[Updates Wednesday morning with Poynter comment regarding its partnerships with the European Journalism Centre.]
[Updates with more European junkets being promoted by the European Union of Science Journalists' Associations.]
"As one of the most prestigious competitions of its kind, the European Inventor Award each year pays tribute to the creativity of inventors, whose quest for new ideas drives technological progress and economic growth, shapes our society and improves our daily lives," says an announcement directed at British science writers.
That's a story that might be worth covering. The award ceremony will be held in Amsterdam next week, not a terribly long or expensive trip for British journalists.
But they needn't worry about the price of the trip or their lodging.
The European Patent Office and the European Journalism Centre say they "will cover the travel and accommodation costs." Don't get too excited, however, if you cover courts or cops, because "specialised reporters covering technology, industry and science will be given priority," the organizers say.
It's a bona fide science-writers' junket! That's bad enough, but what's worse is that the announcement carries the logo of the Association of British Science Writers. They are endorsing this! (I fear I will run out of exclamation points!) The British science writers tweeted the link, and the tweet is on the organization's home page:
This kind of thing would draw swift condemnation in the U.S., and it's drawing swift condemnation right here. Science writers come in all stripes these days, and many American science writers would no doubt choose to attend such a junket if it were offered here. But journalists should not go anywhere near this kind of event.
European science journalists and organizations seem to have looser standards than we do in the U.S. I've written here before about European press junkets, trying to make clear why they are a very bad idea.
A friend on Twitter alerted me to the website of the European Union of Science Journalists' Associations which has an entire web page devoted to press junkets. A couple of examples:
EUSJA has got invitation (sic) to attend the 8-th biennial congress “Pain in Europe” to be held in Florence, Oct. 9-12…EUSJA has 10 invitations. The organizer will offer the accommodation and pay for the conference fees, journalists must take care for their travelling.
—
Like the last year EUSJA journalists were invited to attend the European Health Forum Gastein to be held in a remarkable place Bad Hofgastein in Austria (October 2 – 4). EUSJA members once again are getting a wonderful opportunity to participate to the most important health policy event in European Union…EUSJA has 10 invitations. The organizers will provide the accommodation for the full conference period (October 2 – 4) with respect to travel arrangements (starting from October 1). The organizers will cover also the conference fees for invited journalists and offer the meal. Journalists must take care for their traveling.
Again, it would be disturbing merely to see that these trips were being offered to journalists, but it's double disturbing that journalism organizations are promoting them.
The issue here is simple: Journalists have an obligation to present the facts as clearly, honestly, and engagingly as they can to their readers, free of outside influence. When journalists go on a junket, this obligation conflicts with the financial ties they now have with their sources. Who are they serving? Their readers, or the European Patent Office?
The standard response to this is that there is of course no quid pro quo. But the European Patent Office doesn't have to ask the junketing reporters to write stories, or write nice stories. British science writers are a friendly bunch; they are not likely to criticize or dismiss their hosts in print. And the European Patent Office knows that.
If this were a legitimate news event, the organizers would not have to offer a junket–science writers would cover it on their own.
The European Journalism Centre, one of the event's organizers, calls itself an organization of "journalists working for journalists." It promotes this junket on its website, too. It also notes that it has just agreed to partner with the Poynter Institute in the U.S. "to teach journalists the skills and values needed to create journalism for emerging democracies across the world." What, I wonder, will the EJC and Poynter be teaching journalists in emerging democracies about press junkets?
Poynter, a highly regarded journalism education organization that has other partnerships with the EJC, says the EJC is "dedicated to the highest standards in journalism." On the basis of its involvement in this junket, I would challenge that claim.
Howard Finberg, Poynter's director of partnerships and alliances, said in an email Wednesday morning, "We weren't aware of this specific program, and if it is a junket, we would not endorse it." He said Poynter has "dozens of partners, and there's no way for us to know all of their programs, policies, and practices. This issue aside, we know the EJC to be a group that generally shares our values and believes in promoting excellence in journalism skills and values, especially through training."
The EJC should stop offering junkets. British science writers should stop promoting them and accepting them. And Poynter should rethink its partnerships with EJC.
Journalism is changing in a thousand unpredictable ways, but some things should remain inviolable, and one of them is journalists' commitment to their readers.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply