I'm not a regular Abby reader because she can be a little too graphic for my taste, although I think she writes well and I admire her clear political stance. I check in there occasionally, usually when another blogger who I do read regularly links to something on her blog – which is how I found out about the controversy in the first place. I sympathised with her when she was outed by the Sunday Times last summer, and I followed her blog for a few weeks then as she wrote honestly and painfully about the knock-on effects in her life.
Some commenters on this controversy say 'how can you expect to get a book deal and stay anonymous?' Maybe they're right – and of course one reason I sympathise with Abby is because I hope to do exactly that. Nevertheless, that doesn't in any sense justify tactics like those used by Nicholas Hellen. Particularly when at least one other blogger appears to have managed it, and to have had his blog kindly reviewed by none other than the Sunday Times while keeping his anonymity intact. But of course his book wasn't about sex.
What first sent me into incandescence this morning was Nicholas Hellen's defence.
"The whole [Abby Lee] thing was a puzzle created by the publishers, just like Belle du Jour," he said. "That's what drummed up the interest. What could have been the response from the publishers is 'Congratulations, you've found it out.'" He added that, as a journalist who was legally liable for his copy, he had a duty to make sure that they had the right person, otherwise he and his paper could face heavy fines.
Oh, so it was all the publisher's fault, was it? So it's completely irrelevant that Abby chose anonymity in the first place, when she began blogging three years ago, long before her book deal was even a twinkle in her publisher's eye? And how come he holds his duty to make sure he had the right person for his copy above his ethical responsibilities as a journalist? Very convenient, I'd say.
One of Abby's commenters, who calls himself Jim Farren, left this very interesting piece of information in her comments box:
Nicholas Hellen's journalism has won him an international award nomination. In 2002, with fellow Sunday Times journalists, Hellen was nominated for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists Award for Outstanding International Investigative Reporting, for his work on the ST story, "The Road to September 11". Though he did not win, he was a finalist.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a project of the Center for Public Integrity, launched in 1997 'to extend globally the Center's style of watchdog journalism in the public interest by marshalling the talents of the world's leading investigative reporters to focus on issues that do not stop at water's edge'.
The Center for Public Integrity, 'a non-profit, non-partisan, non-advocacy, ndependent journalism organisation' based in Washington DC, will interest your fans for its Code of Ethics, adopted in 1996.
Which of the following clauses of the code do you think have been breached by Nicholas Hellen:
'Journalists should:
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public;
Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects;
Recognise that gathering or reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance;
Recognise that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence and attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy;
Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity;
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.'
If you feel that he has in fact breached all of these, then consider reporting him to ICIJ Director Wendell Rawls, or to Center for Public Integrity Executive Director Bill Buzenberg. They can be contacted at 910 17th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006. Their telephone number is USA (202) 466-1300, and their online feedback form is available here.
Nice work, Jim Farren. What could have been the response from Nicholas Hellen is 'I now realise that I caused considerable harm and discomfort to Abby Lee by intruding on her privacy in order to pander to lurid curiosity. I apologise unreservedly, and will review my journalistic practice to ensure that I am not responsible for causing such harm again in the future.' But having seen Nicholas Hellen's weaselly response, blaming the publishers and hiding behind convenient legal requirements, I don’t think he would know an ethic if it got up and bit him. Which made me so furious that I had to write this post to vent my wrath. And now I'm off to fill in an online feedback form.
18 comments:
In my opinion nothing he could say could excuse, explain or justify involving her mother.
Message*: I feel that the e-mail Nicholas Heller sent to Abby Lane was unethical and to threaten to involve her mother illustrates disgraceful behaviour for an established journalist.
Copy of Message. Thank you Zinnia for giving me the kick up the backside!
Well said - and I'm so glad that somebody has picked up on the Jim Farren comment and given it a wider airing.
Zinnia, thank you for your support, and also for flagging up that the Sunday Times managed to preserve the anonymity of the writer of Copper's Blog - I had no idea that was the case. Just highlights their hypocrisy about my being a "puzzle" for them to solve, doesn't it? Not to mention (and I'm very glad you did) the fact that I was anonymous a long time before the book was ever on the cards, so Hellen's argument doesn't stand up whatsoever...
