Examination of Witness (Questions 80-99)
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003
MR MAX
CLIFFORD
80. That is why you are paid what you are paid.
(Mr Clifford) No, because I am not paid for that.
81. No, I do not mean that particular case but
generally. You made the point earlier that you did very well out
of it, out of your profession.
(Mr Clifford) Absolutely right, yes.
82. I can understand that. It is almost worth
saying that you depend on the media for your livelihood and in
some respects—
(Mr Clifford) Yes, and a lot of the things I say will
not endear me to them.
83. No. I think that is fine. I admire that
and I appreciate it. In some respect you could probably argue
that they depend on you as well because you provide them with
stories from time to time and you are part of the balancing in
the system, the balancing perhaps that the PCC does not provide?
(Mr Clifford) I have a unique position. Because I
have often a big influence on the front pages it means I have
as much influence as I can possibly get on all areas of the media—press,
televison, the lot—around the world and obviously that suits
me wonderfully well.
84. Take the point you have just mentioned,
the particularly tragic case you have used as an example. Another
area which has been talked about is a hotline to try and stop
publication in certain cases, something that the public could
have access to through whatever representation we are able to
find. Could you see that operating, what you do in your professional
life, ordinary members of the public having access to the hotline
to the PCC to try and stop publication? Do you see that as feasible?
(Mr Clifford) I do not work with the PCC. It is a
waste of time. I do my own thing my own way. It is quicker and
it is far more effective. If there were a hundred people in my
position around the country they could do an awful lot if they
wanted to because you can get to the people who make the decisions
straight away and you can explain to them that maybe it is not
in their interest, maybe they cannot walk all over.
85. But you can do that because you know the
territory.
(Mr Clifford) Yes, that is the point. As I say, I
can only—
86. One of my constituents in Aberdeen is being
hounded by the press and he or she does not know where to turn.
(Mr Clifford) Quite right.
87. If there was a line where someone at the
PCC could take a phone call and could phone the newspaper, check
the evidence against what they have been told by the individual
and call a halt to publication would that be something that would
be beneficial?
(Mr Clifford) Well, I think anything would be much
better than what there is at the moment, yes. What you would need
would be something that the public were aware of as a defence
mechanism.
88. Yes, it would have to be advertised.
(Mr Clifford) So suddenly if you are thrust into the
media glare, which happens, you would know in this instance—if
someone is taken ill you ring for an ambulance. If someone suddenly
thrusts you into the media spotlight you ring. So wherever you
happen to be from Land's End to John O'Groats you know there is
a number to call and very quickly, in a perfect world, you get
a response.
89. Yes. I have done that myself on behalf of
other people and on my own account, phoning editors, and it has
been very successful and I do not see any reason why the PCC could
not offer that sort of facility because they would be experts
in their own right and would be able to speak directly to the
people who make the decisions about publication.
(Mr Clifford) I do think that the PCC, hopefully an
improved PCC, would certainly take that on board and could do
an awful lot more.
Mr Doran: Thank you.
Alan Keen
90. You have been very critical of the press.
Could you tell us how you think it works. The national press are
controlled by financial groups, are they not? They may be self-contained
anyway. Do the non-executive directors and the actual owners influence
what is printed? Some of the stuff that you are critical of obviously
you would think that somebody at the top would think, "We
shouldn't do that," but are they overridden?
(Mr Clifford) No. I think that by far the most important
judgment is the editor and it is purely based on "Is this
good for my paper, my circulation?" That is the one. But
with regard to outside influences, no. Generally speaking I am
amazed at some of the things that publishers allow their editors
to publish from time to time. It is a refreshing form of amazement
because there are certain things which I thought politically were
not very clever and were not very good for those particular publishers,
the owners. So no, I do think that we have as free a press as
is properly possible and that is a good thing, which is why I
am against a privacy law because I think there are, you know,
pluses and minuses. But I do not think there is too much interference
generally speaking. It varies. Richard Desmond probably has more
influence over his editors than most publishers but you have got
to look at every situation on its own merits. I think probably
Piers Morgan would have a far freer hand. Rebekah Wade would have
a far freer hand. Paul Dacre is virtually a law to himself. You
look at every individual newspaper but unless you are working
for Richard Desmond—I think Richard takes a far more personal
active interest and in my view would have a far closer hands-on
approach than most.
91. Would it be more effective as a restraint
if the owners had to answer rather than just, "Oh, it's nothing
to do with us, we just deal with the finances"?
(Mr Clifford) The problem that you have got, Alan,
is that it is the time process, you see, because for the public
by the time you have done all this and gone through all that the
damage is done and it is finished. You know, the body is dead.
It is a waste of time anything else, no satisfaction, nothing.
