DOCSLIB.ORG

Guardian News and Media to The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guardian News and Media to The Th(}.. Guarutan Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com David Wolfe Chair Press Recognition Panel Mappin House 4 Winsley Street London W1W 8HF 8th October 2018 Dear Mr Wolfe, Report on the Recognition System 2018 Many thanks for your letter to Katharine Viner on 17th September 2018. Ms Viner has asked me to respond on behalf of Guardian News & Media (GNM). Following the passage of the Royal Charter on press regulation (Royal Charter)1, and during the process by which the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) was established, representatives of GNM were pleased to meet with you and colleagues to discuss how the PRP would dispense its duties as a public body, whilst being clear that we did not wish to join the system of press regulation that the PRP would eventually oversee. As the PRP has made clear previously, the decision on whether to join the "recognition system is voluntary. We do not regulate the press and we cannot compel any regulator to apply for recognition. "2 As the PRP may be aware GNM's approach to self-regulation comprises an editorial code of practice3, an independent readers' editor4 and an independent review panels, both of whom report to the Chair of The Scott Trust. The review panel ensures that where complainants do not feel their issues have been adequately resolved through the internal complaints procedures, they have the https ://assets .publishing .service .gov .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/ file/254116/Final Royal Charter 25 October 2013 clean Final .pdf 2 https ://pressrecog n ition pane I.o rg. u k/prp-con su ltation-on-u ndertaki ng-cycl ical-and-ad-hoc­ reviews/ 3 https://www. theg uardian .com/i nfo/2015/aug/05/the-g uardians-editorial-code 4 https://www. theg uardian .com/i nfo/2013/sep/23/guardian-readers-editor 5 https://www.theguardian.com/info/2014/nov/20/review-panel Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2A P Registered in England Numb er 908 396 Th(}.. Guarutan Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian .com opportunity to have their complaint further considered by an independent panel. Where appropriate, arbitration is offered by GNM as a way to resolve legal disputes without the need to go through a lengthy and costly court process for both sides. GNM's primary focus is on resolving complaints in a rapid and effective manner, and promoting the highest quality standards of independent journalism. The GNM global readers' editor writes a corrections and clarifications column 6 every day, and a longer weekly column, "open door"?, which explores some of the more detailed complaints made to the office of the readers' editor. Rulings of the review panel are hosted within the corrections and clarifications section of The Guardian website 8• A recent column by the current readers' editor Paul Chadwick, published in November 20179, outlines the challenges that the readers' editor's office faces when responding to responses from readers across the globe. The legal authority of the PRP The Royal Charter on Press Regulation sets out the public functions of the PRP as a public authority, which are: "a) determining applications for recognition from Regulators; b) reviewing whether a Regulator which has been granted recognition shall continue to be recognised; c) withdrawing recognition from a Regulator where the Recognition Panel is satisfied that the Regulator ceases to be entitled to recognition; and d) reporting on any success or failure of the recognition system." In your recent letter to Ms Viner, the PRP purports to expand its remit beyond the functions placed on it by the Royal Charter, stating that "We are often asked to give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints (and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Charter criteria and to give an indication of the extent to which the public safeguards 6 https://www. theg uard ian. com/theg uardian/series/correctionsandclarifications 7 https://www. theg uard ian. com/com mentisfree/series/open-door 8 https://www. theg uard ian. com/info/com plaints-and-corrections 9 https://www. theg uardian. com/com mentisfree/2017 /nov/12/trial-and-error-20-years-of-work­ by-the-readers-editors-office Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London NrP 2AP Registered in England Number 908396 Th(}.. Guarutan Kings Place, 90 York Way London Nl 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com intended by the post-Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis." That you may be asked to give a view on something, (you do not say who has asked) does not automatically mean you have a power to do so. In the parallel call for information, the PRP states that: "It appears to us that several social media platforms may also fall within the definition of relevant publisher at least in relation to their production of news and news-related material. The PRP is often asked to give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints ( and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Royal Charter criteria and to give an indication of the extent to which the public safeguards intended by the post­ Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis. We have chosen significant publishers from across the press landscape and we consider it to be in the public interest for us to assess them as part of our Charter requirement to report on the success of the recognition system and as part of our