If there's anything that can be gotten from all this, hopefully it'll be that people will be a little more aware just how the press can work and additionally, to be prepared for losing their own anonymity too - no-one is safe, evidently.
the sunday times doesn't know the identity of the writer of coppersblog/'wasting police time' so it isn't a case of them 'managing to preserve his identity' and, therefore, this doesn't 'highlight their hypocrisy' either.
this is not a defence of them or nicholas hellen - i have no interest in them or abby lee's blog, (beyond thinking it's badly written). it's just the facts.
Well done, Pat!
Thanks, Mike.
Girl, you're welcome. And - I know...
Anonymous, the thing is, the ST didn't know Abby's identity either until, as Mr Hellen admits in his defence, they found it out. Mr Hellen claims a legal responsibility to make sure he had the right person, so didn't Giles Hattersley, who wrote the Coppersblog article, have the same responsibility? It's the double standard that worries me here.
thanks for updating me on this one, Zinnia. He's more of a turd by the minute....those rules - has he read them do you think?
Yay for you, Zinnia.
Also...
"as a journalist who was legally liable for his copy, he had a duty to make sure that they had the right person, otherwise he and his paper could face heavy fines."
If he had chosen not to out Abby in the first place, then this would have been a moot point. There was no good reason to out her. How could a barely-interesting 'scoop' justify the effect this had on Abby's life?
Oh and anonymous, there IS a hypocrisy in the comparison between Abby's case and Coppersblog's case. In the case of Abby, they aggressively sought to find out who she was and expose her. In the case of Coppersblog, they didn't bother. That's where the hypocrisy lies.
By the way, having read the other comments, I suspect that either you or I has misunderstood what Hellen was saying in his defence.
He says he needed to verify he had the right person. I take this to mean that
(1) He made the decision to seek out the true identity of Abby Lee.
(2) Having discovered that identity, he decided to write a 'scoop' newspaper article.
(3) Legally he couldn't publish the article without first checking he had the right girl, hence his email to Abby.
Therefore
(a) If he hadn't aggressively tried to out Abby in the first place, point (3) would never arisen.
(b) This isn't relevant to Giles Hattersley's piece, because for that piece they weren't attempting to 'out' the author of Coppersblog.
Incidentally, as Abby herself points out, she never responded to the email and yet Mr Hellen went ahead and published his article all the same, which casts some doubt over his assertion that he couldn't go ahead without verifying her identity.
I haven't heard about this controversy, but it sounds intriguing. Thanks for dropping by my blog the other day. You'll be pleased to know I changed my template, so it's a little easier on the eyesight!
excellent post, zinnia. the need to 'out' belle de jour (i believe hellen was on 'her' case aswell) and, failing that for obvious reasons, moved on to 'out' abbey lee, yet leaving the coppersblog, the japing ape and probably many other (male) authors alone leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth ...
I would think that the public interest would be much more involved in the identity of a law officer (the policeman) rather than the identity of a woman who, as amazing as it may seem to Nicholas Hellen (it's probably not something he has encountered) who actually likes to have sex. Or am I missing something here?
Great post. I've sent the revolting Mr hellen a couple of emails already but I'll certainly craft a complaint to that body (whose name I forget).
I think Foilwoman's point is very apposite. There's an underlying streak of misogyny which motivates Hellen. I'm sure he'd prefer all women not to speak or write about *that side of things* and is punishing Lee for doing so with such joy and honesty. He's like the journalist version of the Taliban.
Excellent piece, Zin. I only just found out, via Mike, that you wrote this. I have been ranting on and off to friends for ages, about the media, for various reasons.
I must link this as an update.
I know many here think it's the problem of a 'foreign' person. But for me, it represents the abuse of media power.
Um, Zin, [sheepish grin here] I finally figured out 'Real E Fun.'
Go ahead, laugh at me.
GrannyP: don't think so.
Clare: thank you, and good points you make too, especially your last one.
Kimbofo: that sounds like good news, I'll be over soon to check it out.
Zed: me too. Yuck. *spits*
Foilwoman: quite.
Looby: thanks, I think so too.
GG: thank you. And: hahahahaha!!
I will leave this post at the top of my blog until Tuesday morning when, all being well, normal service will be resumed.
I'm outraged without knowing who either of them are.
Obviously I need to do some research.
Excellent post Zinnia. Each time I think that the British press have sunk as low as they can, oops, there they go again.
Then again, there is a case to be made that we get the press we deserve in this country - I wonder if you canvassed 100 people in the street and asked them whether Abbey should have been allowed to remain anonymous. I hate to say it but I suspect that of those that bothered to answer, a fair percentage would say no.
Post a Comment