This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/15/reporting-speeches-before-delivered

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers' editor on… reporting speeches before they've been delivered The readers' editor on… reporting speeches before they've been delivered
(2 days later)
A reader believes the Guardian to have been guilty of lazy journalism when it ran a story based on an "advance" of a speech by Michael Gove. The story, published in the print edition of 27 August, reported remarks that Gove was due to make later that day, including his suggestion that Ed Miliband is a weaker leader than Neil Kinnock.A reader believes the Guardian to have been guilty of lazy journalism when it ran a story based on an "advance" of a speech by Michael Gove. The story, published in the print edition of 27 August, reported remarks that Gove was due to make later that day, including his suggestion that Ed Miliband is a weaker leader than Neil Kinnock.
The reader wrote: "There was a time when the Guardian reported what politicians said; these days it seems in vogue to report what they might say."The reader wrote: "There was a time when the Guardian reported what politicians said; these days it seems in vogue to report what they might say."
While the reader focused on that particular story, he also said that the practice was widespread among other members of the Guardian's Westminster staff. He said the politicians hand out a "PR powder puff" to correspondents and the papers run with it.While the reader focused on that particular story, he also said that the practice was widespread among other members of the Guardian's Westminster staff. He said the politicians hand out a "PR powder puff" to correspondents and the papers run with it.
"I fail to see how 'Tory minister trashes Labour leader at some untold time in the future' is news, or worthy of comment. Isn't that what Tories do? Surely giving them publicity in this way is weighting the dice in their favour unfairly. Why not wait until Gove actually made the speech before reporting it?""I fail to see how 'Tory minister trashes Labour leader at some untold time in the future' is news, or worthy of comment. Isn't that what Tories do? Surely giving them publicity in this way is weighting the dice in their favour unfairly. Why not wait until Gove actually made the speech before reporting it?"
Nick Watt, the author of the article, responds: "I think the reader's point is that reporting a speech before it has taken place places us in the position of regurgitating a press release. But we always make an editorial judgment. In the case of the Gove speech it was an important contribution and we would have been mad to have turned it down and just waited to report on his remarks at the same time that the cameras were rolling.Nick Watt, the author of the article, responds: "I think the reader's point is that reporting a speech before it has taken place places us in the position of regurgitating a press release. But we always make an editorial judgment. In the case of the Gove speech it was an important contribution and we would have been mad to have turned it down and just waited to report on his remarks at the same time that the cameras were rolling.
"The key point is to ensure that we make a proper editorial judgment at all stages. In the case of the Gove speech there wasn't really a second bite of the cherry for Gove. Rowena Mason, our new political correspondent, went along to the speech and rightly judged that it was not worth filing another story on Labour and the unions because Gove did not really say much beyond my story. But he did answer some questions on Syria. Rowena filed these because it was a sensitive time and his remarks were the first public comments by a member of the cabinet at that time.""The key point is to ensure that we make a proper editorial judgment at all stages. In the case of the Gove speech there wasn't really a second bite of the cherry for Gove. Rowena Mason, our new political correspondent, went along to the speech and rightly judged that it was not worth filing another story on Labour and the unions because Gove did not really say much beyond my story. But he did answer some questions on Syria. Rowena filed these because it was a sensitive time and his remarks were the first public comments by a member of the cabinet at that time."
I would agree with that on this occasion. If a reporter discovers, and knows that two or three rival reporters have also discovered, that a politician is going to say something newsworthy, it would be odd, and a disservice to the readers, not to report it.I would agree with that on this occasion. If a reporter discovers, and knows that two or three rival reporters have also discovered, that a politician is going to say something newsworthy, it would be odd, and a disservice to the readers, not to report it.
However, it is a very common practice and does appear sometimes as if the reporters are locked into a sort of ritual dance with politicians from all parties from which they don't feel they can break free. For instance, Ed Miliband's speech to the TUC represented "three bites at the cherry": 1) A front-page story on Miliband's plan to outline proposals on zero-hours contracts at the TUC; 2) A page 9 story the following day previewing Miliband's speech; 3) A further page 9 story the day after that, reporting on the actual Miliband speech.However, it is a very common practice and does appear sometimes as if the reporters are locked into a sort of ritual dance with politicians from all parties from which they don't feel they can break free. For instance, Ed Miliband's speech to the TUC represented "three bites at the cherry": 1) A front-page story on Miliband's plan to outline proposals on zero-hours contracts at the TUC; 2) A page 9 story the following day previewing Miliband's speech; 3) A further page 9 story the day after that, reporting on the actual Miliband speech.
Arguably there was even a fourth bite: a sketch of the speech. And, again, the political correspondents might reasonably ask: why wouldn't we want to give our readers the earliest notice of Miliband's plans, especially if others are doing so?Arguably there was even a fourth bite: a sketch of the speech. And, again, the political correspondents might reasonably ask: why wouldn't we want to give our readers the earliest notice of Miliband's plans, especially if others are doing so?
Michael White, the Guardian's former political editor, who wrote the sketch, said: "The news cycle dictates a lot of the pre-spin. You are making a long-booked speech and find you clash with Cameron on porn, on the European Cup match that matters, with a war or a sex scandal. You pre-brief so your words are not lost in the ruck – it sometimes works.Michael White, the Guardian's former political editor, who wrote the sketch, said: "The news cycle dictates a lot of the pre-spin. You are making a long-booked speech and find you clash with Cameron on porn, on the European Cup match that matters, with a war or a sex scandal. You pre-brief so your words are not lost in the ruck – it sometimes works.
"They tell us these things, we don't have to print them but of course we do in a 24/7 media world – the politicians want to set the agenda, so do we. We also get reaction before the words have been delivered. I first saw this happen in the '87 election: mobile phones make it all possible.""They tell us these things, we don't have to print them but of course we do in a 24/7 media world – the politicians want to set the agenda, so do we. We also get reaction before the words have been delivered. I first saw this happen in the '87 election: mobile phones make it all possible."
He said the most pernicious trait comes most often at budget time "when they brief the rightwing papers/tabloids with the bits they'll like and brief the bleeding-heart bits to us and the Indy. Result: wildly different interpretations of a speech not given. You really need to see a speech in the round to judge it fairly. Some briefers are fair, others shameless."He said the most pernicious trait comes most often at budget time "when they brief the rightwing papers/tabloids with the bits they'll like and brief the bleeding-heart bits to us and the Indy. Result: wildly different interpretations of a speech not given. You really need to see a speech in the round to judge it fairly. Some briefers are fair, others shameless."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.