consideration of how far the public is currently protected from potential harm. " It is important to note that while the PRP may consider something to be in the public interest, it does not automatically mean that the PRP has the power to do something. Indeed, the objectives set out in the PRP's call for information raise a number of questions about the legal basis on which the PRP is seeking to rely in order to undertake this consultation and produce this report . It is not clear that the terms of the Royal Charter grant the PRP the high degree of discretion that it appears to have assumed when designing the terms of reference of its 2018 report. For example, while there is a role for the PRP in 'reporting on the success or failure of the recognition system' in relation to the activities of regulated entities, and regulators that have applied for recognition through the PRP (i.e. IMPRESS), that is a very different role - and outside of the role proscribed to the PRP in the Royal Charter - of determining the success or Guardian New s & Media Limited A mem ber of Guardian Media Group Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1P 2AP Registered in England Numb er 908396 Th(!.. Guarutan Kings Place, 90 York Way London N 1 9GU +44 (0)20 3353 2000 [email protected] theguardian.com failure of the self-regulatory systems put in place by news media publishers (as well as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat) none of whom have applied to have those systems adjudged against the criteria of a system of press regulation which, as the PRP itself acknowledges, is voluntary. I would be grateful if you could please clarify the legal basis on which you propose carrymg out this review, by providing answers to the following questions. 1. As the PRP accepts, the decision of publishers not to sign up to a recognised regulator is entirely legal, and in line with the voluntary nature of the Royal Charter system. On what legal basis does the PRP feel it is appropriate to "give a view on whether (in particular) the complaints ( and any arbitration) systems operated by some news organisations meet the Charter criteria"? 2. You state that the review will look at "the extent to which the public safeguards intended by the post-Leveson system of regulation are in place on a voluntary basis." What are the public safeguards of the post­ Leveson system of regulation to which the PRP refers? Given the objective of Parliament was for membership of a recognised regulator to be on a voluntary basis, what is the metric by which the PRP will judge success? 3. You state that you are "often asked to give a view" about the complaints systems of news organisations that have decided not to volunteer to join a recognised regulator? Often asked by whom, and on what legal basis can they direct you to perform this review? 4. The call for information states that "We have chosen significant publishers from across the press landscape and we consider it to be in the public interest for us to assess them as part of our Charter requirement to report on the success of the recognition system and as part of our consideration of how far the public is currently protected from potential harm." On what basis did the PRP choose publishers to review as part of this report? The PRP says it considers a wide-ranging review to be in the public interest, but what is the legal basis for such a review? What is the legal basis of the PRP conducting any assessment of the internal complaints handling of a newspaper that has not voluntarily applied to be regulated u the PRP? How could a full or fair assessment of apparent compliance with your Schedule 3 criteria be made without Guardian News & Media Limited A member of Guardian Media Group Registered Office PO Box 68164, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London NtP 2AP Registered in England Number 908396 Th~.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guardian News & Media
    Response to Ofcom consultations on the BBC’s commercial activities and assessing the impact of the BBC’s public service activities About Guardian News & Media Guardian Media Group (GMG), a leading commercial media organisation, is the owner of Guardian News & Media (GNM) which publishes theguardian.com and the Guardian and Observer newspapers. Wholly owned by The Scott Trust Ltd, which exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity, GMG is one of the few British-owned newspaper companies and is one of Britain's most successful global digital businesses, with operations in the USA and Australia and a rapidly growing audience around the world. As well as being a leading national quality newspapers, the Guardian and The Observer have championed a highly distinctive, open approach to publishing on the web and have sought global audience growth as a priority. A key consequence of this approach has been a huge growth in global readership, as theguardian.com has grown to become one of the world’s leading quality English language newspaper website in the world, with over 156 million monthly unique browsers. From its roots as a regional news brand, the Guardian now flies the flag for Britain and its media industry on the global stage. Introduction GMG is a strong supporter of the BBC, its core values of public service and its contribution to British public life. GMG supports the fundamentals of the BBC in its current form and a universal service funded through a universal levy, at least for the period covered by the next BBC Charter.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias at the Beeb?
