Sounds like a fairly straightforward story, a simple re-cap of the foreign secretary’s speech. But it has some people upset, including, I suppose, some in Secretary Hague’s office. So what’s all the fuss?

Having in mind our excellent relationship with the government of the UK, and with Secretary Hague, we were somewhat surprised to read in the FT account what he allegedly had to say about Hungary (emphasis is mine):

“Broadening his concern to countries in central and southeastern Europe, such as Hungary and Bulgaria, whose institutions have become dominated by Russian investors, Mr. Hague warned that this makes them reliant on state support from Moscow.”

So we googled the speech and found “The Future of British Foreign Policy,” including the note that it is the “Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered.” We looked for Hungary, but there was no mention. We looked for the context of the report, and we found this (again, emphasis mine):

“And fifth, Russia’s behaviour has laid bare the danger of the creation of concentrations of economic, political and media power that subvert democratic institutions, particularly in South-Eastern Europe. We will increase our focus on supporting those institutions in European countries vulnerable to the pressure of creeping oligarchisation.”

Notice any difference between the two? I can understand that journalists interpret events and speeches, but an unambiguous indication that divides fact and opinion is expected in order to avoid misunderstandings. Here the case is worse. It’s not just the distinction between fact and opinion that is missing, but the journalist – understanding very well that the geographic reference to “South-Eastern Europe” doesn’t include Hungary – took license with the secretary’s speech and added “central” to his report on the text, generously broadening it so it could include Hungary. Abandoning journalism, the article enters the realm of pure fiction.

Puzzled, we reached out to Secretary Hague’s office. One of his senior political advisers and speechwriters rejected the FT reporter’s account. The adviser said that Secretary Hague never said anything about Hungary in this context, neither publicly nor privately. The adviser had no idea what the FT reporter was talking about.

Then we reached out to the Financial Times and got in touch with the reporter, Mr. Stacey. He stood by the account. Seems Stacey’s Hungary reference comes from unnamed sources.

Trouble with that, of course, is that the article clearly attributes it to Hague himself, “Broadening his concern to countries in central and southeastern Europe, such as Hungary…” That’s improper attribution, reporting that the foreign secretary said something that he did not say. That’s sloppy journalism.

We’re not pleased, nor, I gather, is Secretary Hague’s office. We have requested a correction but nothing yet.

I’m particularly disappointed with this story because, although we have our moments of disagreement, we have a normal relationship with FT’s correspondents for the region. In recent years, FT’s writers have taken care to hear our point of view as well. That’s probably part of the reason I’m so shocked at this sloppy work.

By Ferenc Kumin

Source: A Blog About Hungary

This opinion does not necessarily represent the views of this portal. Your opinion articles are welcome too, for review before possible publication, via info@xpatloop.com