The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor’s Problem? She’s still her boss’ lawyer

The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor’s Problem? She’s still her boss’ lawyer
By Gabriele Zamparini

After receiving “more than 30 emails”, Siobhain Butterworth, the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, has finally replied on the topic I had issued two alerts in the past weeks, or, as she called the work of citizens-activists in a democracy, “an organised lobbying campaign”.

Being the former Legal Director for Guardian News & Media (a top lawyer representing and defending the private interests of her boss), one can hardly be surprised of Siobhain Butterworth’s contempt for the Guardian’s readers she’s supposed to listen “from a position of independence within the paper”.

Coming from a background where she was “responsible for legal matters relating to The Guardian and The Observer newspapers and the Guardian Unlimited network of sites, including: pre-publication advice; libel and media related litigation; intellectual property matters and commercial and corporate work”, one can’t blame her for ignoring the ABC of her new job, starting from the UNESCO’s International Principles of Professional Ethics in Journalism:

Principle I: People’s Right to True Information

People and individuals have the right to acquire an objective picture of reality by means of accurate and comprehensive information as well as to express themselves freely through the various media of culture and communication.

(…)

Principle III: The Journalist’s Social Responsibility

Information in journalism is understood as a social good and not as a commodity, which means that the journalist shares responsibility for the information transmitted and is thus accountable not only to those controlling the media but ultimately to the public at large, including various social interests. The journalist’s social responsibility requires that he or she will act under all circumstances in conformity with a personal ethical consciousness.

Of course, this strange idea of democracy is nothing new in the Guardian’s corridors and when Siobhain Butterworth writes about “an organised lobbying campaign”, she’s simply repeating the fancy words of her predecessor and other Guardian’s guardians.

The top Guardian’s lawyer improvised readers’ editor writes:

“This month I received more than 30 emails (an organised lobbying campaign) after the Guardian website published a piece about the US House of Representatives' vote to withdraw troops from Iraq. The article said that according to the Iraq Body Count website (IBC) around 70,000 civilians have died in Iraq. (…) The email lobby prefers the Lancet research which estimated that by July 2006 more than 650,000 civilians had died.”

Good and Bad News. The good news first: activism works.

If just one person with a blog can “organize” such a “lobby” and force the Guardian to go back to its shoddy, flawed, third-rate journalism, imagine what could be done with a little more coordination, persistence and hope. As I recently wrote, I haven’t lost hope in the power of collective action or in the difference each of us can make. Or to quote the great American historian Howard Zinn, “There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.”

Now, the bad news… but not that bad after all.

Having a law background myself, I can recognize the technique used by those lawyers who have no arguments to win in court but still need to defend their clients. Those windy lawyers will try to confuse the court and the jury using a verbose smokescreen of preposterous excuses.

Ladies and gentlemen of the only real court that matters in these matters – we, the public opinion, which demand democracy and won’t let it be just an empty name used by its enemies – ladies and gentlemen, the matter is quite simple.

The Guardian had written,

"There have also been around 70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the military action by the US and its allies, according to the Iraq Body Count website." [US House calls for Iraq pullout by spring, James Sturcke, The Guardian, Friday July 13, 2007]

Now, the Guardian’s lawyer – ops, pardon, readers’ editor – writes,

“The email lobby prefers the Lancet research which estimated that by July 2006 more than 650,000 civilians had died.”

It’s not only the “lobby” (read: public opinion) that “prefers” the study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.

As George Monbiot wrote on the issue of climate change,

"If these papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they are not science. They carry no more scientific weight than an article in the National Enquirer. (...) This is why the peer-review process exists: to weed out nonsense."

Top lawyer Siobhain Butterworth desperately tries to defend the indefensible in this unprincipled concluding statement,

“What is the right estimate to use for the civilian death toll? The figures do not easily bear comparison and all the estimates are disputed, so journalists are in an insuperably difficult position. Given the debate around these estimates, a correction relating to the use of the IBC figure is inappropriate”

Siobhain Butterworth has made a mockery of Chair of the Scott Trust’s Liz Forgan’s words,

"The Guardian Readers' Editor, a role established with great distinction by Ian Mayes, has become an emblem of the relationship of trust between the Guardian and its readers. It exemplifies the values, which the Scott Trust, owners of the Guardian, exists to safeguard. Siobhain Butterworth has played a courageous and distinguished role in upholding those values in her former role as legal director. I know that the respect she has earned from readers and Guardian journalists alike will stand her in good stead in her new responsibilities."

KEEP “THE LOBBY” ALIVE!

Please, write to the Guardian and ask for a formal correction of its July 13 article: "There have also been around 70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the military action by the US and its allies, according to the Iraq Body Count website." [US House calls for Iraq pullout by spring, James Sturcke, The Guardian, Friday July 13, 2007]

As always, I strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to:

- Siobhain Butterworth, Guardian's Readers Editor

reader@guardian.co.uk

Siobhain.Butterworth@guardian.co.uk


- Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian

alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk


- The Guardian’s Letters page

letters@guardian.co.uk


- Liz Forgan, Chair of the Scott Trust

contact@gmgplc.co.uk

You may also want to write Guardian's George Monbiot and ask his opinion on his own paper's readers' editor's work in this important matter.

- George Monbiot

g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk


Please, send a copy of your emails to me

info@thecatsdream.com

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Click here to read the previous Alerts and some of the responses from the readers

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

My new e-mail to the Guardian:

Dear Siobhain,

Thank you for your quasi-correction in today’s Guardian.

You write: “What is the right estimate to use for the civilian death toll? The figures do not easily bear comparison and all the estimates are disputed, so journalists are in an insuperably difficult position. Given the debate around these estimates, a correction relating to the use of the IBC figure is inappropriate.”

But the Guardian had written:

"There have also been around 70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the military action by the US and its allies, according to the Iraq Body Count website." [US House calls for Iraq pullout by spring, James Sturcke, The Guardian, Friday July 13, 2007]

So the point you seem to miss is that, while a scientific study published by the peer reviewed medical journal the Lancet was available, the Guardian ignored that study and reported (wrongly) a figure coming from IBC, which is a count based on media, not an estimate, I hope you will ask someone for the difference.

If, as you now write, “all the estimates are disputed”, (by the way, disputed by whom?) why did the Guardian ignore the Lancet’s and favoured the IBC’s figures?

You seem to be absolutely ignorant on this delicate issue and this adds shame to shame.

Respectfully,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

PS I have just written a little post on my blog on this issue, I hope you don’t mind

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

In her article, Guardian's Readers' Editor writes:

"(...) John Sloboda, IBC's executive director, told me. (...)"

One wonders if the same John Sloboda, Iraq Body Count's executice director, also told the Guardian's Readers' Editor of Iraq Body Count's John Sloboda's involvement in the campaign to discredit the two studies published by the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet. To know more click here