[This is a transcription of a presentation I gave on the chapter of the same name in 'Alternative Journalism' by Chris Atton and James F. Hamilton. The presentation does not focus on the actual content of the chapter, but instead on issues raised by it and connections I made to other examples.] 

POLITICAL ECONOMY

Classical political economists believe that capitalism is not only the natural way, but also the best way for the world’s financial system to operate.

John Stuart Mill, mentioned in the chapter as a classic political economist, wrote a book entitled ‘Utilitarianism’ but he was highly influenced by Jeremy Bentham, a great supporter of the ‘greatest happiness principle’ we touched on last year in Ethics. For those who didn’t take the class, utilitarianism is the theory that the action likely to bring the greatest happiness to the most people is the morally correct one. I feel that this theory bears close relation to the arguments given by news providers accused of herd journalism and dumbing down. There’s also a quote from Bernard Williams, a former professor of philosophy at Cambridge University -

“…if utilitarianism is true, it is better on utilitarian grounds that people should not believe in it because of its tendency to debase the moral currency”

- which I feel is quite relevant. I do wonder if Mill was alive today, and could see not only the extent of the environmental damages which he himself had worried may be a result of the system, but also the continuing inequality of opportunity faced by people the world over, would he now be a critical political economist more in the style of Marx and Chomsky – they believed that not only was capitalism not the only, natural way, but that it’s actually damaging to the world and it’s people, using up resources and lives, while keeping those in power in power, no matter what they may be guilty of.

PATRONAGE

On the question of patronage I was reminded of a journal I read containing a very rare interview with Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. In it he recounts a story about Lord Vere Rothermere who was one of the main financial contributors to the Daily Mail before he died. One of the other contributors was a woman named Pamela Harriman, who withdrew her support after a derogatory piece was published in the paper about her. Rothermere apparently saw the funny side of the story and simply told Dacre he would find another fundraiser. Now before you all start thinking “Yay for the Daily Mail” I should point out that Pamela Harriman had been linked with many different wealthy men throughout her life and the offending piece began with the line -

“Pamela Harriman, who knows more about rich men’s ceilings than anyone alive…”

- so it was another triumph for womens rights from them. The point is however that the Daily Mail, which is also terrifyingly pretty much the only newspaper in Britain still turning a substantial profit, did lose a major stream of income because they printed something about a patron that they didn’t like. While they can afford to have this happen every once in a while, your standard alternative project most likely would not.

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS

This brings us on to another point. While a lot of alternative journalism by definition goes under the radar of the mainstream, one major problem I would see that isn’t mentioned in the chapter would be legal ramifications. There are many alternative publications which still cover the dealings of the ‘elites’ and was a low to no budget publication to become embroiled in a defamation or invasion of privacy case there is very little likelihood that they would have the finances available to fight them in court.

A good example of this is the McLibel trial where McDonalds sued two Greenpeace activists after they distributed a pamphlet titled “What’s Wrong With McDonalds: Everything They Don’t Want You To Know.” As legal aid is not available for libel cases – which it could be argued is an assault on freedom of speech – the defendents had to gather money to fight the suit from friends and supporters. They spent £30,000, McDonalds spent millions. As to win the case they had to prove everything in the pamphlet was true, they still lost despite being able to prove some. Others they could not prove because they could not afford to bring witnesses from other countries. They were ordered to pay over £50,000 in damages and immediately appealed, despite McDonalds, who had been heavily humiliated by press coverage, stating that they would not seek to collect the money. The European Court of Appeal eventually ruled that the defendents right to freedom of speech and a fair trial had been breached. Though this case is generally paraded as a victory for the “little man” is it worth noting there were originally five defendants, three of whom chose to apologise and refute their claims rather than fight. For the two who stood by their words the entire case from start to finish took twenty years.

PERSONAL JOURNALISM

Arguably the most famous personal blogger of the last few years is Riverbend, author of Baghdad Burning. Riverbend is an as-yet still anonymous Iraqi woman, who eventually had to leave Iraq and move to Syria. Riverbend became extremely well known before ending the blog in 2007 after four years. A collection of her blogs was also released in book form. Riverbends real name was kept secret for her own protection but this did lead to some right-wing critics questioning the authenticity of the blog, again leading us back to Bacons empiricism and the effect this has on what is judged by many to be “true” journalism. Personal accounts are often discredited, especially if given anonymously, because in many cases, and certainly in this case, enough evidence cannot be provided to prove the truth of all that is said. The writers are often also labelled unobjective.

COMMERCIAL SUPPORT

This section makes mention of the website Crisis Pictures, whose popularity ended up being it’s undoing, as one man did not have the time or requisite skill to keep the site going by himself. This made me think of a website which may be familiar to some of you – Postsecret, run by Frank Warren. Postsecret asks people to anonymously create an artistic postcard that reveals their deepest, darkest secret, and send it to the site. Warren first conceived the idea as a small project for his local community. After publishing the postcards on a blog, other people began to send him their own secrets.

Now one of the most popular blogs on the Internet, and the 2007 Weblog of the Year, Warren receives hundreds of postcards from around the world every week. Due to the popularity of the site Warren, a man with no formal training, eventually had to give up his job to keep the site running. What makes Postsecret extremely relevant is that Warren refuses point-blank to have any advertising on the site, despite countless extremely lucrative offers. The only exception to this is rule is a suicide hotline – although whether this can really count as an advertisment in the sense we are discussing is debatable, as it is unlikely that Warren charges them for the space. On the contrary, he encourages visitors to the site to donate to the charity, and when the hotline was threatened with closure in early 2006, an emergency appeal on the Postsecret website raised 30,000 dollars in just one week. Warren supports himself by holding lecturing tours of colleges around the United States, and also has released a number of Postsecret books, with collections of postcards sent to the site. While this model is encouraging, it is also worth noting that late last year Warren made a personal appeal on the website to readers to buy more of the books, or he would be forced to allow advertising. This tactic must have worked, as months later the site remains advertisement free, but does bring home the difficulty in running a serious online project of any kind if you don’t wish to have advertising on your site, when one of the top ten most popular blogs on the Internet still has trouble keeping itself afloat.

The chapter also discusses ‘witnessing’ or ‘native reporting’ where the ‘reporter’ in question is present and part of the event they are describing, like the aforementioned Riverbend. This conception again makes us rethink what can be classed as journalism. The example that came to my mind was the Wilfred Owen poem ‘Dulce et decorum est’ recorded in a letter to his mother sent in 1917 from the front lines of the First World War and published in 1920, after Owen himself had died. In the poem Owen recounts the death of a soldier unable to attach his mask in time during a mustard gas attack, who then dies in agony infront of the rest of the platoon. The title of the poem, which means ‘It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country’ is refuted by Owen as ‘The Old Lie’. Had internet publishing been available in those days and Owen’s poem been made available to more than an audience of one, it could have been classed as ‘witnessing’. However, it’s also unlikely that the military and the government would allow the publication of such a poem to go unpunished. As Chomsky and Hermann among others note, the war machine is a large part of our political economic system and laws are made to support it. It’s likely Owen would at least have been taken to court for breaching a DA Notice.