So that is the problem, that unless, as Frank Doran was saying,
you can react quickly and protect people, anticipate, unless you
have experts with clout, "Hold on a minute, you can't do
this. Stop. You're not going until you've satisfied us you can
justify," etcetera, etcetera, it is a waste of time because
when someone is dead you are not going to resurrect them.
92. Just to help us understand how it works,
if an ordinary person, you feel, is being persecuted do you take
up their case with the newspaper and say, "Look, if you print
this we want some money for what you're doing"?
(Mr Clifford) No. The problem, Alan, is this. First
and foremost, I am not working for—you know, I have clients.
I do not have enough hours in the day to do half the things I
am being paid to do. So you do what you can, which is not anything
like enough, but sometimes there is a quick solution. Sometimes
I can quickly get hold of someone. Often they come to me and say,
"Look what they've done in this newspaper. It's totally untrue,"
etcetera, etcetera. I have shown it to them. I do not get anywhere.
Other newspapers are not interested because six months down the
line, a month down the line, the same thing might be happening
to them so they do not want to know either. So where do you go?
Nowhere.
Alan Keen: I am fascinated and would
carry on but I think the Chairman will stop me.
Chairman: I would never stop you, Alan,
but I will call Rosemary.
Rosemary McKenna
93. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your
honesty. You yourself have been at the receiving end of some pretty
nasty stuff because of the job that you do but that is all right
because you are like us.
(Mr Clifford) That is fine. If you give it, you can
take it.
94. That is right. We are in the public domain.
My concern, like yours, is about my constituents but also about
the families of people. How do you deal with the case where an
eighty year old woman, who happened to be the mother of someone
fairly well known, was doorstepped for three days by the press
pack, by photo journalists and nobody but nobody can stop that?
(Mr Clifford) Okay. Let me tell you because that kind
of thing has happened to me. The person phones or contacts my
office, one of the girls, one of the people who work for me, and
they tell me and I can quickly—because normally they would
shove a card through the door—contact the editors and say,
"Fine. This is what you're doing," etcetera, etcetera,
etcetera. "If you don't stop I'll make sure that everybody
knows exactly what you've been doing to this eighty year old,"
etcetera. So that is what I can do but that is just a drop in
the ocean, I know that. What you need is people, an organisation,
a structure that can do that, that can look after the interests
of those who have got no one to protect them and move fast. For
them, the public, what I would suggest you do is that you employ
Max Clifford Associates and pay them fortunes to promote this
and then everyone will know about it and then the public have
got a number to ring.
Chairman
95. When we did our inquiry 10 years ago one
of the things that we discovered and indeed referred to in our
report was that there was on the statute book a criminal law which
criminalized what was called "besetting". It was in
fact enacted against strikers but it could equally be used against
people who were doorstepping, besetting people. Do you think that
that kind of law, which is actually on the statute book and could
be used, would be useful or is that overdoing it?
(Mr Clifford) No, I do not know how that would work
in practice. Someone is doorstepping you. I mean, who do you call
to stop it? How long does it take? The point I am saying is that
the kind of organisation the PCC in a perfect world would be it
would take care of these things because it is in their interest
to. So once you bring in the law, you know, that takes for ever
and you take pot luck and they do not want to know because they
have got far more important, serious, frightening things going
on for them to sort out all the time and it might mean more paperwork,
which they all say they have got far too much of anyway.
96. Invoking the civil law is a slow business
but if it is a criminal Act of Parliament which denotes a criminal
offence then one would assume that you could simply call the police?
(Mr Clifford) Yes, but then of course it is a question
of what is legitimate? Whilst I am the first to say that the press
is guilty of lots of things, if it was not for a free press then
an awful lot of people would have got away with an awful lot,
and still do!
Rosemary McKenna
97. Yes. I think we all agree it is the balance
about making sure that we do have freedom of the press and that
what should be exposed is exposed. But the press themselves operate
in a quasi-judicial role and there is no control, no legal controls
over them. What concerns me is that the PCC is self-regulation
and it was set up to stop legislation quite clearly. It has not
worked because clearly the press and standards over the last 10
years have deteriorated. I do not think anybody would disagree
with that.
(Mr Clifford) Yes, I would agree with you, Rosemary,
but I would also say that if it can be modernised, if it can be
changed it would still be the most effective way of getting it
right rather than legislation, which does not work and is time-consuming
and you get meetings about meetings and proposals about proposals
and two years later they are still arguing.
98. I have a very open mind about that. I have
not made up my mind at all.
(Mr Clifford) It should not be too difficult to make
these kind of adjustments. The difficulty, I think, is going to
be in making sure the public are aware that they do have a means.
Rosemary McKenna: Yes. Thank you.
Ms Shipley
99. It is a shame you do not like MPs because
you are sounding a lot like one.
(Mr Clifford) Not all MPs, no, I have met the odd
one, you know—
|
