Banksy, Andrew M-W and Reuters journalistic boundaries

A Reuters photo of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and a long, in-depth takeout on the graffiti artist Banksy have recently provoked debate about the boundaries of what the news agency should be reporting.

How do journalists set the boundaries on what they will and will not publish? How did editors decide to go ahead with coverage that deals with matters of privacy, propriety, and public interest?

These aren’t boundaries imposed by some higher authority but rather ones that journalism places upon itself. The boundaries we used to observe have shifted as the media landscape has evolved. That’s a good thing.

On February 19, the Reuters photographer Phil Noble an image of the man we used to call Prince Andrew in the back of a car, trying to hide from the photographers as his chauffeur and security detail rushed him away from a police station. This was a major scoop. ” It hit the front pages of almost all UK papers and many overseas, generated millions of online hits and is still being used in stories about the former prince many weeks later.  My immediate reaction was, “Good on ya.”

But some people had doubts. Neil Winton wrote to The Baron asking  "Am I the Only One Nauseated By That Picture?" Bob Evans expressed similar misgivings and said publication of the picture made him “more than queasy”.

Their argument was rejected by several other Reuters alumni who lauded Noble’s skill and said it was the victims of the Epstein scandal who deserved sympathy, not Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

On March 13, Reuters published an an investigative story the likes of which we would never have seen during my years at the news agency. It immediately created controversy. Lavishly illustrated with 30 photos and running to nearly 9,000 words, it was the sort of piece I loved to read in the pages of The New Yorker. But on a newswire? It provided proof – or very close to it – of the identity of Banksy, his upbringing and career, his collaborators, and how he works.

There was praise and a lot of coverage, but also doubts. A Swedish academic, Peter Bengston, wrote on “The Conversation” website: "The Reuters investigation comes across as a thoroughly researched piece of journalism. However, the investigation’s detailed account of how Banksy was ostensibly identified leaves another question unanswered: how does exposing Banksy’s identity benefit the public?"

He, like others, noted that the news wasn’t quite that new, and the Reuters story acknowledged that itself. The Daily Mail made a similar claim in 2008, though with much less evidence.

I felt queasy about the decision to publish this story, much as Bob Evans and Neil Winton had about the other. I admire the industry involved. Sentimentally, I wanted Banksy to remain anonymous and mysterious, sure. But I also fear for the impact on security, for him and members of his team.

Is chasing fame and a retail market skewing the sense of the boundaries at Reuters? Is either story being debated inside Reuters, the way it is by those on the outside looking (back) in?

As Reuters moves towards a more public focus and retail market, perhaps it should  provide more commentary about how it decides whether to publish controversial pieces -what factors it weighed and with what processes.

  ■