The Lancet Medical Journal, one of the most respected medical journals in the world released a report in 2004 stating that the civilian death toll from the second Gulf War was roughly 100,000, much higher than had been officially reported. The US and UK governments both denied the claims, and the report was subject to an almost total media blackout – apart from in the main, articles expressing scepticism. When MediaLens, who will be discussed later, approached the Lancet they were able to answer all questions put forward by sceptics, and were said to be confused as to why no mainstream publications had approached them for their side of the story.

COLLECTIVE MOVEMENT AND SUPPORT

The aforementioned website MediaLens serves as a good example for the section on collective movement and support. They also serve as a good example of the reality of commercial and political pressures faced by alternative news providers. MediaLens describes its mission as “correcting for the distorted view of the corporate media” and targets include the BBC, the Guardian and the Times. Roughly once a week subscribers are sent an example of distortion in the press and encouraged to politely get in touch with those responsible – email addresses are generally provided. The authors of the ‘Media Alerts’ are David Edwards and David Cromwell. Both run the website in their spare time, and make money through other means. Other than that, they rely on donations from readers. They also published a book in 2006 ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media’ and have another due out on the autumn of this year. However, it is unlikely that profits from either book will keep them afloat, especially given that, despite having a foreword written by John Pilger – who has also stated that the next book is equal to work by Noam Chomsky – the first book was not reviewed in ANY British newspaper. Edwards and Cromwell recently published an appeal for more donations on their website so they can continue to support their work. In keeping with the ‘word of mouth’ tradition of many alternative publications, they also last month sent a message to all members of the MediaLens Facebook group, urging them to invite people they thought would be interested to join.

I would just like to end by saying that while I completely understand the fear of allowing advertisers or a patron into your publication or blog, I do find the attitude or insinuation that it’s somehow wrong for a radical, citizen or left-wing publication to try to make money from what they do – for example the mention in the chapter of OhMyNews and how they “optimistically” see turning a profit as a good thing – slightly backward. One of the main reasons why arts and cultural industries across the world are so dominated by elites and people from richer backgrounds is because to work your way up in these industries you will often be asked to work for nothing in the beginning. For a time period last year I tried to go into Scotland on Sunday every Saturday for experience but had to stop after a few months because I couldn’t afford to continue to turn down paid shifts at my other job while giving them my time for nothing. I’m sure many of you have had similar experiences. The only people who can afford to do a job well and just for the love of it, are people who are already financially secure enough that they do not need to earn money – which brings us right back to the elites. Again, money should not be the main objective of an alternative journalism project or indeed any journalism project, but it is worth bearing in mind that these projects are often started by people who feel the mainstream is missing something and have no other means of putting their message across – these people are generally not elites and just because you may not agree with the capitalist system doesn’t mean you can simply step outside of it. Man may not live by bread alone, but it certainly helps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7893960.stm

Sleeping?! SLEEPING!! You filthy bitch.

Who the hell is distributing these pictures and why aren’t they being punished? Oh wait, that’s right, it’s the government.

How ironic that this poor woman fights human rights abuses. Hang on, you don’t think that has anything to do with this, do you?

I am currently in my 4th and final year at Napier University and feel the course has prepared me well for the media industry.
Possibly the most challenging aspect of the course so far was our Magazine Production module, when I was elected co-editor of Impulse magazine, a Napier production. Our issue raised an advertising budget in record time and featured interviews with Scots band Glasvegas, Glasgow comedians Frankie Boyle and Limmy, Scots writer AL Kennedy, Scottish rugby captain Mike Blair and DJ Nathan Fake. The issue also included articles on Hepatitis C, the Russian presidency and Scientology. Though the work involved was certainly gruelling, it was definately worthwhile when I was awarded the highest mark of all in the class at peer assessment.
It was through Napier that I first came to write for Scotland on Sunday newspaper, during our time on placement.  I wish I could say I only felt excitement arriving for my first day – in truth my feelings were more akin to dread. In the previous two and a half years, I had lost count of the number of times tutors had warned us about the pressures and panics of a real newsroom, where by the sounds of things, both egos and dreams were routinely shattered. On my way in I had been plagued by Frank Spencer-esque visions of me rolling down a hill clutching onto the top of a photocopier while the entire Scotsman building collapsed behind me in a cloud of mortar and dust.

As it turned out, the expectations set up by my tutors were refuted by people who were extremely dedicated and hardworking, but also approachable.
Instructed to keep an eye on the wire services, I have to admit feeling a certain thrill at being one of those watching raw news come in as it developed. A bomb in a café in Pakistan was first listed as reports of a loud noise being heard across the city, with instructions to stand by for updates.
But, as any self-respecting journalist will tell you, the wires cannot tell the whole story. I was lucky enough to witness a real ‘Hold the front page!’ moment, when reports came in of the body of beheaded Lithuanian Jolanta Bledaite being pulled out of Arbroath harbour, half an hour before the first print deadline. The news editor, Peter Laing, was tipped off by at least two different sources twenty minutes before anything came over the wire services, buying valuable time. Unable to get police to confirm that a body had been recovered as the clock ticked down, Foreign News Editor Nick Drainey told a police spokesman he was going to run with the story regardless, though his next phone call was to a lawyer to check the legal implications.
As it turns out, I had hidden my constant terror well. I had arrived at Scotland on Sunday hoping to leave with at least one by-line to my name. As it turned out, I got several, each a thrill in itself. A colleague of mine laughed that it was no wonder, as I was constantly asking if I could help anyone out, and that I could afford to “chill out” a little. My response?
“I can’t afford anything – I’m not being paid.”
However, having said all this, I was still delighted on the last day of my placement to be told I was welcome back anytime – on an unpaid basis, of course. I have continued to work with the paper, financial constraints permitting. My work so far can be viewed here - http://www.journalisted.com/jen-lavery
Possibly one of my proudest moments at Napier was when an essay from my Third Year was chosen to be featured in the Napier School of Creative Industries Showcase Booklet 2008. The essay, which dealt with the moral and professional issues surrounding the use of deception in journalism and can be viewed on this blog, was something I had put a great deal of thought and effort in to. To hear that it had been selected from dozens of others gave me a real feeling of validation, and a greater determination to live up to my own, now further raised, standards.
In my 4th year I am currently learning practical aspects of TV journalism. This module has taught me basic camera work, and has also given me a reasonable working knowledge of Final Cut Pro. Videos I have made can be viewed on this blog. While my main passion is news journalism, I am also a great fan of the cinema and harbour a great interest in the technical and creative aspects of film-making. I have an extremely large film collection, a reasonably wide knowledge of directors and genres and enjoy writing my own movie reviews, examples of which can be viewed on this blog. While I would class myself as more of a print than television journalist, the opportunity to combine two of my passions has been undeniably invigorating.
During my time at Napier University I balanced my studies with my commitments to The Stand Comedy Club. Within the office of The Stand I have two main responsibilities.
The first of these is that of Assistant Press Secretary. I liaise with journalists and editors to set up press tickets to review shows. I act as a go-between when journalists wish to interview acts appearing in our venues, and aid in the negotiation of television and radio appearances. I am responsible for producing copy to appear in The Stand Comedy Clubs brochures and website, and have provided copy for shows at several festivals, including but not limited to The Edinburgh Fringe Festival, The Magners Glasgow International Comedy Festival, The Merchant City Festival and The Leith Festival.
During the Edinburgh Festival I circulate “Diary Pieces” to various publications, many of which have been published.
I am responsible for producing and distributing press releases for The Stand Comedy Club. I monitor publications for mentions of our venue, and keep the clubs press cuttings archive up to date. My position also requires me to assist press officers from other entertainment agencies when their clients appear in our venues.
My second responsibility is that of Benefit Coordinator. The Stand holds roughly twenty charity evenings per year between its two venues. I am responsible for checking the credentials of potential fundraisers, contracting them to a specific date, and programming suitable comedians for the night in question. In 2oo8 alone The Stand Comedy Club raised over £2o,000 for good causes. 