    Pointmaker BIAS AT THE BEEB? A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF SLANT IN BBC ONLINE REPORTING OLIVER LATHAM SUMMARY This paper uses objective, quantitative of coverage by the BBC than is coverage in methods, based on the existing academic The Daily Telegraph. literature on media bias, to look for evidence Once we control for coverage of a think-tank of slant in the BBC’s online reporting. in The Guardian, the number of hits a think- These methods minimise the need for tank received in The Daily Telegraph has no subjective judgements of the content of the statistically significant correlation with its BBC’s news output to be made. As such, they coverage by the BBC. are less susceptible to accusations of This paper then looks at the “health partiality on the part of the author than many warnings” given to think-tanks of different previous studies. ideological persuasions when they are The paper first examines 40 think-tanks mentioned on the BBC website. which the BBC cited online between 1 June It finds that right-of-centre think-tanks are far 2010 and 31 May 2013 and compares the more likely to receive health warnings than number of citations to those of The Guardian their left-of-centre counterparts (the former and The Daily Telegraph newspapers. received health warnings between 23% and In a statistical sense, the BBC cites these 61% of the time while the latter received think-tanks “more similarly” to that of The them between 0% and 12% of the time). Guardian than that of The Daily Telegraph.
    [Show full text]
  • Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020
    Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020 Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020 Nic Newman with Richard Fletcher, Anne Schulz, Simge Andı, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Supported by Surveyed by © Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Digital News Report 2020 4 Contents Foreword by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen 5 3.15 Netherlands 76 Methodology 6 3.16 Norway 77 Authorship and Research Acknowledgements 7 3.17 Poland 78 3.18 Portugal 79 SECTION 1 3.19 Romania 80 Executive Summary and Key Findings by Nic Newman 9 3.20 Slovakia 81 3.21 Spain 82 SECTION 2 3.22 Sweden 83 Further Analysis and International Comparison 33 3.23 Switzerland 84 2.1 How and Why People are Paying for Online News 34 3.24 Turkey 85 2.2 The Resurgence and Importance of Email Newsletters 38 AMERICAS 2.3 How Do People Want the Media to Cover Politics? 42 3.25 United States 88 2.4 Global Turmoil in the Neighbourhood: 3.26 Argentina 89 Problems Mount for Regional and Local News 47 3.27 Brazil 90 2.5 How People Access News about Climate Change 52 3.28 Canada 91 3.29 Chile 92 SECTION 3 3.30 Mexico 93 Country and Market Data 59 ASIA PACIFIC EUROPE 3.31 Australia 96 3.01 United Kingdom 62 3.32 Hong Kong 97 3.02 Austria 63 3.33 Japan 98 3.03 Belgium 64 3.34 Malaysia 99 3.04 Bulgaria 65 3.35 Philippines 100 3.05 Croatia 66 3.36 Singapore 101 3.06 Czech Republic 67 3.37 South Korea 102 3.07 Denmark 68 3.38 Taiwan 103 3.08 Finland 69 AFRICA 3.09 France 70 3.39 Kenya 106 3.10 Germany 71 3.40 South Africa 107 3.11 Greece 72 3.12 Hungary 73 SECTION 4 3.13 Ireland 74 References and Selected Publications 109 3.14 Italy 75 4 / 5 Foreword Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Director, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) The coronavirus crisis is having a profound impact not just on Our main survey this year covered respondents in 40 markets, our health and our communities, but also on the news media.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital News Report 2018 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Digital News Report 2018 2 2 / 3
    1 Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Digital News Report 2018 2 2 / 3 Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2018 Nic Newman with Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A. L. Levy and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Supported by Surveyed by © Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Digital News Report 2018 4 Contents Foreword by David A. L. Levy 5 3.12 Hungary 84 Methodology 6 3.13 Ireland 86 Authorship and Research Acknowledgements 7 3.14 Italy 88 3.15 Netherlands 90 SECTION 1 3.16 Norway 92 Executive Summary and Key Findings by Nic Newman 8 3.17 Poland 94 3.18 Portugal 96 SECTION 2 3.19 Romania 98 Further Analysis and International Comparison 32 3.20 Slovakia 100 2.1 The Impact of Greater News Literacy 34 3.21 Spain 102 2.2 Misinformation and Disinformation Unpacked 38 3.22 Sweden 104 2.3 Which Brands do we Trust and Why? 42 3.23 Switzerland 106 2.4 Who Uses Alternative and Partisan News Brands? 45 3.24 Turkey 108 2.5 Donations & Crowdfunding: an Emerging Opportunity? 49 Americas 2.6 The Rise of Messaging Apps for News 52 3.25 United States 112 2.7 Podcasts and New Audio Strategies 55 3.26 Argentina 114 3.27 Brazil 116 SECTION 3 3.28 Canada 118 Analysis by Country 58 3.29 Chile 120 Europe 3.30 Mexico 122 3.01 United Kingdom 62 Asia Pacific 3.02 Austria 64 3.31 Australia 126 3.03 Belgium 66 3.32 Hong Kong 128 3.04 Bulgaria 68 3.33 Japan 130 3.05 Croatia 70 3.34 Malaysia 132 3.06 Czech Republic 72 3.35 Singapore 134 3.07 Denmark 74 3.36 South Korea 136 3.08 Finland 76 3.37 Taiwan 138 3.09 France 78 3.10 Germany 80 SECTION 4 3.11 Greece 82 Postscript and Further Reading 140 4 / 5 Foreword Dr David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Duties of the Guardian of the Estate of an Incapacitated Person
