January press monitoring blogBy Michelle GribbonFirst impressions matter. This is why headline writing is a craft assigned to senior journalists or to specialist sub-editors. It is a responsible job because it can be tricky to summarise the content of an article to a few words whilst retaining accuracy. Headlines entice the reader into buying the newspaper or clicking on a link, and to invest their time into reading what follows. It is therefore extremely tempting to sensationalise or distort the meaning of headlines to make the piece sound more interesting or dramatic.Creating nicknames is one way of doing this. It is a common-place device in newspapers to create a vivid sobriquet – especially for notorious criminals (Jack the Ripper, Mad Frankie Fraser) or politicians (The Iron Lady, Red Ken); it’s memorable and becomes a catchy-shorthand. It is powerful. Once a pejorative name sticks it can be persistent and can damage reputations irreparably. So it should be used with great caution.In January, however, there were two major instances where the use of memorable monikers was not used responsibly and may well have breached industry reporting guidelines. The then unknown executioner of journalist James Foley was called “Jihadi John” by the British media in 2014. The name stuck and has, subsequently, been used to label a number of individuals. In November 2015, Sky News referred to the Labour leader as “Jihadi Jez” – this was removed after a petition demanding an apology gained 40,000 signatures.In a double page spread across pages 4 and 5 of The Sun on January 4, the newspaper introduced us to ‘Jihadi Jnr’ in reference to the British 4 year-old, Isa Dare with a top page strapline ‘Jihadi Jnr and The New Jihadi John’. A clear picture of the child was published, the small boy dressed in combat gear and an IS bandana with the sub-heading ‘I.S. uses boy, 5, in death video of innocent hostages’. There are few more innocent than a pre-school child, yet The Sun saw fit to tag him as ‘Jihadi Jnr’ and plaster a large head and shoulder shot from the I.S. propaganda material in the newspaper. The Telegraph had the same idea and also described the boy as “Jihadi Junior”, carrying a clear photograph.Despite the fact that they describe the boy as being ‘used’ which might as well say, ‘abused’, The Sun were happy to identify him as a ‘jihadist’ which has been taken to mean a fighter in a violent war or struggle against unbelievers, when he is most probably just a terrified little boy exposed to horrific violence and psychological trauma..If the video showing the young boy being forced to carry out such extreme violence was not already itself sufficient evidence of child exploitation and abuse, then when the grandfather was interviewed soon after the article was published it was confirmed. After seeing the picture of his grandson in the press, he provided the real name, Isa Dare and has since told of how the child begged him to save him just days before he was forced to appear in the video.Numerous follow up stories in The Sun and elsewhere began using the child’s real name, but by then the Jihadi Junior nickname had stuck. The Sun ran with a headline the following day ‘Jihadi Jr named: Isa Dare, 4, begged grandad to save him before ISIS film’. The article begins:“The child, dubbed Jihadi Junior, had begged his grandad days before: “Please save me.”So there we go – even when the real name is known, the ‘nickname continues to be used anyway as if the newspaper had nothing to do with creating it in the first place. And once written, it is replicated across the media including broadcast media. Even the BBC, the following day, featured an ‘exclusive’ interview on The One Show “with Victoria Dare, grandmother of the so-called 'Jihadi Junior'”On 26 January 2016, the Sun again succumbed to the “Jihaid” temptation.It ran a splash across pages 16 and 17 under the headline: ‘The Making of ‘Jihadi Jack’ with the banner: How Posh Teen became first Brit White Male IS Recruit.’These serious claims ought to be backed up with evidence but the article contains no hard evidence of these claims at all. The piece began,‘As holiday snaps go the image of the young man dressed in combat gear and squinting in the sun is not your average’. This referred to a picture The Sun published purporting to show 20 year-old, Jack Letts (his real name) making ‘The One’ salute. “Here he stands”, it goes, “perched on a rocky slope, index finger skywards in a salute beloved by IS fighters, posing proudly in front of the Tabqa Dam in Syria.Letts appears to be holding a finger up – but what does that tell us? Not much. Even if Jack Letts was communicating “The One’ gesture known as the Tawhid, it is a fundamental concept in Islam, signifying the belief in the oneness of God and existed way before IS began using it.This is important because later in the article the Sun use it as further proof that Jack Letts is a member of I.S. Writing on his Facebook page in response to allegations, Jack denied that he had joined IS, posting on Sunday:“It’s sort of awkward when the media thinks your (sic) ISIS and your (sic) not. Thinks you have a son and you don’t. Thinks your (sic) married when your (sic) not. Maybe there (sic) got bored worrying about what colour socks certain celebrities wear and took out their frustration on me”.” The Sun gloss over his rebuttal on the basis that, “despite his denials, his one fingered salute