Education

Napier University, Edinburgh

2005 – Present

BA Journalism

- Elected co-editor of 3rd Year student magazine Impulse and awarded highest mark at peer assessment.
- Essay ‘Deception in Journalism’ chosen to be featured in Napier University School of Creative Industries Showcase Booklet 2008
- Writes for Scotland on Sunday newspaper www.journalisted.com/jen_lavery
- Assistant press secretary to Tommy Sheppard at The Stand Comedy Club
- Benefit Convenor of The Stand Comedy Club

Lenzie Academy High School, Glasgow

1994 – 2000

Higher English                                    A            Higher History                        B
Higher Maths                          A            Higher Chemistry            B
Higher Modern Studies A            Higher Biology                       C
S.Y.S Modern Studies             C

Work experience

Administrative Assistant | The Stand Comedy Club

2004 – Present 

skills

MS Word        MS Front Page
MS Excel        Windows and Mac OS
Quark Express      Short Hand (50 wpm)

Modules completed and passed at Napier University:

Print Journalism 1                                        Sociology
Print Journalism 2                                        Introduction to Technology
Advanced News and Feature Writing                        Recycling
Introduction to Journalism                               Cultural Studies
Magazine Writing                                                Photography
Media Law                                                      Production Journalism
Media Law for Journalists                               Media Ethics
Media Studies                                                 Journalism and Government
Nature of News                                       Radio Journalism
Social and Political Change in Britain             Television Journalism
Magazine Production                                         Online Journalism
Information, Communication & Society       Applied Journalism

DECEPTION IN JOURNALISM IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND MORALLY WRONG. DISCUSS.

“Some doctors claim exemption from a strict rule against lying in as much as they on occasion have to lie (so they say) to fulfill their overriding duty to patients to do them no harm. Might not journalists claim to be similarly exempted: that they sometimes ‘have to’ lie to fulfill their overriding duty to the public to unearth and reveal important truths?” (Besley, 1992, p93)

There is no clear answer to the question of whether deception in journalism is unprofessional and morally wrong. If we are discussing deception in newsgathering, certain extreme circumstances mean that a journalist may have to deceive to get to the heart of a story. For the act of deception to be deemed morally and professionally conscionable there must be no other way to glean the information, and the story must be of great public interest. This is reflected in the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Code:

“PCC Code Clause 11
(i) Journalists must not generally obtain or seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge.
(ii) Documents or photographs should be removed only with the consent of the owner.
(iii) Subterfuge can be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means. “
(Saunders, 2005, p48.)

The matter of deception in story telling is a more complex matter entirely.

Deception in newsgathering is most commonly associated with investigative journalism, defined by Randall as:

“original research carried out by journalists often using the rawest of material. It can be extensive interviewing, or matching and comparing facts and figures and discovering previously unknown patterns and connections.”
(Randall, 2000, p99)

It is when deception is used in other areas of journalism that the most unconscionable acts are often perpetrated. Randall also serves to give us an example of such behaviour – a reporter at the Los Angeles Examiner was told by his editor to telephone the mother of a murdered girl before she would have been made aware of her daughter’s death. Breaking the news to her in this way would have been morally reprehensible enough but before doing so the reporter was instructed to tell her not that her daughter had been killed, but that she had won a beauty competition. He then gleaned information from the unaware mother about her daughters life. Once he had all he needed, he was ordered to tell her the truth. (Randall, 2000, p119)

This is clearly unprofessional and ethically repugnant. Even within the parameters of investigate journalism, in cases of the highest public interest, reporters must not gather information by deception if it can be found out any other way. In this case the journalist in question could and should have waited for the mother to be informed of her daughters death by the proper authorities. Only then should he have approached her for information, and if she did not wish to share it, he should have respected her wishes.

For deception to be ethically and professionally justified, as well as there being no other way to gather the information, the information you do gather must reside firmly in the domain of the public interest. This does not simply mean it is of interest to the public. The PCC defines it thusly –

“The public interest includes.
(i) Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.
(ii) Protecting public health and safety
(iii) Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.”
(Saunders, 2005, p49)

However, part one of this definition can still prove problematic. A good example of how involves the News of the World’s “cocaine sting” strategy, employed several times in 1999. News of the World journalists approached minor celebrities, and offered them cocaine, obviously without revealing their press affiliation.

“celebrity victims of the NoW’s ‘cocaine sting’ strategy … included Richard Bacon (fired from presenting Blue Peter), DJ Johnnie Walker (suspended from Radio 2) and England Rugby captain Lawrence Dallaglio (fined £15,000 for bringing the game into disrepute).” (Keeble, 2001, p57)

The Earl of Hardwicke was also jailed after being ’stung’ but the judge gave him a relatively short sentence amid worries that the newspaper was perpetrating entrapments.

“The paper defended its position, claiming it was exposing ‘one of the greatest social evils in Britain.’ “
(Keeble, 2001, p57)

It could be argued that in reality the News of the World was really interested in selling papers. Had it wished to tackle the mounting levels of cocaine abuse in Britain its time would have been better spent attempting to expose cocaine dealers, not posing as them.

Many triumphs of investigative journalism have involved the author engaging in outright deceptions which, had they been made known to the public at the time, could have been judged to have been at the very least, in extremely bad taste.

For example, in the 1960s American journalist Jessica Mitford began phoning funeral homes, posing as a recently bereaved person trying to arrange a service for a loved one. She used the information gleaned from this to write an expose of the questionable practices employed by workers in said establishments to encourage vulnerable people to spend money on unnecessary procedures and accessories. (Pilger, 2004, p46)

“The American Way of Death became an instant bestseller…It not only made funerals a fashionable media topic, but caused membership of non-profit funeral societies to leap from 17,000 to almost a million.”
(Pilger, 2004, p46)

In the late 70s and 80s German journalist Gunter Wallraff took on a completely false identity – even altering his racial appearance by disguising himself as a Turkish immigrant – to uncover how those deemed to be on the bottom of his countries social scale were treated by those with power. The book he wrote about his experiences, the tellingly titled “Ganz unten (Lowest of the Low)” remains the most successful in German publishing history. (Pilger, 2004, p159)

It is interesting though that in John Pilger’s 2004 book “Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs” these are the only two cases (out of 29) where such a level of deception is involved in the process of newsgathering. It could be argued that this indicates just how necessary deceptive practices must be deemed to be, even by those exposing corruption in the highest echelons of power.

