DECEMBER 2005
How journalism went bad
By Sam Smith
The Progressive Review
http://prorev.com
YOUR EDITOR(of The Progressive Review) has occasionally noted that when he started out in what was then the trade of journalism, over half the reporters in this country only had a high school education. Ben Bagdikian, a bit older, describes in his memoir, Double Vision, an even less pretentious craft:
"Before the war a common source of the reporter was an energetic kid who ran newsroom errands for a few years before he was permitted to accompany the most glamorous character on the staff, the rough-tough, seen-it-all, blood-and-guts police reporter. Or else, as in my case, on a paper with low standards, reporters started off as merely warm bodies that could type and would accept $18 a week with no benefits.
"Prewar journalists had their talents and occasional brilliances, but the initial demand on me and my peers was the ability to walk fast, talk fast, type fast, and never break a deadline. And to be a male of the species. Some of us on that long-ago paper had college educations but we learned to keep quiet about it; there was a suspicion that a degree turned men into sissies. Only after the war did the US Labor Department's annual summary of job possibilities in journalism state that a college degree is 'sometimes preferred.'"
Even in sophisticated Washington ten years later, I kept quiet about my Harvard degree as I learned the trade. Then the trade stopped being a trade as not only a college degree but a masters in journalism became increasingly desired. Further, journalists - with the help of things like the Washington Post's new Style section - began joining the power structure by increasingly writing themselves into it.
Then came yet another transition: the journalist as professional was replaced by the journalist as corporate employee, just another bureaucratic pawn in organizations that increasingly had less to do with journalism.
By standard interpretations the trend - at least from uneducated tradesman to skilled professional - was a step forward. But there is a problem with this interpretation. First, with each step the journalist moved further socially and psychologically from the reader or viewer. Reporters increasingly viewed their stories from a class perspective alien to many of those they were writing for, a factor that would prove far more important than the ideological biases about which one hears so many complaints.
This doesn't mean that because of education, these reporters needed to lose the reader's perspective and the best ones certainly didn't. But it meant that they had to be aware of the problem and learn how to compensate for it. Too few were or did.
One reason was the second problem: as journalism was increasingly learned academically instead of vocationally, the great curse of the campus descended, namely the abstraction of the real. Reporters, regardless of their perspective or biases, became removed from their stories. Instead, they were merely 'educated' about them. And the news stopped being as real.
Finally, the corporatization of news meant that everyone in the system from reporter to CEO reacted to things with the caution of an institutionalized employee. Thus, the decline of investigative journalism as it was too much of risk for all involved.
In
short, journalism has become more scholarly, more
snobbish, and more scared and, in the process
increasingly has separated itself from the lives of its
readers.
http://prorev.com
Reporters Without Borders: There is no occupation
http://www.imemc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view
&id=14803&Itemid=1
Kristoffer Larsson-IMEMC - Friday, 04 November 2005
From “Predator of
the Free Press” to “Best in the
At the same time the
position of the Palestinian Authority has dropped
substantially. What may at first glance seem like an
improvement of Israeli treatment of journalists, a deeper
study shows that Reporters Without Borders no longer
holds
In its annual report on
the freedom of the press in almost 170 countries world
wide, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans
frontièrs, RSF) ranks
“The index measures
the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the
degree of freedom journalists and news organisations
enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the state
to respect and ensure respect for this freedom,”
Reporters Without Borders declare on its homepage. The
more restrictions and violations as well as actions
against journalists a country commits, the higher the
index figure and the lower its ranking for press freedom
among the nations. For example, seven European countries
did best this year and received an index figure by the
RSF as low as 0,5. Worst in the world is
The first index was
compiled in 2002, ranking
“Since the start of
the Israeli army’s incursions into Palestinian towns
and cities in March 2002, very many journalists [were]
roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving
around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had
their press cards withdrawn or been deported.”
The following year, RSF
decided to divide
In 2004,
The PA was accused of
providing “no information about a supposed
investigation into the murder of a journalist in the Gaza
Strip” while “news media were ransacked and
some 10 Palestinian journalists were physically attacked
by unidentified persons or armed groups such as the
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades.”
