Doorstepping ‘troll’ Brenda Leyland was justified, so let’s not bully Sky’s Martin Brunt - Roy Greenslade
A Sky News journalist has been subjected to an online bashing because he doorstepped a woman accused of “trolling” the parents of Madeleine McCann.
The woman, Brenda Leyland, was later found dead.
We need to pick our way carefully through the farrago of claims, counterclaims and details to make a sensible analysis of competing grievances. First, vastly experienced Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt did nothing wrong by knocking on Leyland’s door.
Doorstepping is part of the methodology and culture of journalism, and not just in Britain. The fêted Watergate reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward did just that, as the movie All The President’s Men portrays. It is a necessary part of the verification process that underpins all responsible journalism.
The unusual aspect in the Sky News case is that it took place during a live broadcast. Although Brunt did not reveal Leyland’s identity or the location of her home, her face was, of course, seen on screen. That’s identification enough.
The case raises ethical problems because the broadcaster could not have known her mental and emotional state. It would surely have been better to have run an edited version rather than carry it live.
That said, the result would not have been very different unless Sky News’s editors had decided, given the time to debate the matter, that it would have been appropriate to pixellate her face.
It is not fair to say that Brunt had stalked or hounded Leyland, as his critics have claimed. He properly reported on Leyland’s vitriolic Twitter campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann. And she told him she was “entitled” to attack them.
Brunt in turn could argue that he was “entitled” to report on her activities. Disclosure is the point of journalism, and the facts of her tweeting are not in dispute. If people insult other people in a public forum, they must accept that they are open to public exposure, even if they use aliases.
It is, of course, fair to defend Leyland’s right to freedom of expression, but collectively, her tweets — all of which were unpalatable, and some of which I found appalling — surely amounted to a form of bullying. They are a classic example of what we mean by “trolling”.
Other people who believe in the complicity of the McCanns in the death of their missing daughter, Madeleine, have tweeted worse, arguably illegal, comments. But that’s irrelevant to the overall argument about the media’s right to reveal Leyland’s attacks. She just happened to be the first to be identified.
The digital world is all about transparency. Leyland may have thought that by hiding behind her Twitter handle, @sweepyface, she could evade responsibility and public embarrassment for her actions.
I concede that the circumstances were unfortunate, and I have a feeling that Sky News will think again about live doorstepping. It may not amount to trial by media, a knee-jerk reaction to the incident, but it does smack of unnecessary intrusiveness.
Then again, I can’t help feeling that it is a bit rich to accuse Brunt of being a bully for having revealed the existence of a genuine bully. He is a sensitive man, quite unlike the stereotypical foot-in-the-door reporter of yesteryear legend, and I am sure he is upset at her death.
Roy Greenslade is Professor of Journalism, City University London, and writes a blog for the Guardian
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/doorstepping-troll-brenda-leyland-was-justified-so-lets-not-bully-skys-martin-brunt--roy-greenslade-9781575.html
Try if you can without diverting to remember some key information.
SKY NEWS LIED in stating she was being investigayed by the police.
She wasn't.
The police were sent 'files'.
I also have noticed a member of this forum who hasn't posted in the last three says repeatedly claimed she'd been taking screenshots &%+((£
Others have been doing that as well. %£&)**#
She obviously hadn't been charged, so why were sky news there, and how did they get her address ?
