think your husband is confusing fear for respect, bullying for strength.” She went on with some carefully worded advice that was backed by extensive quotes from a distinguished child psychotherapist. However, the complainants did not feel this was a satisfactory response. Michelle Grimes wrote: “I believe you haven’t followed due safeguarding process in your response to this distressing letter containing details of assaults to children within a family. “I have tried to find the Guardian safeguarding policy for children and vulnerable adults but cannot see it among the code of conduct for journalists on your website. It is very clear and simple – you have a professional duty to adhere to safeguarding policy at all times. Look at your local authority safeguarding children’s board website for guidance. “Be absolutely clear, this is one area where confidentiality does NOT prevail – if you are aware of a child coming to harm you have a duty to act.” She went on to ask for an assurance that the “appropriate safeguarding action” had been taken and to demand a copy of the “Guardian safeguarding children and vulnerable adults policy”. I discussed readers’ concerns with Barbieri, who said that she and the Family page editors had discussed how to respond to that particular letter. In fact, the Guardian does not have a formal policy for safeguarding children and in law the journalist has no responsibility to go to the police. On principle, Barbieri felt that the way to help someone for whom she had only an email address was to tackle the issues raised. She said: “I think readers need to know there is a safe place they can write in to ask advice without being handed over to the authorities. I don’t, anyway, think this would have been the right answer for this family. “I had long discussions with Ryan Lowe, the psychotherapist I consulted. Ryan is a very experienced child psychotherapist with nearly two decades experience of working with children and families. She is a member of various governing bodies: the Association of Child Psychotherapists and the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapists. She has also been an expert witness for nearly 10 years and worked in a division of an NHS trust where she wrote reports and carried out assessments for the family law courts. “She and I had a very long talk about this letter and Ryan also put some thoughts on paper, which I referred to in my reply. The entire column was sent through to Ryan for fact-checking and comments. She made some comments, which I took on board, made some changes and I re-referred it back to her and she approved it before I filed it.” In addition, Barbieri also consulted one of the lawyer at Rights of Women, which deals with abusive family situations of which she is patron, and fact-checked the column prior to publication. It was also read by one of the Guardian’s in-house lawyers. The reader is mistaken in thinking that the Guardian has a legal responsibility to go to the authorities. “Certain professions do, but journalists don’t. That is not to say we shouldn’t act morally, but I believe we did,” said Barbieri and I agree with her. However, Barbieri is not the only journalist at the Guardian who is faced with readers with traumatic experiences that require responses. When faced with these dilemmas, journalists would normally consult their managing editors but some basic guidance for all journalists would be a good idea. Barbieri said that the NSPCC has a clear guide to the obligations of professionals. “As things stand currently, under s11 Children Act 2004, only certain organisations are required to have a safeguarding policy: for instance the police, probation, British Transport police, NHS and local authorities,” she said. The leaflet What to do if you are worried a child is being abused sets out the duties to report and defines professionals more widely than in the 2004 act. However, it still only states that those who have a duty are: “All those who come into contact with children and families in their everyday work, including practitioners who do not have a specific role in relation to safeguarding children, have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.” This does not go wider than those who work with children. |