Login
It is an iron rule of journalism – probably the first lesson that a rookie reporter learns on joining a professional newsroom: never betray a confidential source. A core principle of the National Union of Journalists code of conduct states that a journalist “protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work”.
This principle is also enshrined in UK law: the 1981 Contempt of Court Act exempts journalists from contempt charges for “refusing to disclose the source of information” (with some caveats around national security and crime prevention). Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, police cannot seize journalistic material without first making an application to a judge.
There are good reasons for such strong protections. They underpin the fundamental role of watchdog journalism in a democracy and the ability of journalists to hold the powerful to account.
We only have to think of “Deep Throat”, the famed source for Woodward and Bernstein’s exposure of Richard Nixon’s complicity in the 1970s US Watergate scandal, or the disc detailing MPs’ expenses that found its way to the Telegraph in the UK in 2009, to understand the vital importance of preserving source confidentiality.
In all probability, neither scandal would have seen the light of day if the original source had not trusted guarantees of anonymity.
What, then, do we make of the decision by journalist Isabel Oakeshott to present the Telegraph with the complete cache of more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages confidentially given to her by Matt Hancock, for which she signed a non-disclosure agreement? Interviewed on the BBC’s Today programme, Oakeshott claimed an “overwhelming national interest” in breaching the golden rule of journalism.
She said: “Millions … were adversely affected by the catastrophic decision to lockdown this country repeatedly on the flimsiest of evidence, often for political reasons.” Oakeshott insists she wanted the truth to come out.
There are three reasons for casting severe doubt on her stated rationale. First, by her own admission, she spent a year collaborating with Hancock on a book that was published three months ago. Since she had access to his messages at least 15 months ago, why did she wait so long to reveal information in the national interest?
Pressed on this point in the BBC interview, she said that the cache of messages represented more than 2.3 million words and that the book she and Hancock were collaborating on was twice as long as the average political memoir. So her claim appears to be that she had simply not had time to do so.
Second, she deliberately chose the Telegraph for her exclusive, a paper which is known, as is Oakeshott herself, for its profound editorial hostility to – and partisan coverage of – the scale of lockdown measures.
It would surely have been more responsible, having decided to break an agreement of confidentiality on the grounds of public interest, to do so via a non-partisan broadcaster or to make the messages available online for everyone to make their own judgment.
Third, a full public inquiry has been established. Led by Baroness Hallett, its remit is designed precisely to examine responses to the pandemic both by health authorities and by the government.
A genuine public interest response to any concerns raised by the former health secretary’s messages would surely be to hand them over to that inquiry where they could be properly contextualised and analysed, rather than allow them to be selectively quoted in pursuit of a journalistic agenda.
Instead, we are now seeing cherrypicked messages published piecemeal to further support the Telegraph’s own editorial position. Crucially, they are being published without any input from the scientific community about its expert advice on the urgent need for intervention.
In fact, rather than serving the public interest, these revelations are more likely to cause longer-term damage both to public health and to journalism. Selective publication of Hancock’s messages has successfully raised doubts about the wisdom and effectiveness of government lockdown measures without any counterarguments from medical experts or scientists.
Should we be exposed to another full-scale public health crisis which requires government action on the advice of those experts, we will surely have less faith in any restrictions imposed by politicians. Such resistance would no doubt delight the libertarians, but could have dire consequences for public health and safety.
But the damage to journalism could be even greater. Next time someone discovers corruption or wrongdoing at the highest level and wants to blow the whistle on, say, a powerful cabinet member or a wealthy industrialist at significant personal risk to themselves, will they be quite so ready to trust a journalist’s promise of confidentiality?
At the very least, Oakeshott’s apparent readiness to betray her source – whatever her stated justification – is likely to generate even more cynicism about an industry that already struggles to command public confidence.
We can be fairly confident that any whistleblower will stay very clear of Oakeshott who – we should not forget – has form in giving up sources in the Chris Huhne-Vicky Pryce affair which ended in the pair both being jailed for perverting the course of justice.
