The only way is Ethics!

I'M knee deep marking exam papers and coming up for air. Three times a year I have the privilege, and it is a privilege, to mark law papers set by the National Council for the Training of Journalists; exams taken by young, trainee journalists who are usually in the second year of their newspaper careers.

In this jaundiced world, where being a journalist ranks as high in the popularity stakes as a Radio 1 DJ, it may surprise the cynics that there is a rigorous structure to the training of reporters.

In fact yesterday I was in London at the ITV studio on the South Bank for a meeting with the NCTJ, editors and academics looking at the whole issue of ethics and how, as a training organisation, it responds to both society and the industry once the Leveson report on journalism standards is published later this month.

There is a major journalism skills conference being held in Nottingham at the end of November when some of the proposals we discussed yesterday will be broached. And yes, ethics will be very much at the forefront of those ideas.

And yet as I have been working my way through the law exam papers this weekend, it has struck me that despite the brickbats being thrown at the media industry, despite the pressures which young journalists face these days and equally their editors who have to account for almost every editorial move and whether it is "in the public interest", their stock remains extremely high.

Yes, at times, the responses in the exam papers reflect crass naivety - as there always has been. Yet,  there are many more encouraging signs. Trainee journalists are aware of ethics for the way they respond and behave with a story. Few takes fliers, in fact the biggest criticism sometimes is the conservatism of their approach to a story. Where once journalists were bold and enlightened, now there is a wary cautiousness about tackling a story and pushing the boundaries. If in doubt, leave out!

The point is that those journalists being trained today are good. They write well, they think carefully, they understand the issues and, most importantly, they realise the responsibility of the role they carry.

That can't be said, though, or the legions of citizen journalists who now pervade Twitter, are blogging like mad, using Facebook as their soapbox and even setting up their own micro news sites. They have no understanding of defamation, contempt of court, the reporting of sexual offences or the legion of regulations under the Editors' code of conduct which journalists face.

This was demonstrated so starkly this week when Lord McAlpine took his legal war beyond the BBC to target internet gossips who falsely labelled him a paedophile. No sooner had the Tory Peer bagged a £185,000 settlement from the Beeb than he vowed to go after those who falsely banded his name about on Twitter ahead of the infamous Newsnight programme.

He has warned the trembling Twitterati to come forward voluntarily and apologise or be pursued by the courts.

I think this is a good thing if, for nothing more, than to stop this ludicrous trial by Twitter and the band of cavalier Twitterati who seem to be able to say what they like without any accountability for their actions.

As an illustration of just how dangerous this has become, earlier this month a judge at Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court ordered nine people to pay compensation to a rape victim after naming her on Twitter and Facebook. They were each ordered to pay £624 compensation after being convicted of naming the victim of a rape, brought under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, on Twitter and Facebook.

Don't get me wrong, I think Twitter has got its place. It's entertaining, it stimulates debate, encourages interaction, provides support and loads of bad jokes. It should be treated as it is; fun and community-minded.

However, I still can't subscribe to the idea that I should Tweet my every movement and thought to a band of faithful followers. Who really gives a flying fig?

If you want to read this blog, then good luck to you, but I won't continually bombard you with the latest piece of banal triviality about my work, my life, or inane thoughts on the latest hot issue on TV. It is self-publication sometimes of the lowest common denominator.

What happened with Lord McAlpine, and we saw it last year with the Ryan Giggs' superinjunction story is that Twitter encourages a mob mentality. It doesn't abide the conventions of law. Free speech is fine, but there are still boundaries to free speech, otherwise it is a free-for-all. You can't have an arrangement where you can say what you like and be damned.

Suddenly we have this wave of citizen journalists, armed with their latest iPhones taking photos, uploading the latest ill-informed gossip, spewing their ill-informed opinions not just to friends but to a huge audience who believe it is fact. Social media moves so fast that information is rapid.

Twitter is very dangerous. Suddenly what is gossip becomes absolute fact, no matter how damaging the consequences. Its currency is very high.

Twitter is addictive, but it has also become a monster, and maybe what is happening with Lord McAlpine will offer a sobering thought to some of the Twitterati.

Of course, nothing will change, but it is ironic how there is plenty of Twitter traffic complaining about the standards of the media from those whose own behaviour is far from beyond approach. Talk about throwing stones at glasshouses.