Anonymous pejorative quotes should be used only in exceptional cases
|
Version 0 of 1. Misuse of anonymous quotations is a recurring problem in more than one section of the Guardian. In the past I have written about readers’ complaints in respect of political stories. However, on this occasion the complaint derives from last Monday’s interview in G2. This is the relevant paragraph in the current editorial guidelines: “There may be exceptional circumstances when anonymous pejorative quotes may be used, but they will be rare — and only after consultation with the senior editor of the day. In the absence of specific approval we should paraphrase anonymous pejorative quotes.” There were three such anonymous pejorative quotations in the interview with Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist who as well as being the co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism thinktank, is also credited with advising David Cameron on counter-extremism. David Shariatmadari, the author, said in the article that he had gone to meet Nawaz “a few days after the prime minister made a major speech on countering terrorism”, to which Nawaz contributed ideas. Related: Maajid Nawaz: how a former Islamist became David Cameron’s anti-extremism adviser The resulting 2,500-word interview, which made the cover of G2, asked how this former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who was arrested during a year learning Arabic in Egypt and spent four years in jail there before rejecting his Islamist past, became an adviser to the PM. When it was published, Nawaz took to social media to complain that the interview was a “hatchet job”. He then complained to the readers’ editor that the article used anonymous pejorative quotations in contravention of the Guardian’s editorial guidelines. Part of his evidence that the Guardian had “set him up” is an email, sent by the editor who commissioned the piece, requesting the interview. The email for the most part is a pretty standard list of requests, other than one paragraph that sets out the basis for the request: “Given Maajid’s consistently dedicated work to combat extremism and the increased public awareness around Quilliam Foundation following the PM’s speech yesterday, would be great to build on that momentum and flag up the crucial work being done behind the scenes.” Nawaz contrasts what he describes as that “doting” email with a tweet critical of him sent the morning before by the commissioning editor to a colleague: “don’t think M**jid Nawaz making a Harry Potter ref outlines lack of credibility; there’s a lot worse that he says that does”. On the face of it I can see Nawaz’s point, and, although I am sure that requests for interviews would always be couched in positive terms, care must be taken that they are not misleading. The Cameron speech is a perfectly legitimate reason to interrogate the thinking of a key figure that contributed to it. However, aside from the matter of the pejorative quotations, I think the contrast between the tweet and the email throws up another interesting issue. Before the age of social media, readers – or anyone else for that matter – were unlikely to know the opinions of the majority of editorial staff. Now it is considered the responsibility of reporters and editors to engage with the online community, which likely means expressing an opinion. If a writer who specialises in rock music expresses a critical opinion in 2012 of a band and asks for an interview three years later with that same band he or she might get turned down because a Google search by the band’s manager turns up the critical opinion. It is a dilemma. The commissioning editor didn’t consider deleting the tweet before she made the request because she felt it shouldn’t affect the outcome of the request. Returning to the main issue of the anonymous pejorative quotes. In all there were seven quotations, including the anonymous ones. Five of the seven were critical of Nawaz. Two of the most critical were anonymous, from which one was taken as the “pull” quote in the newspaper, ie a quote that is considered sufficiently crucial to the theme of the piece to be picked out and displayed in bold. I have talked to Shariatmadari about why those quoted anonymously wished to remain anonymous. He told me that, having commented before on these matters, those interviewed felt intimidated by the nature and tone of social media criticism that followed. I would not dismiss that concern, because the commissioning editor who wrote the interview request had her personal telephone number made public on social media in the wake of the interview by the managing director of the Quilliam Foundation, not by Nawaz or at his request. It was later removed. Publicising someone’s telephone number is a breach of their privacy and could be seen as an act of intimidation. The editorial guidelines state clearly that if a journalist thinks there is a case to be made for using pejorative anonymous quotations the matter should be discussed with a senior editor. In this case these were discussed and the editor approved the use of the quotations. Even if the case had been made for one of them, the substance of the criticisms contained within them should have been put to Nawaz but it was not. In conclusion I still feel that the use of anonymous quotes is an insidious way to take a swipe at public figures, and the Guardian was wrong to have used three in this way. |