Easter weekend ‘fake sheikh’ update

Posted by Martin Stabe on 18 April 2006 at 09:25
Tags: Guardian, Investigations, Journalism, News of the World

The controversy over the publication of pictures of the ‘Fake Sheikh’, News of the World investigations editor Mazher Mahmood, continued over the Easter weekend. Even the New York Times took notice, providing an outsider’s overview of a very British media squabble — and becoming only the third newspaper to print the pictures of the undercover reporter.

In the Independent on Sunday, journalism professor and commentator Roy Greenslade explained why he favours exposing Mahmood. The gist:

The reason is straightforward: Mahmood’s methods debase journalism. They often amount to entrapment and, on occasion, appear to involve the use of agents provocateurs. People have been encouraged to commit crimes they would not otherwise have conceived. As if that wasn’t enough, the public interest justification advanced for such activities by the NoW is almost always highly debatable.

The Guardian, meanwhile, reported on the the News of the Worlds’ version of events at the Dorchester Hotel, where MP George Galloway says he was the intended victim of one of Mahmood’s trademark stings. The paper specificially denies Galloway’s claim that its reporter tried to goad him into supporting anti-Semitic comments.

The News of the World says the undercover reporter is endangered by having his picture published and has asked rival publishers not to print the pictures distributed by Galloway even though they are widely available on the Internet.

One of the pictures is a passport picture of Mahmood; the other is a grainy shot of him wearing the famous ‘fake sheikh’ disguise.

The Guardian is the only British national paper to have run the disguised picture so far, and has defended its position. The East London Advertiser also published the passport photo this week, and the New York Times used both images on its web site.
In last week’s Press Gazette, we argued against printing the pictures because there is no public interest in doing so.

Who is right?