But then in 2005, things
changed. RSF decided no longer to divide
“
“The Israeli media,
protected by laws and court rulings, are very bold and
energetic however.”
“In the
Israel’s
index figure fell sharply from
Meanwhile, Reporters
Without Borders is not as pleased with the Palestinian
Authority as it was previously. 132nd place means it lost
six places in a year, and its index figure is pretty much
the same as the earlier year (42,5). Interestingly, in
its report, RSF ascribes to the PA violations it
hasn’t committed or even been able to prevent:
“However,
lawlessness continues in
Israel’s high rank was met with great
surprise by
“It seems Reporters
Without Borders has decided that the PA instead of
He compares with the
three earlier indexes, which all gave
“Israel is no longer
held responsible for what happens in the occupied
territories,” he says. “Sure, press freedom
exists within
“It is strange
because the index distinguishes between the
Working as a journalist
in Israel/Palestine basically brings about two problems.
If something happens in the occupied territories, the
Israeli military seals off the city, denying journalists
access. For instance, on November first The Guardian
reported that “The Israeli defence ministry has
barred foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip
in an apparent attempt to limit reporting on the killing
of Palestinian civilians, the firing of artillery shells
and the use of ‘sonic bombs’ to terrify the
local population.” [1]
This is a frequently used
tactic by the Israelis to prevent journalists from
writing on Palestinian suffering. But if a suicide
bombing occurs or if Jewish settlers are murdered by
armed Palestinians, journalists are given full access. As
Wahlström points out, “This is an obvious
problem.”
Secondly, if a journalist
produces articles that
“I didn’t get
my press card renewed. And if I after that would get into
cities illegally, I risk being expelled. Many journalists
don’t want to take that risk, which means that they
cannot really take part in the everyday life of the
Palestinian people. That is why we founded the
IMEMC,” Wahlström explains.
IMEMC has contacted the
Swedish office of "Reporters Without Borders"
for an explanation, but it has so far failed to comment
on the issue.
A News Revolution Has
Begun
By John Pilger t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 25
November 2005
The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an
"insurrection of subjugated knowledge." The
insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense
of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away
from the traditional sources of news and information and
toward the world wide web, convinced that mainstream
journalism is the voice of rampant power. The great
scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United
States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that
had they challenged and exposed the lies told about
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying
and justifying them, the invasion might not have
happened. Such honesty has yet to cross the Atlantic.
Since it was founded in 1922, the BBC has served to
protect every British establishment during war and civil
unrest. "We" never traduce and never commit
great crimes. So the omission of shocking events in Iraq
- the destruction of cities, the slaughter of innocent
people and the farce of a puppet government - is
routinely applied.
A study by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that 90
per cent of the BBC's references to Saddam Hussein's WMDs
suggested he possessed them and that "spin from the
British and US governments was successful in framing the
coverage." The same "spin" has ensured,
until now, that the use of banned weapons by the
Americans and British in Iraq has been suppressed as
news. An admission by the US State Department on 10
November that its forces had used white phosphorus in
Fallujah followed "rumours on the internet,"
according to the BBC's Newsnight. There were no rumours.
There was first-class investigative work that ought to
shame well-paid journalists. Mark Kraft of
insomnia.livejournal.com found the evidence in the
March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine and
other sources. He was supported by the work of film-maker
Gabriele Zamparini, founder of the excellent site,
thecatsdream.com. Last May, David Edwards and David
Cromwell of medialens.org posted a revealing
correspondence with Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of
news. They had asked her why the BBC had remained silent
on known atrocities committed by the Americans in
Fallujah. She replied, "Our correspondent in
Fallujah at the time [of the US attack], Paul Wood, did
not report any of these things because he did not see any
of these things." It is a statement to savour. Wood
was "embedded" with the Americans. He
interviewed none of the victims of American atrocities
nor un-embedded journalists. He not only missed the
Americans' use of white phosphorus, which they now admit,
he reported nothing of the use of another banned weapon,
napalm.
