Today’s reports that family courts are soon to be open to media scrutiny should be welcomed. Given that social services have failed too disastrously, too frequently in recent years, it seems difficult to argue that pivotal decisions about child welfare remain shrouded in secrecy.
Yet, astonishingly, this was the argument put forward today by those public and third sector bodies that should be the most vocal champions of child welfare: namely, social workers and the NSPCC. The concerns over childrens privacy raised by Ian Johnson, the leader of a social workers’ union, were completely unfounded. Under the Children Act 1989, journalists are explicitly prohibited from identifying any child involved in family proceedings either during or after the case. Much closer to the truth was Johnson’s subsequent admission that he ‘just doesn’t agree… that having the press [in court] will result in better social services.’
For a journalist, however, it is difficult to see how anyone could argue otherwise. Where a free press thrives, governments and public services are held to account for their actions, and abuses of their power and position are held in check. In countries where the press is forbidden from scrutinising judicial process, governments can, quite literally, get away with murder.
But Mr. Johnson is by no means unusual in his failure to acknowledge that the press can be a force for good. Disappointingly, many readers’ comments also seemed to presume that reporters only go to court in order to scavenge for salacious gossip. One posting read: ‘fortunately, most divorce type stuff, all the bitterness is done by affidavit so there is nothing exciting for the vermin to watch.’
This kind of hostility towards the press is palpable and, to those of us starting out in the profession, quite alarming. It is really almost comical how many public sector workers believe it is part of their job to withhold all kinds of tedious information about what they are actually doing with taxpayers’ money. This sometimes amounts to real arrogance, bred by an unhealthy popular contempt for the media and deference to government.
The enmity of the general public sometimes reaches ludicrous proportions. One of my fellow trainees recently found evidence of a rat infestation in a children’s play area. She couldn’t persuade any of the parents of children who used it to comment, so it didn’t get reported. This kind of pointless refusal to engage with journalists can really obstruct the circulation of vital information to parties to whom it should be available.
It’s frustrating, because unlike public bodies, which are out to protect their own backs, the vast majority of professional journalists are basically aspiring to tell the truth. That is their job and their responsibility. Very few take pleasure in stitching up innocent people or wantonly delving into celebrity sex secrets. Where serious matters like family court proceedings are concerned, viewing journalists as a bunch of annoying busybodies is extremely short-sighted and potentially even dangerous.
There can be little doubt that this act will further the cause of important and informative journalism. It can only be hoped that, in doing so, it will also create a favourable climate for the emergence of a more public spirited attitude towards the press.