“Isn’t that a kind of moral self-indulgence? You keep yourself pure by not doing the dirty deeds necessary, but at the cost of innocent lives.”
(Baggini, 2005, p51)

In some cases, even if there is a clear public interest in the material being investigated, and there is no other way other than deception for the journalist to gather information, moral quagmires may still arise. One example of this is the 1978 case of ‘The Abortion Profiteers.’ The Chicago Sun-Times was informed by a source unwilling to go on the record or provide documental evidence, that four clinics in the city were performing “abortions” on women who were not actually pregnant as a means to make more money. After two female journalists who made appointments with the clinics in question were told they were pregnant after providing urine samples which had in fact been taken from men, the newspaper put several reporters undercover at the facilities.

“For months, investigators observed nonpregnant women having “abortions.” To protect their cover, the investigators rarely intervened to prevent these abuses; worse, at times they were at least indirect agents of the wrongdoing. The decision to continue gathering information for the story was often agonising and always made on utilitarian grounds.”
(Christians et al, 2001, p69)

While the journalists in question may have felt personally very guilty for not stepping in to prevent what they knew at the time to be needless procedures, likely to have both physical and emotional consequences, they had to reason that the procedure would have taken place whether they were there or not. However, the fact that they were present at those specific times meant that other women would not suffer needlessly in future. This also relates back to the problems of engaging in ’stings’ or entrapment – had the journalist not interfered, they could not say with any real confidence that a situation would have unfolded as it did. However, in cases such as ‘The Abortion Profiteers” where the controversy surrounds an event which would have taken place regardless, a journalist who is truly committed to uncovering the truth must put “moral self-indulgence” aside.

“All you can do is make sure your conscience is as clear as a profession full of compromise and uncertainty will allow it to be.” John Simpson
(Saunders, 2005, p163)

Outside of investigative journalism, there are other times when it can be deemed necessary for a journalist to deceive. While reporting from Iraq for the Wall Street journal, Farnaz Fassihi would disguise herself in a burkha to make herself less vulnerable to attacks from insurgents. (Fassihi, F, (2004))

Premeditated attacks on journalists are rising across the globe, but in war zones especially. So far this year thirty journalists have been killed in Iraq alone. (www.cpj.org 08/11/07)

Many war correspondents, especially Westerners now disguise themselves to lower the chances of attack. This is clearly a form of deception, yet it is unlikely that a journalist would be deemed unprofessional or immoral for such behaviour.

Deception in journalism can also be examined in relation to ethical schools of thought.

According to Immanuel Kant there was one ruling ‘categorical imperative‘ that must be held to be true above all others, stating that human beings should

“act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law for all rational beings”
(Saunders, 2005, p18.)

According to Saunders

“On a Kantian view of things, journalists could claim no privileges because categorical imperatives are not subject to circumstances.”
(Saunders, 2005, p18.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly then, it is a journalist who provides us with a loophole. In his 2005 book ‘The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten” Guardian columnist Julian Baggini – who has also authored many books on the subject of philosophy – shows that Kant’s ruling categorical imperative is in fact, all about circumstances. He uses the example of a woman given the opportunity to run off with her best friends husband and his family fortune. On the surface, this seems like an obvious moral choice – she should not do this, for she would not wish to make it a universal law that it is acceptable for people to run off with their best friends husbands. But, he argues, what if her best friend had been cheating on her husband for years while siphoning off his fortune? Then she is really making a universal law that it is acceptable to run off with your best friends husband when his wife is cheating and stealing his money.

“The problem [her] situation highlights is not just a sophisticated joke at the rule’s expense. It goes to the heart of what the principle actually means. For either one of two interpretations, the principle is either ridiculous or empty…because every circumstance is slightly different; every case is in some sense unique. So anything we did could be justified on the grounds that we would agree to be treated the same way in exactly the same circumstance.”
(Baggini, 2005, p248.)

However, this loophole is one that could keep us turning forever. As pointed out by Baggini, it is nigh on impossible to find two separate situations unfolding under the exact same circumstances. His method of further validating our moral and ethical choices – looking for “relevant similarity” is very comparable to the advice given to journalists facing a difficult decision.

“We should do as we would be done by in any situation which, though not exactly the same, is similar in the morally relevant ways.”
(Baggini, 2005, p248.)

Journalists unsure as to whether a certain deception may be justifiable would be wise to examine previous cases where deception was used. By examining instances where the act was accepted as necessary, they can better judge what course to take in their own circumstances.

As aforementioned, the reasoning of utilitarianism – that consequences of an action determine whether the action itself was morally and ethically just – is often used by those in the journalistic trade to validate their methods. What must always be borne in mind is the reasoning of Bernard Williams, a former Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge:

“…if utilitarianism is true, it is better on utilitarian grounds that people should not believe in it because of its tendency to debase the moral currency.”
(Saunders, 2005, p20)

What this means for journalists is that the consequences alone are not enough to justify any action. This leads us on to the other type of deception in journalism – deception in story telling.

“The media might comply with a request from the police to release false information so as to lure kidnappers into a trap. Subsequently the public might be ‘debriefed’ and its approval sought and gained retrospectively for the media’s complicity”
(Besley, 1992, p100)

The situation hypothesized in the above quote involves an action most reasonable people would judge to be ethically sound. There are other examples of such behaviour that are more problematic.

In the 2007 film ‘Manufacturing Dissent‘ accusations were made that left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore took

“…liberties with the truth and the chronology of events for greater dramatic effect” (Liberation Entertainment 2007)

and also that he

“uses the tools of the editor to break the principles of the journalistic trade.”
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

In one scene of the film he is asked:”That’s true. Film is edited. It is manipulated to present a point of view. The facts in the films are 100% completely true.” “
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

But as Pilate said to Jesus

“Truth? What is that?” (Saunders, 2005, p40)

It can be a slippery concept. For example, in the 2002 film ‘Bowling for Columbine’ Moore uses the fact that Canada has the same number of licensed firearms per head of the population as America does, but far less gun-related violence, in support of his theory that the “culture of fear” perpetuated in the American media and the racism inherent within it are responsible for the appalling level of gun violence in the United States. However, in “Manufacturing Dissent” it is revealed that most licensed firearms in Canada are hunting rifles, not handguns. Handguns are the most popular licensed firearms in the US and are the weapons used in the majority of gun related crime across the globe. While in the same film it is argued that:

“Michael Moore has been able to make himself heard and has been able to land some punches.” – Joseph Heath, co-author “The Rebel Sell“
(Liberation Entertainment 2007)

if these punches are not landing where they can have a real effect they have not really done any discernable good. The evidence uncovered by Moore and the conclusions that can be drawn from it – that America needs tighter restrictions on the ownership of handguns – are the real heart of the issue. Misleading ‘evidence’ such as this inevitably also leads to aspersions being cast over all of the investigator in questions conclusions.

It must also be considered that when the argument that “the ends justify the means” is used, we must immediately ask “For whom?”

Website Medialens.org recently accused news outlets including The Times and The Independent newspapers, the BBC and CNN, of misleading the public over the circumstances surrounding the closing of a domestic television station by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. This is not the first time Medialens has questioned the portrayal of Chavez in the British and American media. They argue that despite him having been democratically elected, he is often painted as an autocratic militarist.

