Readers' Ombudsman - When it comes to our journalists, should we always name names?

Published on Sunday 20 April 2008 22:00

IF A reader writes a letter to the Editor that criticises one of our journalists by name, should the letter be published as is, or should the name of the journalist be removed?

Reader Steuart Campbell is in no doubt as to the correct course of action: "I criticised a journalist, who could be freelance for all I know. But since you removed his name from my letter (when published], I assume that he's a staff writer. Are you so sensitive about criticism of your staff that they must be protected from it? If he was merely giving The Scotsman's view, why does his byline appear at all?"

First and foremost, the underlying principle here is that we all need to be big enough to take criticism. There is an element of live by the sword, die by the sword. Journalists write reports and columns that identify people and institutions, and we have to be accountable and we are not above criticism.

But there are some important points to be made. We do have a duty of care towards our employees, and we will protect them from abusive criticism or unfair treatment. There is a significant difference between criticism of named columnists writing commentary or opinion pieces and criticism of news stories, although they may also carry the reporter's byline.

News reporters are bound by laws and codes as to what they write, and will always strive for fairness, balance and accuracy. Headlines and the final presentation of the story are not in their gift:these are usually regarded as the Editor's responsibility, ultimately.

People who feel there has been a problem should be allowed a response. But that will rarely be in the first instance a letter published on the letters pages. If it is a complaint about factual accuracy, then it will be considered as such and we will look in to it. If we made a mistake, there are many remedies open to the offended party, including a printed correction and apology. If no remedy can be agreed upon, the complaint could always be taken to the Press Complaints Commission, whose address is on The Scotsman's letters pages.

So, letters that criticise a named reporter over a news story will be looked in to. The allegations will almost always be that the reporter failed to do his or her job correctly, therefore raising the prospect of disciplinary action, and are viewed very seriously. It would not be correct or fair simply to publish that letter, including the reporter's name, without looking in to the substance of the criticism.

But there is a huge difference between news stories and opinion and commentary. Columnists do not take the newspaper's line. We don't want them to; we want a range of thought-provoking opinion, and if somebody wants to take issue with that or give another opinion, then they should be able to, and a letter published on the letters page is often the most appropriate way.

To get back to Steuart Campbell's criticism, it was aimed at a Scrutineer column written by the City Editor, Martin Flanagan, and was reasonable, well-argued – and forthright. It is the kind of debate we want to have, and Martin's name should not have been removed in this case. But sometimes it is not an easy call.