Examination of Witness (Questions 300-319)
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003
MR SIMON
KELNER
300. I accept that apology, because I could
not possibly expect you to remember the details. A year later,
we have another one "Parents were misled over hospital trials
which killed premature babies"—killed. Do you not think
that is a bit over the top and emotive?
(Mr Kelner) The fact that three or four years later
we are still talking about the story means it is obviously a story
in which emotions run high. I do not want to comment on the particularities
of that headline and the semantics of the headline itself.
301. In conclusion, I accept what Mr Kelner
is saying, that he cannot possibly remember three or four years
ago. The point is that most of us who listened to this earlier
today were impressed by the way it was presented to us, that the
headlines are emotive and bear no resemblance to the story, that
they have done a lot of damage to the hospital and doctor concerned.
Our question was mainly whether the Press Complaints Commission
were strong enough in coming back to you. You said at the beginning
that two complaints were upheld, but they were minor. I think
some of us earlier today would say that this was quite an aggressive
form of journalism. You are not on trial, but what I am really
saying is that you said you were proud of that when it was written
in response to Press Complaints Commission inquiry and I am just
saying from my personal —
(Mr Kelner) The PCC rejected the complaint.
302. No, no, it is a lot more complicated than
that. From my particular perspective, I can see why the individual
who came before us today was justifiably upset and angry on behalf
of doctors and professors.
(Mr Kelner) I am not proud of anyone being upset and
angry at a story in which we have got the facts wrong. I should
like to go back. All I would say is that Jeremy Laurence is an
award-winning journalist, he is one of the most experienced and
senior journalists and most respected journalists we have. I would
much prefer to go back and look at the particularities of this
case rather than comment on them.
Mr Flook: Chairman, would the Committee
appreciate hearing further from Mr Kelner in writing?
Chairman
303. Yes, please.
(Mr Kelner) I am very happy to submit a written answer
to that.
Mr Doran
304. You heard the discussion we had with earlier
witnesses on the subject of ethics and I should like to explore
that with you a little bit. It seems to me that the PCC code is
now becoming the basis of ethics in the newspaper industry. The
NUJ representatives and the representatives from the training
college also added some other elements, learning on the job and
the NUJ code itself, but we heard about the weakness of that.
Is that something you would accept as an editor? What worries
me most is how we would develop ethics in the situation we are
in, if this code, which appears to be fairly rigid, at the same
time seems, perhaps not frequently, but often broken.
(Mr Kelner) I do not want to get on my high horse
about the PCC but if we had a stronger PCC, if it were not seen—and
I am talking now within the industry rather than without the industry—within
elements of the industry as a slightly cosy, not terribly strict
body, the application of ethics and the promotion of ethics within
how we do our job would be greater, no doubt about that.
305. Where does your code of ethics come from
as a journalist and an editor?
(Mr Kelner) Training. I am a trained journalist. I
did an NCTJ course and I served indentures as well. That is where
it comes from. I should also like to consider myself a human being.
306. That helps.
(Mr Kelner) I know some of my staff might not feel
that.
307. We will separate the journalist and the
manager. In terms of the training of your journalists, do you
have any extra training which you provide as far as ethics are
concerned?
(Mr Kelner) No, because, as a national newspaper,
we would expect journalists who join the paper—it is not
always the case—to have already been trained and obviously
ethics is an important part of their training.
308. One area of ethics which has always concerned
me is that my understanding is that in America, for example, it
is not ethical to put a quote into a paper without giving the
source, whereas here in the UK, and as a politician I regularly
read political columns, the source seems to be "a friend"
or "a Downing Street source" or someone connected with
whoever is being abused in a particular story, or is the object
of the abuse. I find it difficult to understand why in that sort
of area we still allow reporting in that way, because it seems
to me as a politician that it just opens the door to malice, malcontents
and people who are pursuing their own agenda, but we accept it
as perfectly ethical in all our newspapers here.
(Mr Kelner) Perhaps we should start with politicians
leaking anonymously.