In June of this year Chavez decided not to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), leading to accusations that
“Mr Chavez is moving towards an increasingly authoritarian rule and is quashing dissent against his ’socialist revolution’.” (Philp, ‘”He is losing the country’s respect”,’ The Times, May 29, 2007)”
(Quoted from 13/06/07 Available at www.medialens.org)

However, Medialens claim this is not the case:

“for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government…FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting] also makes the obvious point: “Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.” (FAIR, op. cit)”
(Quoted from 13/06/07 Available at www.medialens.org)

What Medialens are insinuating is that the press in the West seeks to undermine the authority of foreign governments with whom their own government takes issue. While often this may be for noble reasons, it is often too an exercise in power play and the protection of business interests. While the West may claim to want to rid developing countries of Communist or Fascist rulers, they wish to do so on their own terms so that they may still exercise power over these countries and their natural resources. So while they may argue that ‘the ends justify the means’ that may only be true for the West, not for the citizens of other nations they seek to plunder.

Journalists unsure as to whether a deception they are considering is justified or not are advised to carry out “The Publicity Test” (Besley, 1992, p107).

An unsure journalist should ask the opinion of a journalist of more experience. Not only will a more seasoned peer be able to tell them if there may be another way to gather information, they can also better prepare them for public reaction and for the reactions of those whom they have deceived. This is important, as no matter how successful a journalist may be in bringing to light a serious issue worthy of public attention, there are likely to be those who do not thank them for it.

“…our judgement that what we propose to do would stand the test of publicity may be over hastily reached.”
(Besley, 1992, p106)

Jessica Mitford was censured by members of the American government who accused her of attacking American business. They even claimed she was a Communist spy. (Pilger, 2004, p46)

Gunter Wallraff left his homeland of Germany

“…after decades of being hounded himself by lawyers, officials and the right-wing Axel Springer media” (Pilger, 2004, p158.)

Even the man behind one of Britain’s first investigative scoops W.T. Stead, who uncovered the seedy underworld of child prostitution in Britain in the 1880’s, was imprisoned for the crime of purchasing a child, despite the fact he had done so merely to prove how easily it could be done. (Randall, 2000, p111)

Deception in journalism may be deemed, in extreme cases, of true professionalism, to be in reality the only moral choice. However, the journalist must be entirely sure not only of their own reasoning and motives, but also that they are ready to carry the deception as far as necessary, and for the consequences they will face.

Filmed and edited by Jen Lavery.

Filmed and edited by Jen Lavery.

How far does the UK government ensure effective news management in time of war?

“It is the function of defence intellectuals and other experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public” Edward Herman ‘The Banality of Evil’

This essay will examine the issue from the angle of political economy made famous by Karl Marx and more recently defined in modern terms by Herman and Chomskys “Manufacturing Consent.“

It is likely that many of our governmental representatives today wish that news management could be as easy as it was during WWII. Although radio broadcasts continued, television in the UK was simply switched off for the entire duration of the war. 

Effective news management begins and ends with source control. The British government employs many different methods to ensure this. 

“…what was the point of being an embedded journalist anyway? Proper war correspondents write about both sides of a conflict. I might as well have been paid by the Marines.” (Ayres, 2005, p258.)

During Gulf War II, in collusion with US government policy, a record number of journalists were embedded with the invading military. This form of source control was used with great effect by the British government during The Falklands War.

“Having ‘learned the lessons of Vietnam‘ …British officials wasted no time in mobilizing a propaganda campaign designed to ensure that the ‘true nature’ of the otherwise faceless Argentine enemy would be sympathetically relayed via the news coverage.” (Allan, 2004, p159)

The 28 male journalists selected as embeds were chosen by the government and made to sign a contract restricting what they could and could not report. Despite the fact that all their information was gleaned directly from UK military sources, who sometimes fed them complete falsehoods to ‘confuse the enemy’, journalists were still required to submit their work to their ‘minders’ before sending it off to publication. 

“Any efforts to include the word ‘censored’ on filmed reports was itself censored.
Satellite facilities were denied, thereby making it impossible for journalists to transmit filmed images of the conflict for television and newspapers except via returning ships (a delay of at least three weeks given the distance of 8000 miles, which meant that much of what was still heavily censored coverage did not appear in Britain until well after the final cease-fire)… Ministry of Defence press officers sought to ensure priority was given to ‘good news’ so as to ‘help morale at home’ ” (Allan, 2004, p159)

Journalists who did not obey the orders of their military ‘hosts’ faced expulsion from the programme. Given that the number of embeds was very small to begin with it is unlikely any of the journalists involved would have relished the thought of explaining to their editor why their publication had lost such a placement.

Similar methods of control were applied to the 900 journalists who were eventually sent to Iraq as part of the embedding scheme in 2003. All had to be cleared for the scheme by the US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, making it very unlikely that writers considered ‘problematic’ would be allowed to go. As in The Falklands, reporters who had been cleared were then made to sign a military contract, any contravention of which would place the offending journalist on the first flight home. Although journalists were allowed to bring satellite phones and other forms of transmitters with them, the contract also stated that these could only be used when deemed ’safe’ by the commanding officer in charge of the embed’s squadron or battalion.

“Such restrictions ensured that journalists effectively ‘missed the war’ …The US ‘rules of engagement’ also included as a ‘non-releasable’ category of information. In other words, journalists were forbidden to report who the USA thought were legitimate targets, the methods the troops used to distinguish between legitimate targets and innocent civilians and the ways that the soldiers were ‘engaging with’ legitimate targets.’ (Franklin et al, 2005, p72)

Chris Ayres, one of The Times entries in the embedding scheme, wrote a book about his experience. In it he describes the difficulty of filing stories when he was ordered to keep his satellite phone switched off for the majority of his time in Iraq for ’safety reasons.” The company of marines he is stationed with are his only source of information, and they make no effort to hide their displeasure at being questioned. 

“I had no idea what was going on. Buck made sure that the only information I got was what I heard on the Humvee’s radio or saw with my own eyes.” (Ayres, 2005, p258.)

Ayres was also bullied and threatened by US Army personnel following the publication of an article he had written which claimed that supplies and morale had been in short supply at a base he had been briefly stationed at. This is despite guarantees given to him at the start of the scheme that 

“everything is on the record.” (Ayres, 2005, p11)

However, Ayres’ book also highlights a more worrying aspect of the embedding scheme. He describes how, when President Bush first announced the scheme, many editors, in the UK at least, were suspicious of the scheme. Why were Bush and Blair so eager to have journalists in the thick of the action?

“None of The Times’s ‘real’ war correspondents, Fletcher [Martin Fletcher, Times Foreign News Editor] reasoned, would believe the Pentagon’s claims, or run the risk of becoming glorified PRs for the United States Marines. He also assumed, based on the behaviour of the military during the first Gulf War, that even if war correspondents were embedded they would be stuck with units deliberately kept far away from the fighting.” (Ayres, 2005, p104)

Fletcher was partially correct. It is arguably safe to assume that embeds are expected to aid in the propaganda of the side they are placed with. However, in the experience of Ayres, this was not done by keeping him far away from the fighting, but by placing him directly in the centre of it. Having received the bare minimum of military training, Ayres is completely reliant on the Marines he is stationed with for survival.