    DUTIES OF THE GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON The following outline is not intended to be taken as specific legal advice upon any particular occasion for which the advice of qualified counsel is recommended. Please do not ask Court personnel to give legal advice on specific issues as they are not permitted nor qualified to do so. As Guardian of the Estate of an Incapacitated Person your duties are: 1. FAMILIARITY WITH COURT ORDER APPOINTING YOU You must examine and be familiar with the Court Order which appoints you Guardian of the Estate of the Incapacitated Person. This is particularly true in that you may only be authorized to exercise power in certain limited ways, unless you have been appointed "plenary" (general) Guardian of the Estate. If your appointment is subject to limitations, you must not exceed those limitations. You must also determine whether you have been directed to enter Bond (insurance) and if so, you must provide for the entry of an appropriate sized Bond before undertaking any of your duties. In every case, the following list of duties must be limited by the terms of the Order appointing you. 2. INQUIRY AND DISCOVERY OF ASSETS You must make reasonable inquiry into the existence and whereabouts of all valuable assets of the Incapacitated Person, including the determination of their fair market value on the date of your appointment, which may require appraisals of realty, personal, or statements from banks or securities firms as to values of accounts and securities, or appraisals of antiques or jewelry. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianship
    A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianship Banner logo - mostly for web use Vertical logo - Flushed and centered versions PANTONE 7551 C 15 • 40 • 96 • 22 RGB = 180 • 126 • 0 HTML = B47E00 PANTONE 287 C 100 • 87 • 21 • 12 RGB = 0 • 48 • 135 HTML = 003087 PANTONE 7621 C 20 • 100 • 95 • 12 RGB = 171 • 35 • 40 HTML = AB2328 Standard logo - Should use this one most of the time... NOTE: These les have had the “l” and “t” in “Health” made into a compound path, to x the glitch in viewing PDFs on PCs. White logo with compound paths Black and white version ABOUT THIS GUIDE A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianship With this guide, gain a better understanding of the ins and outs of guardianship. This guide will help answer these questions: • What is guardianship? • What can guardianship do and how will it help? • What are the limitations of guardianship? • What are the alternatives to guardianship? • Who can be a guardian? Guardianship A relationship established by a court of law between a person who needs help (ward) and a person or entity named to help the person in need (guardian). A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianship iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THIS GUIDE ...............................................................III A Texas Guide to Adult Guardianship .....................................III INTRODUCTION TO GUARDIANSHIP .......................................1 About guardians .......................................................................... 2 Pros and cons of guardianship ................................................. 3 ESSENTIAL POINTS
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Journalists' Interests
    REGISTER OF JOURNALISTS’ INTERESTS (As at 14 June 2019) INTRODUCTION Purpose and Form of the Register Pursuant to a Resolution made by the House of Commons on 17 December 1985, holders of photo- identity passes as lobby journalists accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery or for parliamentary broadcasting are required to register: ‘Any occupation or employment for which you receive over £795 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by your pass.’ Administration and Inspection of the Register The Register is compiled and maintained by the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Anyone whose details are entered on the Register is required to notify that office of any change in their registrable interests within 28 days of such a change arising. An updated edition of the Register is published approximately every 6 weeks when the House is sitting. Changes to the rules governing the Register are determined by the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons, although where such changes are substantial they are put by the Committee to the House for approval before being implemented. Complaints Complaints, whether from Members, the public or anyone else alleging that a journalist is in breach of the rules governing the Register, should in the first instance be sent to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests in the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Where possible the Registrar will seek to resolve the complaint informally. In more serious cases the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may undertake a formal investigation and either rectify the matter or refer it to the Committee on Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • You Are What You Read
    You are what you read? How newspaper readership is related to views BY BOBBY DUFFY AND LAURA ROWDEN MORI's Social Research Institute works closely with national government, local public services and the not-for-profit sector to understand what works in terms of service delivery, to provide robust evidence for policy makers, and to help politicians understand public priorities. Bobby Duffy is a Research Director and Laura Rowden is a Research Executive in MORI’s Social Research Institute. Contents Summary and conclusions 1 National priorities 5 Who reads what 18 Explaining why attitudes vary 22 Trust and influence 28 Summary and conclusions There is disagreement about the extent to which the media reflect or form opinions. Some believe that they set the agenda but do not tell people what to think about any particular issue, some (often the media themselves) suggest that their power has been overplayed and they mostly just reflect the concerns of the public or other interests, while others suggest they have enormous influence. It is this last view that has gained most support recently. It is argued that as we have become more isolated from each other the media plays a more important role in informing us. At the same time the distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred, and the scope for shaping opinions is therefore greater than ever. Some believe that newspapers have also become more proactive, picking up or even instigating campaigns on single issues of public concern, such as fuel duty or Clause 28. This study aims to shed some more light on newspaper influence, by examining how responses to a key question – what people see as the most important issues facing Britain – vary between readers of different newspapers.
    [Show full text]
  • THE OBSERVER and the GUARDIAN V. UNITED KINGDOM
    14 E.H.R.R. 153 153 THE OBSERVER AND THE GUARDIAN 1991 v. UNITED KINGDOM The Observer and the (Violation of freedom of expression) Guardian v. United BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Kingdom European Court (The President, Judge Ryssdal; Judges Cremona, Vilhjalmsson, of Human Bindschedler-Robert, GolciikHi,Matscher, Pinheiro Farinha, Pettiti, Rights Walsh, Sir Vincent.Evans,Macdonald, Russo, Bernhardt, Spielmann, De Meyer, Valticos, Martens, Palm, Foighel, Pekkanen, Loizou, Morenilla, Gigi, Baka) Series A, No 216 Application No. 13585/88 26 November 1991 The applicants were two British newspapers. They had published details of the book Spycatcher and information obtained from its author, Mr. Peter Wright. The material had been made public in proceedings brought by the Attorney General for England and Wales in Australia to restrain publication of Spycatcher there. The book recounted Mr. Wright's memoirs of his employment by the British Government in the British Security Service. Mr. Wright had allegedly breached his duty of confidentiality in seeking to publish the book. The Attorney General began proceedings in the English courts for permanent injunctions restraining the applicants from further publication of such material. Interlocutory injunctions were imposed to like effect from 27 June 1986, confirmedin an inter partes hearing on 11 July 1986 to take effect until 13 October 1988. On 14 July 1987, however, Spycatcher was published in the United States. On 30 July 1987, the House of Lords continued the original interlocutory
    [Show full text]
  • Vanguard FTSE International Index Funds Annual