Thus, BBC viewers were unaware of the fine words of
Colonel James Alles, commander of the US Marine Air Group
II. "We napalmed both those bridge approaches,"
he said. "Unfortunately, there were people there ...
you could see them in the cockpit video ... It's no great
way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big
psychological effect." Once the unacknowledged work
of Mark Kraft and Gabriele Zamparini had appeared in the
Guardian and Independent and forced the Americans to come
clean about white phosphorous, Wood was on Newsnight
describing their admission as "a public relations
disaster for the US." This echoed Menzies Campbell
of the Liberal-Democrats, perhaps the most quoted
politician since Gladstone, who said, "The use of
this weapon may technically have been legal, but its
effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory
to the insurgency." The BBC and most of the British
political and media establishment invariably cast such a
horror as a public relations problem while minimizing the
crushing of a city the size of Leeds, the killing and
maiming of countless men, women and children, the
expulsion of thousands and the denial of medical
supplies, food and water - a major war crime. The
evidence is voluminous, provided by refugees, doctors,
human rights groups and a few courageous foreigners whose
work appears only on the internet. In April last year, Jo
Wilding, a young British law student, filed a series of
extraordinary eye-witness reports from inside the city.
So fine are they that I have included one of her pieces
in an anthology of the best investigative journalism.*
Her film, "A Letter to the Prime Minister,"
made inside Fallujah with Julia Guest, has not been shown
on British television.
In addition, Dahr Jamail, an independent
Lebanese-American journalist who has produced some of the
best frontline reporting I have read, described all the
"things" the BBC failed to "see." His
interviews with doctors, local officials and families are
on the internet, together with the work of those who have
exposed the widespread use of uranium-tipped shells,
another banned weapon, and
cluster bombs, which Campbell would say are
"technically legal." Try these web sites:
dahrjamail.com, zmag.org, antiwar.com, truthout.org,
indymedia.org.uk, internationalclearinghouse.info,
counterpunch.org, voicesuk.org. There are many more.
"Each word," wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, "has
an echo. So does each silence." ---
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the
corporate media
November 21, 2005
MEDIA ALERT: SMEARING CHOMSKY - THE
GUARDIAN BACKS DOWN
Introduction
On November 4, we published a Media Alert, 'Smearing
Chomsky', detailing the Guardian's October 31 interview
with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes. The alert produced the
biggest ever response from Media Lens readers - many
hundreds of emails were sent to the newspaper.
The Guardian has since published a "correction and
clarification" in regard to Brockes' piece by
ombudsman Ian Mayes, which we discuss below ('Corrections
and clarifications. The Guardian and Noam Chomsky,' The
Guardian, November 17, 2005; http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,,1644017,00.html).
The Guardian editor has also sent a form letter advising
of the paper's retraction and apology. The letter notes:
"The Guardian has a fully independent readers'
editor, who has sole charge of a daily corrections and
clarifications column on the most important page of the
newspaper, alongside the leader columns. No other daily
British paper has such an office or mechanism. It takes
only one complaint to trigger his attention. The Chomsky
case was highlighted by more than one website, some of
which urged their own readers to write in and complain.
"While we welcome all correspondence, this had no
bearing on the action of the Readers' Editor. It is,
obviously, difficult to respond personally to such a
quantity of email." (Rusbridger, forwarded to Media
Lens, November 17, 2005)
This letter represents a significant change for the
Guardian, which generally ignores emails from Media Lens
readers as the work of a manipulative "lobby"
organising a robotic and ignorant response. This would be
reasonable if we were inaccurate or dishonest in
representing the issues under discussion. It would also
be reasonable if readers' letters were not overwhelmingly
cogent and thoughtful.
Journalists and editors would do well to recognise that,
while we +do+ facilitate public criticism of the media,
that criticism is nevertheless often very rational and
very sincere. In reality, the whole mass media system
inclines readers to view what we write with scepticism.
After all, we are not well-known professional journalists
working in high-profile media companies, and we are often
not in agreement with what most mainstream journalists
are writing. We are also writing for an audience with
little tradition of directly challenging often highly
respected 'liberal' media from a left perspective. We
believe that readers are therefore inclined not to
respond unless they feel our arguments are genuinely
compelling - exactly the reverse of the Guardian view.