“‘After an agonising five-minute delay, the howitzers began their bombardment. For the first time, I hoped they would be as deadly as possible. To hell with my delicate, anti-war sensibilities: I wanted the Iraqis destroyed, turned into body parts.” (Ayres, 2005, p16)

“‘Shall I take him out, sir?’ asked Murphy, hopefully…
…’Negative,’ said Buck. ‘Do not take the dude with the robe out.’
Shoot him, said a voice in my head. Just shoot him. I felt disgusted with myself. The Iraqi was probably terrified; we’d probably just turned his family into ‘arms and legs and pink mist’ … What I should have been thinking was, Interview him; get out and interview him. But I was more interested in staying alive than staying objective. The trouble was, I felt like a Marine. I was about as neutral as Murphy’s trigger finger.” (Ayres, 2005, p226)

P242 – “It was then I realised the true genius of the embedding scheme: it had turned me into a Marine. I was thinking like a fighter, not a reporter.” (Ayres, 2005, p242)

This effect of embedded reporting can be related to the overall need of the government to create a sense of ‘us’ vs ‘them’, or more likely, ‘good’ vs ‘evil’ in war reporting. In modern warfare citizens of the United Kingdom and United States not directly involved in the military are unlikely to see much, if any, physical evidence that a war is even occurring. Unlike World War II, it is doubtful we will be the victims of bombing campaigns waged over our cities in the near future. This makes the role of the media all the more important in justifying the actions carried out abroad in our names, and in promoting solidarity with those who carry out the actions. After the embedding of journalists, there are further filters which encourage such behaviour by the media.

The first, and most recognisable is in appealing to patriotism or of accusing those who do not fall in line, with being unpatriotic. There are many examples of this. During The Falklands War, those who criticised the ‘bloodthirsty’ attitude of the British press 

“were routinely labelled as appeasers’, ‘fainthearts’ and ‘traitors’ ” (Allan, 2004, p159)

Peter Arnett, whose coverage during the first Gulf War was considered so successful he had a phenomenon named after him (Tumber p347) was fired from CNN in the second conflict for giving an interview on Iraqi television where he questioned the success of the US/UK invasion. (Ayres, 2005, p248.)

Al-Jazeera, who will be discussed in more depth later, were even accused of being a mouthpiece for Iraqi propaganda. This is extremely ironic, considering that Saddam Husseins government had also attempted to muzzle the network on countless occasions. 

The DA (formally D) Notice system is another method of governmental control. DA Notices are 

“intended to provide to national and provincial newspaper editors, to radio and television organisations and to relevant book publishers, general guidance on those areas of national security which the Government considers it has a duty to protect” www.dnotice.org.uk

Despite assurances that this is an entirely independent body, the Secretary of the Committee is generally ex-armed forces, arguably giving them an in-built bias towards military, and therefore, government wishes. The Chairman of the committee is also an employee of the Ministry of Defence.
Also, although the DA Notice website offers many assurances that adherence to the system is entirely voluntary

“journalists who publish in contravention of advice know, in some circumstances, they may risk criminal prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, though it is more likely the government would try to use injunctions to restrain publication.’ (Franklin et al, 2005, p54)

The wording of articles is also a very controversial issue in war reporting. As the table below shows, words used in ‘objective’ news reports are very seldom neutral. The effect of this is that the reader is subtly geared towards support for ‘our’ side.

THEY HAVE       WE HAVE
A war machine    Army, Navy and Air Force
Censorship           Reporting guidelines
Propaganda         Press briefings

THEY                                      WE
Destroy                                   Take out
Destroy                                   Suppress
Kill                                           Eliminate
Kill                                          Neutralise
Kill                                          Decapitate
Cower in their foxholes      Dig in
 

THEY LAUNCH                WE LAUNCH
Sneak missile attacks       First strikes
Without provocation         Pre-emptively

THEIR MEN ARE           OUR MEN ARE
Troops                                  Boys
Hordes                                  Lads

THEY ARE                            OUR BOYS ARE
Brainwashed                         Professional
Paper tigers                             Lionhearted
Cowardly                                    Cautious
Desperate                                  Confident
Cornered                                      Heroes
Cannon fodder                         Dare devils
Bastards of Baghdad             Young knights of the skies
Blindly obedient                           Loyal
Mad dogs                                  Desert rats
Ruthless                                   Resolute
Fanatical                                    Brave

THEIR BOYS ARE MOTIVATED BY       OUR BOYS ARE MOTIVATED BY
Fear of Saddam                                               Old-fashioned sense of duty

THEIR BOYS                                      OUR BOYS
Cower in concrete bunkers           Fly into the jaws of hell

IRAQ SHIPS ARE               OUR SHIPS ARE
A navy                                       An armada

IRAQI NON-RETALIATION IS                ISRAELI NON-RETALIATION IS
Blundering/Cowardly                                    An act of great statesmanship

THEIR MISSILES ARE                               OUR MISSILES ARE
Aging duds (rhymes with Scuds)  Like Luke Skywalker zapping Darth Vader

THEIR MISSILES CAUSE                  OUR MISSILES CAUSE
Civilian casualties                                    Collateral damage

THEY                                            WE
Fire wildly at anything          Precision bomb

THEIR POWS ARE                           OUR POWS ARE
Overgrown schoolchildren             Gallant boys

SADDAM HUSSEIN IS               GEORGE BUSH IS
Demented                                       At peace with himself
Defiant                                             Resolute
An evil tyrant                                   Statesmanlike

THEIR PLANES                          OUR PLANES
Are shot out of the sky               Suffer a high rate of attrition
Are zapped                                    Fail to return from missions
Taken from Guardian Weekly (Allan, 2005, p162)

Appeals to taste and decency can also lead to self-censorship, especially in relation to images. 

“”…the array of technological, institutional, and psychological tools available to the contemporary image manager …They are, essentially, the devices by which public opinion can be created, shaped, sustained, manipulated, and directed towards defined objectives.” (Negrine and Stayner, 2006, p78.)

Television broadcasters especially must be careful when transmitting pictures that could be deemed ‘disturbing’ by some viewers. Even when the audience is forewarned about the content of an up-coming report, the use of graphic images can lead to complaints. While newspapers are not subject to taste and decency laws, they too are usually sensitive to the expectations of their readers. Images considered too disturbing will generally not be published, either in physical or on-line editions. The justification for this has been brought into question by the success of news provider Al-Jazeera, as will be discussed later on.

“The ‘best’ argument, in the sense of the one best supported by evidence and logic, does not necessarily prevail against arguments that have more publicity and are more congenial to those in power.” (Negrine and Stayner, 2006, p28.)

Another way in which the government controls the news from warzones is by denying the credibility of sources who contradict the message they intend to impart. Website www.medialens.org regularly challenges the media in Britain over what they deem to be distortions of the truth. Many challenges to the UK medias reports on the Iraq war have been made by them since the invasion of 2003, including questions regarding why it is now reported as fact almost across the board that weapons inspectors were evicted from Iraq by Saddam Hussein, when the same publications originally reported at the time that the inspectors were actually instructed to leave by the US and UK governments before the bombing campaigns began. 