But high-profile incidents like these will surely make it less likely that such public-spirited individuals will be prepared to risk their own livelihood in the public interest. The only beneficiaries will be the rich and powerful who will continue to escape proper scrutiny.
Steven Barnett is Professor of Communications at the University where he has taught journalism students for nearly 30 years. He is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the board of Hacked Off.
Recently there has been a sharp rise in cases of norovirus, sometimes called the winter vomiting bug, in the UK.
According to the UK Health Security Agency, cases in England are 66% higher than the average for this time of year, and at their highest level in more than a decade. Surveillance data shows norovirus outbreaks have increased in hospitals, schools, and particularly in care homes. The majority of reported cases are in people over 65.
There have also been more norovirus infections reported than usual in Scotland, while the US and Canada are similarly recording increasing cases.
So what do you need to know about norovirus?
Norovirus was first identified in 1968 as the cause of an outbreak of gastroenteritis in Norwalk, Ohio. The virus is the most common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms, responsible for about one in five cases of gastroenteritis globally.
Norovirus generally causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and stomach pain. Although in most cases the infection clears in a couple of days, it can take longer. The symptoms can lead to dehydration, sometimes requiring hospitalisation, especially in people with weakened immune systems, older adults and children.
In rare cases, people can die from norovirus. It’s been estimated that norovirus is responsible for roughly 699 million infections and over 200,000 deaths worldwide each year, with the largest proportion of deaths occurring in children from lower-income countries. Poorer sanitation and access to safe drinking water in developing countries compared with developed countries are important factors.
Read more: Your blood type may influence your vulnerability to norovirus, the winter vomiting virus
People with norovirus are most contagious when they have symptoms, and even during the first few days after they recover.
Norovirus spreads via the faecal-oral route. This means you catch it by accidentally getting tiny particles from the vomit or faeces of an infected person in your mouth. This might happen, for example, if the virus particles land on surfaces you touch, contaminate the food you eat, or if you have direct contact with someone who is infected.
Norovirus can also contaminate food if the food is grown or harvested with contaminated water, for example if fruit and vegetable crops are irrigated with contaminated water or if shellfish are harvested from contaminated water (shellfish can accumulate norovirus in their bodies).
Noroviruses are relatively resistant in the environment. For example, they can survive for long periods on different surfaces, and at high temperatures.
Unfortunately, there are no approved vaccines or antivirals to combat norovirus, despite significant research efforts. Notably, there are many different strains of norovirus, and its genetic diversity makes the development of effective solutions more difficult.
That said, there are some preventive measures you can take to reduce norovirus transmission.
Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds before preparing food, eating and after going to the toilet. Hand sanitisers can be used in addition to hand washing, but hand sanitiser doesn’t work well against norovirus, so hand sanitiser is not a substitute for washing hands with soap and water.
Wash fruit and vegetables well. And thoroughly cook shellfish to an internal temperature of at least 62°C (steam cooking may not heat it enough to kill norovirus).
If possible, people who are infected should isolate from others until at least 48 hours after their symptoms have passed. They should not be involved in any food preparation.
If someone in the household has gastrointestinal symptoms, routinely clean surfaces and any objects that are touched, such as kitchen counters, doorknobs and remote controls. Gloves should be worn when cleaning and disinfecting. It’s also advisable to wear a mask if cleaning an infected person’s vomit.
Thoroughly wash clothes or linen that may be soiled with the vomit or faeces of someone who has been infected. Hot water and detergent should be used for washing at the maximum available cycle length, before machine drying at the highest heat setting.
Read more: Five ways the pandemic surge in hand sanitisers may not be great news in the long term
If you do catch norovirus, it’s important to drink plenty of water or electrolyte drinks to prevent dehydration. This is especially true for people who are vulnerable. Fever-reducing medications (such as paracetamol) and anti-nausea medications may help relieve symptoms. If symptoms become severe or you are concerned, seek medical help.
Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
There is always a flurry of media excitement at this time of year surrounding the Grammys, the American music business’s peer-recognised music awards delivered by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.
But away from the gossip about who deserved to win, the outfits on display and the racial and gender politics surrounding the awards, this year there is one thing that stands out. In 2023, Beyoncé won the Grammy for best dance/electronic album and in the process became the Grammy’s most-awarded artist.
The record had previously rested with Hungarian-British conductor Sir Georg Solti, whose tally of 31 Grammys had stood for more than 20 years.
Beyoncé has been the subject of Grammy controversy in previous years. She was widely perceived to have been twice robbed of the album of the year.
In 2015, her album Beyoncé lost out to electronic musician Beck’s Morning Phase. The award presentation was hijacked by Kanye West in protest who demanded Beck forfeit the award and “respect [Beyoncé’s] artistry”.
In 2017, the critically acclaimed Lemonade failed to top Adele’s 25. The British singer stated on accepting the album of the year: “I can’t possibly accept this award. And I’m very humbled, and I’m very grateful and gracious, but my artist of my life is Beyoncé.”
The resulting outcry brought about a heightened public interest in the racial politics of the awards with the #grammyssowhite hashtag trending and the Academy making the voting system more accessible.
Beyoncé did not win best album again this year, losing out to British singer Harry Style’s Harry House. However, she is now the most recognised artist at the award show with 32 Grammys.
The Grammys are voted on by record companies and Recording Academy members, Beyoncé has been recognised by her peers as an accomplished artist. Whether this record makes her one of the most successful artists of our current age, however, is questionable. Looking at her sales and figures as well as her fandom and the critical response to her work paints a more complicated picture.
In 2022, Beyonce’s Renaissance didn’t break the top ten albums in terms of units sold. That list was topped by the Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny.
Her streaming figures are also not as impressive as you might think. She doesn’t break into the top ten list of all-time streamed artists or even figure in the top 30 of monthly listeners on Spotify. The Canadian rapper Drake topped the list in 2022, followed by Bad Bunny.
So it’s clear that despite her status, in purely commercial terms Beyoncé is not a dominating presence in the music industry, with many artists selling and streaming at considerably higher levels.
If we move beyond the relatively crude tool of sales and streaming figures for assessing Beyoncé’s status, however, she does fare better.
An analysis of critical response to her last four albums shows that her last three albums have struck more of a chord with the critics than previous efforts, as her brand has developed into an almost mythic status.
Renaissance won the Pitchfork Best Album of the Year in 2022. Lemonade from 2016 only reached the third spot in Pitchfork’s Best album of the year list, but still gained the top spot in the Guardian’s list with the paper saying:
With this sumptuously produced visual album, Beyoncé once again pulled the rug out from under the idea of what a pop R&B record could be – it’s hard to think of a pop star who has travelled further from bumping and grinding out Top 40 fodder, to this politicised avenging angel.
The artist’s 2013 self-titled album Beyoncé became Billboard’s Best Album of the Year with Q magazine dubbing it “one of the greatest albums of the past 30 years”.
However, when we look at the album 4 from 2011, it only reached 25 in the Rolling Stone “best of list” and 27 in Pitchfork’s.
Her last three albums have touched on issues from racism and blackness to sexism and religion. These albums have cemented her cultural importance and developed her status as idol.
Her songs have had a powerful cultural impact. She has been described as empowering new generations of young black women and artists and even inspiring a new wave of Christian worship.
This sort of idolisation of the singer has meant she has one of the most active fan bases in pop culture. Known as the BeyHive, they are known for coming out in force anytime even a hint of criticism is levelled at Beyoncé. In particular, when feminist academic bell hooks described Beyoncé as a “terrorist” for how she chooses to appear in her music videos.
On occasion, they have been so fervent, levelling death threats at those they perceive as slighting the singer, that Beyonce’s publicist has issued reminders like the following:
I also want to speak here to the beautiful BeyHiVE. I know your love runs deep but that love has to be given to every human. It will bring no joy to the person you love so much if you spew hate in her name. We love you.