It is clear that the Guardian's distortions were so
obvious on this occasion - and so obviously damaging to
its reputation - that the editors felt obliged to respond
seriously to complaints. We are willing to accept the
Guardian claim that Mayes - who deserves real credit for
the newspaper's apology - would have published his
correction if just Chomsky had complained. But the
editor's additional reply to readers clearly suggests
that mass public engagement +did+ raise the issue to a
higher level of seriousness within the Guardian. For
example, a number of correspondents wrote to the editor
saying they had been buying the paper for many years -
sometimes as long as 30 or 40 years - and would not be
doing so again. This is something the Guardian could ill
afford to ignore - a point well worth reflecting on for
all who aspire to a more honest and democratic media.
Fertile Fabrications - The Guardian Story Spreads
On November 6, the Independent on Sunday published a
short account of events up to that point:
"Noam Chomsky and The Guardian are still at
loggerheads over an interview with him the newspaper
published on Monday. The American academic and activist
was incensed at what he calls 'fabrications' in the
Guardian piece, and had a letter published on Wednesday
in which he accused Emma Brockes of inventing 'contexts'.
Chomsky denies saying that the massacre at Srebrenica has
been overstated, as Brockes had claimed. But, to
Chomsky's fury, the letter was printed next to one by a
survivor of the massacre, both under the headline,
'Falling Out over Srebrenica'.
"Cue further letters to The Guardian's ombudsman,
Ian Mayes, protesting that such a juxtaposition was
further misrepresentation and stimulating a false debate.
'As I presume you are aware, the "debate" was
constructed by the editors on the basis of inventions in
the article you published,' Chomsky wrote.
"Mayes, who is also president of the international
Organisation of News Ombudsmen, is no longer replying to
Chomsky's emails. He was unavailable for comment."
(Media Diary, Independent on Sunday, November 6, 2005)
As ever, the focus was on dissident fury and anger. This
was reinforced by the observation that ongoing
disagreement provoked "further letters" from
Chomsky to Mayes who was "no longer replying to
Chomsky's emails". This suggested Mayes had given up
on an irate, hectoring Chomsky. In fact, Mayes had not
replied to +any+ of Chomsky's letters at the time the
Independent's piece appeared.
Meanwhile, the Guardian had published a piece by
columnist Norman Johnson which also smeared Chomsky
('Yes, this appeaser was once my hero,' November 5,
2005). From the emails we received, it is clear that many
readers are not in on the Guardian's joke - they are
unaware that Norman Johnson is a pseudonym, and that the
column is intended as a spoof of the 'Cruise Missile
Left': commentators such as David Aaronovitch, Nick
Cohen, Johann Hari and Christopher Hitchens.
Whatever the intention, Johnson's piece struck many
people as yet another attack on Chomsky. Given that the
paper was now under significant public pressure - having
published its initial fabrications about Chomsky, and
also the further smear pairing his letter with that of an
understandably outraged Bosnian survivor - this 'spoof'
was in extremely poor taste, to say the least.
Guardian comment editor Seumas Milne nevertheless
responded to one Media Lens reader:
"As to the Norman Johnson article in today's paper,
most readers take it to be a spoof column satirising a
strand of liberal/former left thinking now in sympathy
with the neocon project - so I hardly think it can
seriously be regarded as an attack on Chomsky."
(Email forwarded to Media Lens, November 5, 2005)
Edward Herman, co-author with Chomsky of the book
Manufacturing Consent, disagreed:
"Johnson obviously tries to be a wit as he writes,
but the piece on [Chomsky] drips with venom and is larded
with straightforward errors and misrepresentations that
are in no way spoofing."
