and reach thousands of daily visitors
Listen to thisUK
The recent debate around the reporting of the Muslim fostering row has reignited an impassioned subject – the perceived, and sometimes real, hostility of local authorities when working with the press. Why are local authorities so unwilling to engage with the media?
I know some journalists are contacted almost daily by aggrieved and desperate parents who allege poor, and sometimes dangerous, practice by social workers. I also understand that journalists can be frustrated if “no comment” is the only response they ever receive from a local authority after requesting details about a case. But in the face of relentless criticism about this brick wall, it is time to take a step back and consider the reasons why local authorities rarely share details of cases with the press.
I believe few journalists write about children’s social care with integrity; few are interested in the truth or facts. It seems the majority are only interested in shocking stories about inept social workers, and when they do check the facts, the local authority will not speak to them. In my experience, some journalists then report inaccurately and irresponsibly. One journalist once said to me: “We’re going to write the story anyway and if they won’t talk to us we will make it up.” Local authorities then become even more wary of speaking to the press, and so the cycle continues.
It is important, of course, to differentiate between a journalist who just wants a shocking headline and one who wants to expose poor practice and improve children’s lives. I have met both in the 10 years I have been working with the media as a child protection consultant and trainer. By reporting responsibly, journalists can play a vital role in informing and educating the public. On that point, I agree with every word David Niven wrote recently.
But when journalists request comments on individual cases, what is sometimes forgotten is that local authorities cannot break the confidentiality of the people concerned. The priority is not the local authority, the court or the press – it is the child and their family. Some journalists may want the local authority to explain its actions, but it would be wrong for a council to give the press or anyone else intimate details about that family.
Most parents who abuse their children do not set out to deliberately harm them. Many are vulnerable themselves for a variety of reasons, and their children even more so. In most homes where children are at risk of harm there are issues of domestic abuse, unmet mental health needs or substance misuse – increasingly linked with homelessness and poverty. These are the most private, intimate and often shameful aspects of people’s lives, so the priority should not be satisfying the curiosity of a journalist or the public to know what’s going on. As Niven wrote, some people confuse confidentiality with secrecy.
A mother I worked with told the press her child had been removed because she had a medical condition. There was outrage among the media and the public that social workers would penalise this poor, defenceless mother because of her condition. She gave numerous interviews and sections of the press lapped it up. It would have been wrong, indeed immoral, if the local authority had told journalists the real reason the court granted the order to remove the child – that she left her child alone to have sex with men for money to buy drugs. She did also have a medical condition. It is absolutely right that the local authority gave a “no comment” response in this case because that young woman was so vulnerable herself and had come from an abusive background.
So sometimes local authorities take the flak and that is the way it should be. The priority must always be the child and their family, and journalists should recognise and respect that. Ofsted inspects and regulates children’s social care and there are mechanisms for parents to complain about how they have been treated by the local authority. I do not deny the importance of investigative journalism, but the media should not be mistaken for judge and jury.
We do need to find a way to break the cycle of mistrust between local authorities and the press. It would be constructive to create a mechanism for journalists to inform local authorities when they believe they have substantial evidence from a parent or carer that there has been poor practice, perhaps through the local safeguarding children board (LSCB). Claims could be considered by the LSCB, appropriate action could be taken and Ofsted could see all the referrals.
But let’s allow the experts, those in possession of all the facts, to decide if there has been poor practice, not the press.
By Joanna Nicolas
1 November 2017
Joanna Nicolas is a child protection consultant and social worker
