READERS' REPORT: There are many cultural, political, socio-economic and practical day-to-day differences between newspaper habits and reader attitudes from country to country, writes Niall Kiely.
Such differences, amounting at times to stark contrast, are not necessarily related to issues of language.
Sometimes Irish journalists may find more to learn from their counterparts in Denmark, Belgium or France than from the English-language press in north America or Australasia.
What is more striking, however, is the often startling commonality of experience.
I belong to a body known as the Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO). It is largely made up of US and Canadian journalists, ranging from Ombudsmen to Readers' Representatives to Readers' Editors.
But it also includes French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Turkish newspaper, radio or television representatives.
Last year's annual ONO get-together was in Paris, an a.g.m. to which many of the participants paid their own tickets.
I made the argument during one workshop that news was news, journalists were journalists and that by the weekend we would surely agree that there was far more to bind us together than divide us.
I still feel that way, by and large, but some niggles emerged.
Two notable aspects struck me in Paris. Despite the best (and laudable) efforts of the US and French organisers, there was some perceptible European frustration over what was perceived as a mild enthocentrism stemming from the fact of a USA-dominated membership.
Secondly, the Eurojournalists found a great deal of shared day-to-day common experience when the non-stop "shop" conversations continued over lunch and dinner. And the odd drink or three.
Conversationally and practically, I found most common cause with Ian Mayes, the estimable Readers' Editor of the Guardian and a doyen for many of us in this field. Readers of that fine newspaper who are familiar with his daily work, his weekly column and collected "Corrections and Clarifications" books will know that he has put his own splendidly idiosyncratic stamp on an unlikely journalistic oeuvre.
He and I would scratch our heads at the dilemmas faced by US colleagues, in particular, because of the exigencies arising in a newspaper culture in the USA which is ruthlessly commercial, determinedly reader-centred but also occluded by a pervasive political correctness.
ONO members share one another's problems and columns throughout the year, and nothing quite illustrated the Atlantic divide this autumn as much as the differing spin-off and fall-out effects of the September 11th attack and its sequelae.
I would guess that since the second World War, nothing has dominated the US news media to such an extent.
But for us all, it is still often a small and human detail which engages or enrages a reader.
In recent weeks, two such items came across my desk. The first involved a health series article which used a "generic" illustration of a white-haired, elderly man lying in an intensive care unit, tubes and monitors attached.
A reader was convinced that it was a photograph of her own father, and contacted us to express her outrage at what she felt was an invasion of his and her privacy.
Upon investigation, it turned out that the ICU picture had been shot in Atlanta, Georgia, the individual was an American and he had signed a consent form to allow a photo agency to use the illustration in its catalogue.
Documentation to this effect was secured and made available, but it was difficult to persuade the woman that any resemblance to her father was accidental.I could, and still do, feel nothing but sympathy for her in her difficulty.
The second incident involved a prominent public figure (PPF) in Northern Ireland whose mid-teens child was beaten up in the street.
We carried a short news article which identified both PPF (I'm not going to compound the error with further detail) and offspring.
We shouldn't have: offspring was a minor and PPF's relationship with offspring should have been an irrelevance in deciding the news worthiness of a minor sectarian incident.
It happened because the material was accepted on a busy news day from an outside contributor and subsequently evaded in-house tripwires and scrutiny: we screwed up.
Fortunately for me, PPF was understanding in the extreme and accepted an explanation graciously and an unreserved verbal and written apology.
I was grateful.
Niall Kiely is Readers' Representative. Readers Report appears on the first Monday of each month.