“Did all of these journalists somehow just forget the reports they must have all seen four years earlier? Or were their memories and capacity for independent thought somehow overwhelmed by government propaganda? This points to a truly remarkable feature of media performance – that large numbers of individual journalists can come to move as an obedient herd despite easily available evidence contradicting the consensus view?”
(Edwards and Cromwell, 2006, p39)

Another controversial issue centres around the Lancet Report into the number of civilian deaths in Iraq following the invasion. The Lancet is a completely independent medical journal dating back to 1823. It is described on Elsevier, a leading publisher of scientific and health information, as “stringently edited and peer-reviewed to ensure the scientific merit and clinical relevance of its diverse content.” A report released in 2004 indicating that, at roughly 100,000, the civilian death toll in Iraq was much higher than stated in reports issued by the UK and US governments was denied by these governments and subject to an almost complete media blackout. 

“Our media search in November, 2004, showed that the Lancet report had at that time not been mentioned at all by the Observer, the Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Star, the Sun and many others. The Express devoted 71 words to the report, but only in its Lancashire edition… The figures were covered in two brief Guardian articles (October 29 and October 30). The second of these, entitled, ‘No 10 Challenges Civilian Death Toll’, focused heavily on government criticism of the report without allowing the authors to respond. The Guardian then dropped the story. After receiving a number of complaints from Media Lens readers, the Observer subsequently published a short article covering the report.” (Edwards and Cromwell, 2006, p57)

When contacted by MediaLens, Lancet was able to successfully answer all the questions posed by both the UK government and the UK media as to why their report was accurate, and bemoaned the fact that they had not been given the opportunity to do so in the mainstream press.

Medialens also encourage members of the public who read their “media-alerts” to get in touch with the journalists involved. Citizens are asked to do this in a respectful manner, and to copy the writers of the alerts in to their e-mails. While it is encouraging that these emails are often answered by the journalists involved personally, what Medialens note as worrying is the tone these replies often take. The people who write in are dismissed as “mis-led” and questions they pose often left unanswered. Lack of space in the newspaper in question is used again and again as an excuse for not examining important issues in a balanced manner. It is likely the validity of this excuse will suffer as online news becomes more popular.

In one MediaLens exchange, enquiring people were simply replied to with a request that they stop sending the journalist in question “unsolicited” emails. The authors of MediaLens quite rightly ask – is this what the people these journalists claim to represent should expect when asking for answers? With the media in general bemoaning the level of apathy and un-involvement most “hard news” is greeted with, surely they should be only too ready to respond to readers who do wish to interact more with what is happening in the world at large?

“…people are turning to us simply because the Western media coverage has been so poor… al-Jazeera has been alone in proceeding from the premise that this war should be viewed as an illegal enterprise. It has broadcast the horror of the bombing campaign, the blown-out brains, the blood-spatted pavements, the screaming infants and the corpses. Its team of on-the-ground, unembedded correspondents has provided a corrective to the official line that the campaign is, barring occasional resistance, going to plan.” Senior editor for aljazeera.net Faisal Bodi (Allan, 2004, p165)

In the time of the World Wide Web it is much more difficult for governments such as our own to stop material they do not wish to be seen from being publicized. This was made extremely apparent during the Gulf invasion of 2003 by the unexpected popularity of Islamic news network Al-Jazeera. Despite being heavily criticized by military and government officials from the UK and USA for broadcasting graphic images of those killed and injured in Iraq, Al-Jazeera quickly established itself as one of the most popular sources for news about the conflict. (Allan, 2004, p166)

“The very images deemed by Western news organisations to be too disturbing to screen were being actively sought out by vast numbers of people via online news sites.” (Allan, 2004, p166)

While Al-Jazeera were vilified for broadcasting pictures of the invading forces dead, injured and captured, Al-Jazeera representatives argued back that the depiction of Iraqi forces in identical situations had not been received with the same disgust. Many British and American newspapers carried pictures of the Saddam Hussein’s sons’ dead bodies on their front page. While this did prove a controversial move on the part of the invading governments, it was deemed necessary. 

“…in the final analysis, journalism is about truth-seeking. It is about presenting facts that have been properly researched and checked and put together in an attempt to present readers or viewers with a coherent factual story about an issue or event” (Frost, 2007, p65)

Based on the evidence gathered here it can be concluded that the British government has extremely effective methods of news management for times of war. Obviously all stories in the press do not completely support everything the government and military does, but it is doubtful that complete acquiescence is the intended outcome. Some dissent must be allowed to keep up the pretence that our reporters are still objective. However, the main message – that our government is a benevolent one, only interfering in the problems of other nations for ‘humanitarian’ reasons – still prevails. This could have serious consequences for our government, and any other government following the same strategy. When the news is skewed to perpetuate power it stops being news and becomes propaganda. Not only does this mean citizens are unable to make an informed choice about who they are being ruled by and how, it also provides them with a distorted picture of how their country, and they, may be viewed abroad. Like a funfair mirror in reverse, they see perfection when the reality is far more concerning.

When Des Brogan began a stroll down the Royal Mile one day in 1984, he didn’t realise it was going to lead him to the position he holds today, managing director of one of Edinburgh’s most famous attractions.

“I saw lots of visitors in Edinburgh and nobody who was providing any sort of guided tours. So I thought ‘Well I could do that during the summer holidays.’” 

At the time Brogan was Head of the History Department at a local secondary school.

“I phoned three of my friends who were also heads of history departments and we decided we would set up Mercat Tours on the grounds that in the ancient times when people came to Edinburgh, they would go to Mercat Cross and pick up a guide who would show them round the city. Well, we would do the same thing. We would start at Mercat Cross, we would call it Mercat Tours and we would be the guides. The first tour started on the 1^st of July 1985, the first day of the summer holidays the following year, and it just grew from then.”

Brogan’s motto, which was soon to become the company’s motto, is that “History is a damn good story. What it needs is a damn good telling.”

In the beginning only one of the four tours offered dealt specifically with the more gruesome side of Edinburgh history, such as notorious body snatchers, Burke and Hare, or the tale of Maggie Dickson, who became known as ‘Half-Hangit Maggie.’

However, as Brogan explains: “The history tours were reasonably successful but the ghost tours were most successful.”                                                                                   

Now the majority of  Mercat Tours supply gruesome titbits alongside more palatable historical tales, with the added bonus of ‘jumper-ooters’, employed to give those taking part in the walks a little more ‘boo’ for their buck. However, there are still some tours – most notably the ‘Writers by the Mile” tour – better suited to those of a more delicate constitution. Mercat Tours also runs walks around Glasgow and Brogan himself takes school groups to battlefields in Normandy around six times a year. Yet Brogan feels the city of Edinburgh is best suited to his business.

“Edinburgh is such a homogenous historical city. You’ve got the Old Town, the New Town, the castle, the palace, a royal park and a volcano all within 28 minutes walking distance.”

Brogan’s obvious enthusiasm for his work and dedication to the preservation of historical knowledge is reflected in the success of his company. Nearly twenty-two years on from its inception, Mercat Tours provides eight tours a day in low season and twelve in high season.

“We are the only 4 star, almost 5 star, Walking Tour Company in the country, never mind in Edinburgh. We were awarded a Culture and Tourism Award, which is one of the Oscars of the industry. We’re also the only attraction in Scotland to be given Hospitality Assured, which is again one of the Gold Standard‘s of quality.”                                                                                            

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Halloween is their busiest time of year. On the Halloween weekend of 2005, 2,700 people were shown round Edinburgh by one of their highly trained guides.