309. I accept that there is responsibility on
our side. I cannot say I have done it myself, but I probably have
at some time in the past given a quote which I did not mind being
quoted but not giving the source.
(Mr Kelner) The question is whether the story is true
or not. That is the test really. Is the story true, are the facts
right, have you done your checking?
310. Do you think the American broadsheets and
journalists go in for overkill?
(Mr Kelner) Sometimes the brand of journalism which
is very prevalent, particularly in the quality broadsheet papers
in America, is rigorous to the extent of bleeding the story dry.
The responsibility on journalists, and particularly journalists
at The Independent to get stories right, to get them sourced,
to get the facts right, to make sure they are true, is the real
test of a story. It is a proper ethical test.
311. On the basis on which you are presenting
that, the test of whether it is true or not depends on the status
of the person who is giving you the anonymous call.
(Mr Kelner) Yes. That is a judgment which the individual
journalist has to make, an individual journalist working to an
editor, whether it be a desk editor or the editor of the newspaper.
312. You mentioned earlier your dissatisfaction
with the PCC. You are the first editor I have heard—we have
had submissions from various editors and you are the second one
to give evidence—if I understood you correctly, say that
you would be quite happy if Ofcom took responsibility in this
area.
(Mr Kelner) No, not take responsibility in this area,
be a backstop, be a court of appeal and a scrutineering body.
313. That is a statutory body, it is a public
body, or will be when the legislation which is going through this
afternoon has finally gone through all its processes. It seems
to me that the one thing the rest of the press has a fear about
is any public sector, which would be interpreted as government,
interference in the running of the press. That does not seem to
worry you as much as it worries other editors.
(Mr Kelner) No, it does not worry me. Why would an
editor who has nothing to fear be worried about it?
314. Would that be tied into the strengthening,
the toughening up of the PCC?
(Mr Kelner) Yes. I do not see why working editors
should serve on the PCC. I do not see that at all. This idea that
the PCC have that lay members outnumber working editors is nonsense.
One Paul Dacre arguing powerfully and passionately is worth 12
lay members.
315. He would be very pleased to hear you say
that.
(Mr Kelner) I am sure he would. They make the point
that working editors give a practical dimension to their discussions
which is very important and relevant. I understand that. But you
could have ex-editors, you could have people who have worked a
lifetime either in broadsheet papers or tabloid papers on the
PCC, who do not have the same tribal loyalties as working editors
do. I do not see the need for it. I also question the way in which
members of the code committee are appointed. I do not see why
there should not be an independent appointments commission. In
fact, ironically, Lord Wakeham suggested that for the second stage
of the House of Lords report.
Alan Keen
316. The press have had some criticism since
we started, but could I say as chairman of the all-party football
group, your paper does a wonderful job exposing the financial
shenanigans which go on, particularly in the Football League clubs
which go in and out of administration.
(Mr Kelner) Thank you.
317. I have put a question two or three times
to other people. Is there a way of involving the owners, at that
level rather than just at the level of editors and journalists
below? Surely the owner should take some responsibility for the
stuff the newspapers put out and cannot really claim they are
above it, or can they?
(Mr Kelner) I think the owner of The Independent
would claim he was above it because he has absolutely no interference
in the editorial policy direction or production of the newspaper.
You cannot have it both ways. I want to be an editor free of proprietorial
control, but then I cannot expect him to carry the can if I get
it wrong.
318. I am really talking about ethics, not the
rest.
(Mr Kelner) I am talking about that. If I transgress
any ethical code, there is no reason why he should be brought
to book or brought to account.
319. Maybe it would not be necessary in your
case, but in the case of other papers who do transgress on a fairly
frequent basis, it does not seem right to me that the owners should
be able to remain . . .
(Mr Kelner) That is a little bit like complaining
about the weather. We are in the most competitive newspaper market
in the world and the tabloid sector is the most competitive part
of that competitive market. We are very much driven by market
forces. I am as well.
| 
