The Only Way is Ethics: Greville Janner and the power of a picture

Is there something in the idea that we should actively avoid images which incidentally show information about a person’s background when it isn’t strictly relevant

Greville Janner (EPA)

The child sex abuse allegations against Greville Janner were widely reported over a long period. We heard details about the claims against him; we came to know something of the illness that meant he was not fit to stand trial; and since his death there has been much discussion of why earlier chances to investigate him were missed.

Many references have been made to Janner’s record of public service. He was a parliamentarian, an effective lawyer and particularly a pillar of the Jewish community. Indeed, it was as an advocate for Britain’s Jews that Janner was arguably best known prior to the abuse allegations emerging. Not only did he chair the Board of Deputies of British Jews, he was a leading figure in the World Jewish Congress, the Commonwealth Jewish Council and the British-Israel Parliamentary group among other organisations.

But is his Jewishness relevant in reporting the story which came to dominate the last part of his life? This question was raised in relation to an item we published recently, regarding a report by Sir Richard Henriques that examined why Janner had not been the subject of more extensive police enquiries when claims were first levelled against him in the early 1990s.

Accompanying the article was a picture of Janner seemingly wearing a Jewish skull cap, a kippah. Several readers complained about our choice of image. Two said the fact of Janner being a Jew was unrelated to our article and suggested we were motivated by anti-Semitism.

The rules for journalists when it comes to discrimination are clear. We must avoid references to a person’s race, religion, gender, sexuality and so on unless the information is genuinely relevant. In this case, there are a number of points to consider.

First is the notion that Janner avoided proper investigation because of the powerful position he occupied. As Sir Richard concluded, police officers were blinkered in their early enquiries into the claims against Janner. Their immediate perception of him as a parliamentarian and pillar of the community led them to disbelieve the accusations. Janner’s public life was closely connected with his Jewish identity: to that extent, it is a relevant point in examining why he was not investigated more fully.

Yet we did not refer to Janner’s involvement in Jewish advocacy groups in this particular article, so why use a picture of him wearing a kippah? It ought first to be said that our picture desk did not take particular notice of his headgear – it was not immediately apparent to the untrained eye that he was adjusting a skull cup rather than another type of hat.

More important editorially was that the image was one we hadn’t used before. There is always an imperative to avoid constant repetition of the same picture of newsworthy people – simply to keep pages fresh. It was also a good fit for the area it was intended to fill and, unlike many other pictures, came without a hefty usage fee. The idea that we deliberately, and motivated by anti-Semitism, sought out an image which would remind readers that Janner was Jewish is as absurd as it is offensive.

Nonetheless, is there something in the idea that we should actively avoid images which incidentally show information about a person’s background when it isn’t strictly relevant? After all, there might be any number of examples: a crucifix on a necklace, or an Islamic headscarf, or perhaps an individual shown holding hands with a partner.

Yet take this to its logical conclusion and we would publish no pictures at all for fear of showing the colour of someone’s skin or their gender. And the result of that would not be the end of discrimination so much as the obscuring of reality.

Will Gore is Deputy Managing Editor of The Independent, i, Independent on Sunday and the Evening Standard