Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003
MR PAUL
DACRE, MR
ROBIN ESSER
AND MR
EDDIE YOUNG
180. Yes.
(Mr Dacre) Again you are going to be hearing evidence
from the Commission's director and the chairman. You must put
your questions to him. My experience is that they have been dramatically—
181. Yes, but the point is you are at the end
of the process. You are on the Commission which is at the end
of the process. The time it takes for ordinary people's complaints
to be aired, to go through all the system—
(Mr Dacre) Thirty-one days is the average.
182. No, not to get to the Commission. That
is certainly not the case.
(Mr Dacre) Well, I think so. They write, they get
an instant response. There is a very well staffed secretariat.
Read their submission—
183. Most of them are brushed aside.
(Mr Dacre) Also I think you will find they have done
research on most of the complainants and they are recording a
higher and higher satisfaction level. They do the poll every year
and every year that passes more and more people are saying they
are satisfied with the way the PCC handled their complaints.
184. Well, we certainly have a lot of correspondence
from people who are not. However, we will come to that.
(Mr Dacre) Who do you get your correspondence from,
from constituents?
185. From individuals who have written to the
Committee. We have a lot of correspondence, much of which was
solicited by the PCC because people have actually said to us,
"We were asked to write to you by the PCC."
(Mr Dacre) Of course, yes.
186. But much of it has come from individuals
grossly dissatisfied with the PCC, with individual newspapers,
etcetera. The point I am making is that I do recognise the picture
you paint on balance, however that is something we will have to
take into account. You rehearsed the situation with MPs who had
been before our self-regulating. I will make a point and then
ask you a question. The point I would make is that all of the
cases that you referred to had been well rehearsed throughout
every organ of journalism in the country, whether it be broadcasting
or media. All of that is in the public domain.
(Mr Dacre) Well, by and large the PCC ignores most
of—
187. When was the last time that a journalist
was investigated for anything apart from a rival newspaper?
(Mr Dacre) Hang on, madam. A journalist does not make
laws, he does not take people to war, he does not waste a billion
pounds on the Dome, he does not enact policies that damage education.
You have enormous power. You can make or break lives and you do
every day.
188. Yes, but we go to the ballot box where
people—
(Mr Dacre) Well, I go to the ballot box every day,
as I told you.
189. No, you do not.
(Mr Dacre) Well, I do.
190. No. I am asking you—you did not answer
the question—compared with the number of professions which
are investigated by the press, investigated by every avenue of
journalism that there is, every profession in the country will
at some point have had someone, several people who have been investigated.
Can you tell me a case where a journalist was investigated in
a similar manner except by a rival newspaper?
(Mr Dacre) It happens frequently. If we commit libel
our editors and our journalists are very heavily investigated
by the courts. If we commit contempt of court we have to appear
before the highest judges of the land. The PCC does have the right
in rare own volition cases to interview and call journalists before
it and sit in judgment on them, and it has done so. I think it
did so with the Mirror—
191. Would you then follow on with an expose
of that journalist's lifestyle?
(Mr Dacre) I think Mr Morgan at the Mirror
would think his lifestyle had been well and truly evaluated in
the press. For my own sake, I have had more written about me in
other newspapers than I suspect any member of this Committee,
apart from the respected Chairman. I am constantly written about
in the press and often in a very pejorative fashion, I have to
tell you.
192. Dear, dear.
(Mr Dacre) Seriously, I have been the subject of 6,000
word profiles.
Mr Bryant: Let us have a privacy law
then.
Rosemary McKenna
193. That is right.
(Mr Dacre) I have nothing to hide.
Mr Flook
194. Mr Dacre, there has been more in our newspapers,
there is a lot more frippery than hard news in 2003 than there
was say 10 years ago?
(Mr Dacre) Certainly in the so-called quality papers,
not in the Mail.
195. I was coming on to you in just a moment.
(Mr Dacre) But I make a serious point. The serious
papers are not as serious as they were and I concur with you on
that.
196. But judging by your ability to increase
circulation you are obviously ahead of the curve of what people
want?
(Mr Dacre) Are interested in reading.
197. Yes, are interesting in reading. Where
is that curve going?
(Mr Dacre) What, my curve?
198. No, the readers' curve. I would disagree
with you and say there are more lighthearted stories in the Mail
in 2003 than there were in 1993.
(Mr Dacre) No, I disagree with you. I think the Mail
is a more serious paper today.
199. The Telegraph, instead of having
the criminal court sessions on page 3 it has now got entertainment
rubbish, and so on and so forth?
(Mr Dacre) Yes, sure.
| 