    Annual Report | October 31, 2020 Vanguard FTSE International Index Funds Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap Index Fund See the inside front cover for important information about access to your fund’s annual and semiannual shareholder reports. Important information about access to shareholder reports Beginning on January 1, 2021, as permitted by regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, paper copies of your fund’s annual and semiannual shareholder reports will no longer be sent to you by mail, unless you specifically request them. Instead, you will be notified by mail each time a report is posted on the website and will be provided with a link to access the report. If you have already elected to receive shareholder reports electronically, you will not be affected by this change and do not need to take any action. You may elect to receive shareholder reports and other communications from the fund electronically by contacting your financial intermediary (such as a broker-dealer or bank) or, if you invest directly with the fund, by calling Vanguard at one of the phone numbers on the back cover of this report or by logging on to vanguard.com. You may elect to receive paper copies of all future shareholder reports free of charge. If you invest through a financial intermediary, you can contact the intermediary to request that you continue to receive paper copies. If you invest directly with the fund, you can call Vanguard at one of the phone numbers on the back cover of this report or log on to vanguard.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Creative Trends 2021 Brave New Normal Creative Trends 2021 2
    Brave New Normal Creative Trends 2021 Brave New Normal Creative Trends 2021 2 Brave New Normal: Creative Trends 2021 “Despite its’ challenges, 2020 has This report was created by a team of strategists, provided marketers and agencies an creatives and technologists from across dentsu’s global creative offering including experts from opportunity to reset and shift the award-winning agencies dentsumcgarrybowen, Isobar, paradigm of business and 360i and dentsu agencies. brand building. In it they draw on their experience as partners to some of the world’s biggest brands as they navigate through Brave New Normal presents new imagination for the pandemic and evolve their businesses. growing businesses in the years to come - reframing the potential for brands and encouraging them to embrace a new creative canvas to delight, connect, The report also includes insights and case studies inspire, and empower their customers. from Dentsu Inc.’s world famous innovation teams. The intention is for you to use this document as a tool to reflect on 2020, and to provide inspiration to propel Technology unlocks the power of connected creativity your business and brands forward into a brave, new and this is the greatest opportunity our industry has normal in 2021 and beyond. ever known.” — Jean Lin, Global CEO, dentsu Creative Brave New Normal Creative Trends 2021 3 A story of radical collaboration It’s tempting to see 2020 as a story of polarisation. The most likely - and interesting - answer is both. It is only when we resist polarisation and bring For every action, there will be an equal and opposite together craft and code, game designers and diversity reaction.
    [Show full text]
  • JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY and the “SETTING SUN”: Nancy Crawshaw and the British Information Environment in the Cyprus Emergency James Richie
    JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY AND THE “SETTING SUN”: Nancy Crawshaw and the British Information Environment in the Cyprus Emergency James Richie From 1955 to 1959, the British government battled an armed insurgency in their colony of Cyprus. The topic of this paper is the extent to which independent journalists like Nancy Crawshaw prevented the colonial government from dominating the information environment. This study relies on secondary work and the unpublished Nancy Crawshaw Papers found in the Special Collections section of the Princeton University Library. It will look at the origins of the insurgency and the information environment that existed in Cyprus at the time, then discuss the role journalists played in the conflict, and finally move into Crawshaw’s contributions to the colonial government’s inability to control the information environment. This study finds that the British failed to dominate the information environment surrounding the war in Cyprus because they assumed independent journalists like Nancy Crawshaw would support the colonial agenda. However, these journalists formed their own opinions and did not act as agents for any particular side. The armed insurgency the British government battled in the colony of Cyprus from 1955 to 1959 was one of many the British opposed during the first two decades following World War Two. The war was initiated with and included significant propaganda from both sides, and the British struggled to control the information environment within Cyprus due to intense domestic and international pressure. Just like conflicts today in Afghanistan, Syria, and in the Maghreb, states and organizations have battled and will continue to battle over the domination of information.
    [Show full text]