The parasocial relationship – where people become deeply attached to and invest a lot in a media figure who doesn’t return the emotion – that her fanbase has with the artist is intense. This sort of die-hard fandom could explain why so many feel as if she has been “snubbed”, despite becoming the most awarded artist at the Grammys of all time.
So while she might not be the most commercially successful she certainly is culturally important and her record as the artist who has won the most Grammys ever is certainly reflective of that.
Adrian York does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Why do I feel happier when the sun is out? – Mabli, aged 13, Barry, Wales
That is exactly the same question I asked many years ago when I was sitting on a nice sunny beach, far away on a lovely warm island. I remember thinking, “Oh gosh, tomorrow I need to fly back to rainy London where the weather is horrible. I don’t want to go; the weather will make me unhappy.”
I actually did some research into whether sunshine does make us happier. I’m a professor of economics, and I wanted to look at whether higher temperatures, more sunshine and less rainfall on a given day makes people happier. Happiness matters to economists because it is an important way of measuring quality of life. Did you know that the Office of National Statistics has been collecting happiness data for more than 10 years?
My own research has shown that while sunshine matters as a seasonal factor, it doesn’t matter much whether it’s sunny on any given day here in the UK. The sunlight you get over the course of a season is what’s important. You may generally feel a bit unhappier in the winter, but it won’t matter much whether it’s a sunny or a cloudy winter’s day.
Medically, exposure to sunlight causes your brain to produce the hormone serotonin inside your body. Hormones are complex chemicals that play an important role in regulating many of your body functions.
Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation that gives children the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to [email protected] and make sure you include the asker’s first name, age and town or city. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we’ll do our very best.
Two functions that are affected by serotonin are your mood and your sleep quality. When you’re exposed to sunlight your body will make more serotonin, which can boost your mood and make you feel better. High levels of serotonin will make you a feeling positive and full of energy.
At night, when it is dark, your body produces another hormone called melatonin. Melatonin helps your body relax and will make you feel tired. It’s a chemical produced by your body to prepare you for a good night’s sleep. A good balance between these two chemicals is very important in regulating your energy levels, giving you a good night’s rest and making you feel well during the day.
However, for many people it is hard to balance sunlight with darkness. People who work indoors a lot, or live in parts of the world where it gets dark for a long time – like countries near the North Pole in the winter – may not get enough sunlight.
There is typically 100 times less light in a house and 25 times less light in an office when compared to a nice sunny day outside. This is why getting outside in the sun is a great way to get some exercise, enjoy the fresh air, and boost your mood all at the same time.
People who live in places where there is less daylight are more likely to suffer from seasonal affective disorder (Sad). Sad is a type of depression that often occurs in the autumn and winter.
People with Sad may experience symptoms such as low energy, sadness, sleep problems, and a decreased interest in activities they normally enjoy. The most common treatment for Sad is light therapy where you sit underneath bright artificial lights for some time. This mimics sunshine and will trick your body into creating serotonin.
However, there is more to sunlight than just hormones. Your skin produces Vitamin D from sunlight and this is important for strong bones and being healthy. From April to September most people in the UK make enough Vitamin D from sunshine alone. In the winter, though, you won’t get enough from sunshine, which is why the government recommends that everyone should take vitamin D supplements in the autumn and winter.
There is also an evolutionary component. Human eyesight is designed for daylight. We don’t have good night vision like cats. A long time ago in the past, when we didn’t have streetlamps, long periods of darkness might have made our ancestors nervous, fearful, and therefore unhappy. And while you don’t have to worry about being eaten by a lion at night any more, you may still have some of that fear from your ancestors 5,000 years ago.
Please remember that while sunlight can have many positive effects on your mood and health, it’s also important to be safe in the sun. This means wearing sunscreen, wearing a hat and sunglasses, and avoiding being in direct sunlight for too long. And never look at the sun directly. That’s super dangerous.
Franz Buscha does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
FreshRSS