Herman added:
"Johnson has mastered the art of error or lie by
implication, arguably more dishonest than a
straightforward error or lie." (Email to David
Cromwell, November 7, 2005)
For example, the Johnson article included this comment:
"It wasn't easy for me, either, when I realised the
brilliant academic [Chomsky] whose linguistics lectures
had once held me spellbound, that the political theorist
I'd revered for his unsentimental computation of Mao
Zedong's balance sheet, and firm evaluation of Pol Pot's
achievement in creating modern Cambodia, had morphed into
an unfeeling appeaser to whom the murder of Milosevic's
victims could be assessed with an amoral sophistry that
might have been lifted, with barely an adjustment, from
the speeches of Douglas Hurd." (Johnson, op., cit)
It seems remarkable that this could have been published
as a spoof, just three days after the Guardian had
published a letter by Chomsky strongly attacking the
Guardian's "distortions" about essentially this
same charge of "amoral sophistry", and after
many emails had already arrived challenging the Guardian
smear. After all, the charge was clearly taken seriously
by senior figures within the Guardian. For example, on
November 11, the following exchange was published between
the Croatian journal Globus and leading Guardian
columnist and former editor, Peter Preston:
Q: "In an interview to the last week's Guardian Noam
Chomsky stated his opinion about the crime against the
Bosniaks in Srebrenica, supporting those who hold that
that crime is exaggerated. What do you think of
that?"
A: "I don't agree at all with Chomsky's opinion. I
think it's impossible to rewrite history that way. After
all, about Srebrenica speak mostly mass graves that were
discovered and are still being discovered. I think to
deny the crimes like that one in Srebrenica is in vain
and wrong, because there is a clear position in the
political and intellectual circles about them, to what, I
must say, my colleagues from the Guardian have
contributed a lot. That position is based on irrefutable
facts and known scenes from Srebrenica."
Q: "Why does Noam Chomsky has a need to revise those
facts?"
A: "I have to admit I don't know. Perhaps it's his
need to be controversial? I think the crime in Srebrenica
has become part of planetary humanity, like Nazi crimes
in the WWII, and it is really strange to draw the
attention to oneself by denying that fact. I think that a
much more important public duty would be to point out the
fact that those who ordered that crime, Karadzic and
Mladic, are still at large." (http://www.globus.com.hr/Default.aspx?BrojID=133)
Preston thus accused Chomsky of "denying" the
crime in Srebrenica, but offered no evidence for this
serious accusation. Was this also a spoof?
One might have thought Preston would have been aware of
the growing furore surrounding the Guardian's
fabrications at the time of his comments.
Two days later, Chomsky wrote that he had by then
received a print copy of the Guardian interview. He
responded in an open letter:
"...the print version reveals a very impressive
effort, which obviously took careful planning and work,
to construct an exercise in defamation that is a model of
the genre".
Chomsky pointed to the photographs that accompanied the
piece:
"One is a picture of me 'talking to journalist John
Pilger'. The second is of me 'meeting Fidel Castro.' The
third, and most interesting, is a picture of me 'in Laos
en route to Hanoi to give a speech to the North
Vietnamese.'
"That's my life: honoring commie-rats and the
renegade who is the source of the word 'pilgerize'
invented by journalists furious about his incisive and
courageous reporting, and knowing that the only response
they are capable of is ridicule." ('Chomsky answers
Guardian,' November 13, 2005; http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9110)
Chomsky's letter outlined the actual events and
background behind the photographs used by the Guardian,
adding:
"Quite apart from the deceit in the captions, simply
note how much effort and care it must have taken to
contrive these images to frame the answer to the question
on the front page.[Q: Do you regret supporting those who
say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only
regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough.]
"It is an impressive piece of work, and, as I said,
provides a useful model for studies of defamation
exercises, or for those who practice the craft. And also,
perhaps, provides a useful lesson for those who may be
approached for interviews by this journal.
"This is incidentally only a fragment. The rest is
mostly what one might expect to find in the scandal
sheets about movie stars, familiar from such sources, and
of no further interest."
Bad Arguments For Good Faith
In its correction and retraction, the Guardian accepted
that Chomsky has never denied that a massacre took place
in Srebrenica. It noted that the headline answer printed
at the top of the article was in response to a question
that had not been posed to Chomsky in that form in the
interview. It also accepted that the juxtaposition of a
letter from a survivor of Omarska with Chomsky's letter
exacerbated his original complaint.
