British news media turns gaze within

It is no longer news that journalism is facing a series of crises, not only in Britain but also in democracies with an English-language news culture. As politics, social media and news aggregators force legacy business models to adapt and adopt new ways to survive, what counts as journalism and its traditional role in a democracy also face challenge. The future of journalism in the digital age is as newsworthy as it has been in the past. Historically, Britain set the template for journalism in the English-speaking world, evolving its role, ethics and practices over the centuries, the most important being its responsibility to hold power to account on behalf of the people.

It is a matter of intense debate in academic and other circles whether the British news media today uphold their role as the ‘fourth estate’, in Edmund Burke’s famous words, but some established practices remain in vogue, particularly the ability in some quarters to introspect and subject news organisations to the same scrutiny as any other political or other institution. This ability may be missing or rare in the architecture of journalism in other democracies, but there were at least three such examples in recent days; examples that may evoke surprise and envy elsewhere.

Much was happening last week in Britain and elsewhere, but on March 29, The Guardian – long held as one of the reference points of quality journalism with a history of liberal values since its founding in 1821 – splashed on its front page an apology for its founders’ links to transatlantic slavery. The newspaper is owned by a trust, the Scott Trust, which gives it rare freedom to perform its normative role. Its apology following a two-year independent research was a rare moment in the history of British journalism.

The investigation focussed on whether there was any historical connection between chattel slavery and John Edward Taylor, the journalist and cotton merchant who founded the newspaper in 1821, and the other Manchester businessmen who funded its creation. The report revealed that Taylor, and at least nine of his 11 backers, had links to slavery, principally through the textile industry. The newspaper’s owner issued the apology and announced a decade-long programme of restorative justice, expecting to invest more than £10 million, with millions dedicated specifically to descendant communities linked to the newspaper’s 19th-century founders. Several reports and comment linked to the research has since been published as an ongoing series.

Wrote editor Katharine Viner: “It is a deeply uneasy feeling to know that one of my predecessors, the Guardian’s founding editor, John Edward Taylor, derived much of his wealth from Manchester’s cotton industry, an industry that relied on firms such as Taylor’s trading with cotton plantations in the Americas that had enslaved millions of Black people forcibly transported from Africa. The Manchester Guardian was founded in 1821…It was in favour of the abolition of slavery. Yet Taylor, and most of those who lent him money to found the Guardian, profited from cotton, a global industry that was reliant on the systematic enslavement of millions”.

Secondly, the row over football icon Gary Lineker being asked by BBC to ‘step back’ after he criticised the language used by ministers when discussing the Rishi Sunak government’s asylum policy in a tweet has been resolved. He and his fellow presenters on the widely watched Match of the Day programme are back on air, but equally noteworthy was the ways in which BBC journalists covered the row, door-stepping Tim Davie, the director-general, hurling questions at him the way journalists grill politicians. Reporting an issue robustly, even if it arises from the actions of top managers in your own news organisation, is a rarity even in the most liberal democracies or news cultures.

The BBC has strict guidelines on the use of social media for its staff, but it was unclear if they applied to Lineker, who is the highest paid presenter but is not on staff. When the row snowballed into a major issue, figuring in parliament and adversely affecting the coverage of Britain’s much loved sport, Davie apologised: “Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air”.

But what stood out for foreign journalists and others was the ways in which BBC journalists covered the row: just like any other public interest issue. The BBC also has a regular programme called Newswatch, which focusses on viewers’ objections to the ways in which news is covered, and includes responses from news managers and journalists.

Another rare example of turning the gaze within was at the individual level, of senior BBC journalist Laura Trevelyan, whose family apologised for its ownership of more than 1,000 enslaved African people, mainly in the Caribbean country of Grenada. She resigned after working at the BBC for 30 years to become a full-time ‘roving advocate’ in the campaign to secure financial reparations for the Caribbean from former colonial powers. She recently travelled to Grenada to publicly apologise for the family’s role in slavery and announced £100,000 in reparations, drawn from a pending pension payout from the BBC.

She wrote in The Guardian: “I found the reaction in Grenada to be mixed. Some people were understandably upset to be confronted with the face of slave ownership, and wanted to know why we were giving such a small amount of money compared with the wealth our ancestors had accumulated. Once slavery was abolished, compensation was paid by the British government to the slave owners to make up for their loss of ‘property’. In 1834, the Trevelyans received the equivalent of about £3 million in today’s money. ‘I know it seems inadequate,’ I said, ‘but it’s a first step.’ At the same time, I was heartened to hear of the healing power of our apology”.

As institutions and individuals in Britain review their past links to slavery and colonialism in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, there is growing demand that the royal family should also turn the torch inwards. Trevelyan believes that the coronation of King Charles on May 6 is an opportunity to talk about the royal family’s links to slavery, when leaders from formerly enslaved nations will be present in Westminster Abbey. As King Charles once said about the enduring impact of slavery, “This is a conversation whose time has come.

- The writer is a senior journalist based in London.

• Opinion
• Europe