“In order to ensure that there was quality, the guides that we would employ would only be people who were either students of history at university or had history degrees. That meant that there was a certain kind of level, or standard that was acceptable to us. And that’s how we grew and the policy is still applied to this day,” explains Brogan. “Guides follow through a very rigorous training programme that we provide for them. It lasts three months and they have a graduation at the end. For this programme we have been given a Scottish Training Award that recognises that we are quality assessors in our own right. Then we put people on the street for 6 months probationary period and if they get through that, then they are a fully qualified guide.”

A survey released by Visit Scotland in 2005 showed that visiting castles, monuments and churches were the most popular activities undertaken by tourists here, with hiking, hillwalking and rambling coming in a close second. Brogan’s business is perhaps the only one in Scotland which successfully covers both of these activities.                                                                                                     
Brogan himself sees Scottish business as something newly rejuvenated, following the slump brought about by the collapse of heavy industry.

 As he explains: “We have had to reposition ourselves after the decline in our staple industries – coal and engineering – and clearly one of the growing industries is tourism.”

 In 2005 over 17 million tourists took the opportunity to take an overnight break in Scotland. The industry is worth over £4.2 billion per year and supports an estimated 9% of all employment in Scotland, translating to roughly 200,000 jobs, mainly in the service sector.

 Brogan continues: “The First Minister has said he wants Scottish Tourism to be a major industry within the next five years, and that it will contribute to a vast percentage of our income. I think that’s right.”

 Like many others in the tourism business, Brogan will be keeping a close eye on the results of next Thursday’s Scottish Election.

 “There is a political party who say they would save money by getting rid of a tourism minister. That seems crazy to me.”

Brogan is referring to the SNP who faced criticism last November when they announced that if voted into power they would ‘slim down’ their Cabinet by abolishing the post of Tourism Minister.

 The post was of Scottish Tourism Minister was created in 2001. In 2005, Visit Scotland released figures showing a 50% increase in the number of tourists coming to Scotland since 2001, though this huge jump may be partly to do with Prestwick Airport being included as a sampling point for the first time.

 Brogan says: “If they remove what they’re saying – the dedicated Tourism Minister – then I think that it would be a disaster for a country that is increasingly dependent on tourism and says that it wants to make it a major industry. If you want something to be a major industry you put people there who’re going to lead it and direct it. You don’t want to save money by trying to squander those positions on something else.”

 The SNP has said that if Alex Salmond were First Minister that he would direct the tourism sector from this position, saying he has “a strong interest in growing the economy.”

 “I think Scots are very good at adapting to situations so we’re going through, have been going through and still are going through this period of adaptation and what we need is a government which will encourage entrepreneurial skills and not hit business with sly taxes that limit our ability to re-invest,” says Brogan. “And if you’ve got a government that does that, of any political hue, that is able to promote the natural ability of Scots people to go out and make business and make a good living for themselves, what you also need is the government ministers who are appointed and dedicated to developing the tourism industry.”

During the Edinburgh Festival, it’s joked that the real residents move out, leaving the city to tourists and performers for three weeks. Now in its fourth year, the Magners Glasgow International Comedy Festival is the biggest dedicated comedy festival in Britain. Over a period of seventeen days over 240 performers will take part in nearly 300 shows held in forty separate venues around the city. The festival has once again attracted big names such as Joan Rivers, Jimmy Carr, Rich Hall, Sean Hughes, Paul Merton, Alan Carr, Russell Brand and last years IF Comeddie winner, Canadian Phil Nichol. We talked to two home-grown acts about their feelings about hosting such a big festival in their city.

Glasgow born comic Frankie Boyle remembers the very first year of the Festival.

“I compered The Festival Club (late night show at The Stand Comedy Club) and some woman sat in the front row and she kept shouting ‘They’re dropping bombs on Baghdad! I’m on anti-depressants!’ for ages. Scott, who was the bar manager at the time, and the bar staff picked her up and ran her out the fire escape like a battering ram, it was fucking brilliant.”

Susan Calmans memories of her first festival are slightly less celebratory.

“My first festival was in 2005 – I was doing what I now call ‘The Phoenix Nights’ – in an unauthorised venue because it was with a gentleman called (names local comedy promoter) who had forgotten to put it in the brochure. At that point we were in The Phoenix, which was a non-smoking pub. This was before the smoking ban came in and nobody came to it at all, apart from two or three backpackers who got in for free. We did a show every night and two on Sunday for the whole of the Comedy Festival, by the end of which I was physically sick as we just spent every night drinking to get rid of the misery. That was my first comedy festival.”

Thankfully both have now moved on to more illustrious things. Frankie Boyle is arguably the most successful Scottish comic of his generation. From compering late shows in the 2003 Festival, in 2007 he sold out the Carling Academy in just two days. Meanwhile, Susan Calman is doing her second one-woman show ‘Calmanator II – Judgement Day’ at the Universal.

Calman feels the Glasgow Festival provides a great opportunity for local acts. “Unlike the Edinburgh Festival Scottish comics can actually do shows because it’s affordable to do it in Glasgow. People can do one night, for example, to see whether or not they like it. And unlike Edinburgh – which is simply not affordable for most people – you’ll see that many of people who are doing shows are actually Scottish.”

However, despite being called the Glasgow International Comedy Festival, some local acts are finding it difficult to ‘stand-up’ and be noticed beside the shows of more famous visiting acts.

“It’s very difficult to get publicity for your own show – the majority of the publicity goes to Russell Brand or Jimmy Carr and it’s quite difficult to get people interested in the smaller shows, “explains Calman, “To be honest it’s quite difficult to get publicity if you’re Scottish.”

As a regular on BBC 2’s ‘Mock the Week’ and sometime panellist on ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’, ‘They Think It’s All Over’ and ‘Have I Got News for You’, Frankie Boyle does not have to work so hard to attract the publicity machine, though he agrees this is no easy task for less well known Scots on the scene.

“There’s a lot more needed really for Scottish comics. The Festival, it’s something, but I think Scottish comedians really need somewhere to go on TV in Scotland to develop in the way they should.”

As Calman says: “If you want to do things like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’ you have to go to London because Scottish TV doesn’t commission those kinds of programmes.”

Like many Scottish comedians before him, Boyle is one of those who recently moved to London.

“There seems to be a thing of people reaching a certain stage and then doing the same work over and over again for years in Scotland,” he says, “Really there needs to be an element of progression, whether that’s TV or it’s theatre tours. There does need to be some kind of up end to it that takes certain people out of it once they’ve reached a certain stage, and allows other people to come in and start becoming comperes or headliners or whatever they do locally, because at the moment you’ll never get past the people who’ve been doing those jobs for a long time.”

Calman agrees: “The thing is, payment in Scotland is okay, but the problem is that you can’t earn a living as a stand up in Scotland unless you work at The Stand every weekend because you don’t earn enough money doing other gigs. So unless you can compere The Stand every weekend you can’t earn a living out of it.”

However non-Scots comedians can still expect a warm welcome at The Magners Glasgow International Comedy Festival 2008.

“I’d love to see Ellen DeGeneres at the next one,” says Calman, “just so I can ask her how she got a million dollar chat show!”