While this is indeed a remarkable and humbling apology
from the Guardian - Mayes describes it as
"unprecedented in my experience in this job over the
past eight years" (Email forwarded to Media Lens,
November 19, 2005) - it is seriously flawed. Note, for
example, the following comment:
"Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition
of a letter from him... with a letter from a survivor of
Omarska... At the time these letters were published... no
formal complaint had been received from him. The letters
were published by the letters editor in good faith to
reflect readers' views."
This is outrageous. In fact, the letters only add to
overwhelming evidence that the whole affair was carefully
planned and managed at the editorial level. How, after
all, can a pair of letters be published under the title
"Falling out over Srebrenica" when one of the
letters deplores the massacre and the other says nothing
at all about it, asserting simply that the author takes
no responsibility for anything written in the original
interview, where everything relevant was
"fabricated" - the word the Guardian asked
Chomsky to remove from his letter, but which they knew he
had used? This is a logical impossibility, and the
editors who paired the letters and wrote the headline are
surely capable of elementary logic.
This, and much other evidence, gives the lie to editor
Alan Rusbridger's astonishing claim to readers:
"I believe Professor Chomsky's concerns about a
wider editorial motive behind the interview, suggested in
an open letter, are wholly without foundation."
(Rusbridger, op. cit)
Mayes also also wrote in his correction:
"Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also
written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof
Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of
an open letter with other signatories, related entirely
to her right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also
accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was wrong
and unjustified by the text.
Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on
Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his
support for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms
Johnstone have ever denied the fact of the
massacre."
Brockes's misinterpretation surely also stemmed from her
"misunderstanding" of Diana Johnstone's honest
and courageous work. In an earlier response, Johnstone
added a more general corrective that is missing from the
Guardian apology:
"Neither I nor Professor Chomsky have ever denied
that Muslims were the main victims of atrocities and
massacres committed in Bosnia. But I insist that the
tragedy of Yugoslav disintegration cannot be reduced to
such massacres, and that there are other aspects of the
story, historical and political, that deserve to be
considered. However, any challenge to the mainstream
media version of events is stigmatized as 'causing more
suffering to the victims' - an accusation that makes no
sense, but which works as a sort of emotional
blackmail." (Diana Johnstone, 'Johnstone Reply,' www.zmag.org, November 9,
2005; http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9083)
Conclusion - Where Egos Dare
It is remarkable that such a deceitful and incompetent
piece of journalism could pass unhindered up the
Guardian's editorial chain. Where were the paper's fact
checkers, the editors insisting on some small semblance
of fairness, the experts advising on the issues under
discussion? Who, other than Brockes and her G2 section
editor Ian Katz, was behind the article? To what extent,
for example, was Ed Vulliamy involved?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that standards
collapsed in deference to a clear decision by one or more
senior figures on the paper to target Chomsky for a
carefully planned attack.
It is surely the case that the intense liberal dislike of
one of the world's leading radicals - someone they
perhaps imagined had little power or inclination to
defend himself - played a role in blinding the Guardian
editors and journalists to their folly.
This bias is exactly reversed when the Guardian
interviews powerful figures such as Bill Clinton - then
instinctive support for fellow 'liberals' and keen
awareness of their ability to hit back with real force
combine to produce fawning hagiography, as we have
discussed elsewhere.
The Guardian's bold as brass smear and subsequent pained
retraction inevitably call to mind an insightful comment
made about Chomsky in, ironically, the Guardian itself.
As we have once again seen, it is an observation that can
of course be broadened to mainstream journalism:
"His boldness and clarity infuriates opponents -
academe is crowded with critics who have made twerps of
themselves taking him on." (Birthdays, The Guardian,
December 7, 1996)
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality,
compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to
journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a
polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
Email: Alan.Rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian readers' editor Ian Mayes
Email: ian.mayes@guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian G2 section editor, Ian Katz:
Email: ian.katz@guardian.co.uk
Write to us at: editor@medialens.org