suggests otherwise.”The inclusion of the denial by Jack and by his parents with whom he is regularly in touch,, contributes nothing to the overall claim by The Sun that Jack is an IS fighter. Though Jack denying the claims isn’t definitive that he is not a member of ISIS, The Sun does not provide any hard evidence at all that he is.The Sun instead resorts to quotes from unnamed ‘friends and a Muslim neighbour who wished to remain anonymous’:“He is believed to have married a woman from the Iraqi city of Fallujah and had a son who is called Muhammed.” Referring to his Facebook page, the breath-taking conjecture by The Sun continues:In one picture, in January last year, Jack can be seen wearing a hood as he reclines against a living room sofa. One friend spots a handbag lying on the chair and writes: Who’s handbag is that? You married now or something” Jack bats the question away, replying: “You like my handbag taste?” It is thought the photo was taken at a house in Fallujah, where his wife and son live.” So the only evidence The Sun has given us that Jack is married with a son is that a friend on Facebook spotted a handbag on his sofa. Newspapers can cause serious harm to people by running claims like this without providing hard evidence.It is all the more frightening when the story then reappears all over the world as fact. The New Indian Express, and The Times of India republished the story saying: A 20-year-old Muslim convert has emerged (my emphasis) as the first white British boy to join the IS in Syria. At least The Telegraph uses the words “feared to be”, The Hindustan Times “reported to be” and The Daily Express “thought to be”.The Independent ran a front page ‘exclusive’ the following day: “first words of 20-year old Briton who says he hasn’t joined Isis” with a headline on page 8 “Jihadi Jack? No, it’s just anti-Muslim prejudice”. It begins, “ A former Oxford schoolboy dubbed “Jihadi Jack”…” . So even when a newspaper gives him the opportunity to refue the Sun’s claims from the previous day, he is still referred to as ‘Jihadi Jack’.The next day the Independent seemed to waver in their coverage and hedged their bets, perhaps in case any of the revelations later become known to be true, running a piece on page 8 under the headline “Paris attack mourners are ‘bloody fools’ says Jihadi Jack.” So, within 24 hours, the question mark over whether Jihadi Jack was indeed a Jihadi was quite literally removed and the Jihadi Jack nickname wasn’t even used inside quotation marks.By January 30, the Daily Mail ran with a double page spread on pages 12 and 13 with the same picture of Jack Letts holding up one finger under the headline, “Brainwashing of ‘Jihadi Jack’”. The large print introduction began,“His parents are so respectable. But here we reveal how a very middle-class boy from Oxford was recruited by Islamic fanatics.” Yet they still provide no hard evidence to back-up these claims. The second paragraph begins“This week, therefore, there was understandable consternation when it emerged that a bright young Oxford man had sneaked off to Syria, perhaps becoming the first white British man to join Islamic State.” Perhaps? That ‘perhaps’ means they don’t know if the entire premise is accurate . Yet they publish anyway because they assume, usually quite rightly, that the regulator IPSO will do nothing about it (because its rules conveniently say that the newspaper is immune from complaint unless the victim gives permission) and that any affected party would not have deep enough pockets to afford litigation when the article is wrong.The colour piece that follows is riddled with conjecture, such as “Could he perhaps have turned to Islam after being rejected by his girlfriend?” They use unnamed sources to comment on character in an attempt to build the profile of this young man who they have declared as an Islamic fundamentalist without showing any real evidence.The Daily Mail were unable to secure an interview with the parents of Jack Letts, John and Sally and the Mail gives the reason why:“This week they attempted to restore his reputation by giving a series of interviews to selected newspapers. The Mail was not included as it was among those which they accused of concocting ‘Jihadi Jack’s story for the sake of an alliterative headline.” In one interview, given to Channel 4, Sally said:"We've just been stung so many times now by journalists. So many papers have made up so many things about us, it's been a nightmare" The parents also divulged that their son had a serious mental health condition and were worried about how the coverage would affect him.In the interview, the parents talked about being arrested by police after sending money to Syria which could be used to fund terrorism. They say that they sent the money so that their son could buy a new pair of glasses. They have been re-bailed twice. So the police are investigating but there is no evidence yet to show that Jack Letts is an Islamic State recruit.And until such evidence exists, the press should be accountable for these misleading headlines, in these cases branding a vulnerable young child and a young man with known mental health issues.It is not always easy to write both interesting and accurate headlines and news stories but as Leveson said in his report (Chapter 6 9.1) “It is not by accident that the Editor’s Code begins with a requirement for accuracy: it is the foundation stone on which journalism depends”.