Examination of Witness (Questions 360-379)
TUESDAY 11 MARCH 2003
MR PIERS
MORGAN
360. Those are your words, Mr Morgan.
(Mr Morgan) No, I am talking about the—
361. That is the way you see it. We have not
used words like that.
(Mr Morgan) I am talking about the stereotypical image
that is currently being propagated in Britain's most popular television
series. It concerns me that we are being represented in a completely
untrue way. I am sure you have all found examples where the press
have gone a little too far, where particular people have found
it particularly upsetting, but I do think we have to address the
stereotypical image because it does not face up, in my view, to
the reality of how the press has moved on, particularly on the
tabloid newspapers on which I have worked for 15 years.
Chairman: Mr Morgan, I declared a series
of interests at the beginning but I am afraid I did not declare
an interest as a script writer of Coronation Street—much
though I would like to do it because I think they probably pay
quite well. Mr Bryant.
Mr Bryant
362. Thank you, Chairman. I do not know whether
I can follow you really. Our concern and my concern is primarily
about constituents, ordinary members of the public, who get gobbled
up by the media—broadly, not necessarily by the tabloids—and
get—
(Mr Morgan) Can you just temper the language slightly.
When you say "gobbled up", you make us out to be some
sort of hydras going around consuming members of the public.
363. I think there is only one head on this
particular hydra. It is true they do get gobbled up and they get
spat out at the other end. Those are the—
(Mr Morgan) Come on—
364.—words that those people use.
(Mr Morgan)—can we stop using this kind of emotive—
Chairman
365. Mr Morgan, will you please have the courtesy
not to interrupt.
(Mr Morgan) But this emotive language.
366. No, you are interrupting me now and I am
Chairman of this committee. We gave you the opportunity of making
a long—
(Mr Morgan) My apologies. Yes.
367. It would be a courtesy on your part if
you allowed members of the Committee to complete their questions
before you answer them.
(Mr Morgan) Yes. That is fine. Could I just ask though
that the language is slightly less emotive than "gobbled
up" and "spat out" or we are going to have issues
throughout this debate. Because it is the emotive language like
that which is the language of the broadsheet leader columns about
the ghastly tabloids that I am very concerned about. All I am
saying is: Can we keep it on a level where emotive language is
tempered at this Committee? Thank you.
Mr Bryant
368. I think it must be one of the greatest
ironies of the last 10 years for you, sir, to be accusing me of
using emotive language.
(Mr Morgan) I just think for the purpose of this Committee
it would be in order.
369. But the truth is that many of my constituents
feel very emotive about the way they get treated by the media.
(Mr Morgan) Many?
370. Many.
(Mr Morgan) How many?
Chairman
371. Mr Morgan, will you please stop this. I
really find your discourtesy to this Committee most objectionable.
You are here as a guest. We are pleased to have you. You are not
here to put questions; you are here to answer questions. You are
here, I would like to think, to answer questions courteously and
without interrupting the questioners or making any implications
about their motives in asking the questions. Can we proceed on
that basis?
(Mr Morgan) That is fine.
Chairman: Fine.
Mr Bryant
372. I held a debate last week on the coroner's
service. One of the issues I raised was how the media deal with
the families of those who have been bereaved when there is an
inquest. I have had literally dozens of e-mails from people saying
how they have never brought a complaint because they did not feel
that they had either the personal resources or the desire to perpetuate
the publicity—and of course this is one of the complications.
It seems to me one of the other complications is that a story
will appear in a local newspaper and then it is picked up by a
national newspaper and it loses its roots into the reality of
the situation somehow or other in that process. How do you make
sure at the Mirror that that does not happen?
(Mr Morgan) Am I allowed to ask a question on the
back of it in a reasonable way? What I would say is that MPs have
written to me from time to time detailing these kind of things,
and we always look into them with great seriousness. We do take
allegations of invading the privacy of ordinary members of the
public very, very seriously—much more seriously, frankly,
than we do with some of the public figures who have other reasons
perhaps for using and abusing the media. I am well aware of this.
You cite dozens of cases just in your constituency. That creates
a rather emotive picture. And, I totally agree, there is an irony
in me asking you to be less emotive, but I just think that it
is the stereotypical image that I am concerned about in the sense
of this myth that we do go around sort of wilfully trampling on
people's privacy.
373. No, I do not think anybody on this Committee
would want to suggest that you deliberately set out to smash Humpty
Dumpty and never intend to put him together at the end, but the
truth is that sometimes this does happen. I wonder whether, because,
rightly, a paper such as yours is a campaigning newspaper, it
sometimes may mean that people get chewed up in the process. Would
you feel, at the end of five years, if there were more complaints
to the PCC every year that that was evidence that you were doing
a better job or that you were doing a worse job?
(Mr Morgan) I have noticed that there are a lot more
complaints coming in, which I think is because of awareness, which
is good, and I have noticed that the number of complaints against
national newspapers is slightly declining, which is also good.
So more are coming in, we are having less complaints against us—which
I believe is the case—which is gratifying. I think we should
have ever more complaints. I think people should complain about
everything they feel strongly about and not hide perhaps behind
the sense of fear that they cannot raise these things. Because
they might be very pleasantly surprised about how their complaint
is dealt with. There is a very high gratification rate of ordinary
members of the public complaining to the Press Complaints Commission.
Very high. Most people who go there are very happy at the way
they are treated. If people write to me, I deal with it seriously
and properly. We go and get to the bottom of what the allegation
is and if I discover that people have been trampling willfully
on people's privacy, believe me, there are massive inquests in
our newspaper. We are not in the business of doing this without
absolute public interest justification, and in the case of ordinary
people that is very rare. We get hardly any complaints about invasion
of privacy from members of the public. Accuracy: yes. Mistakes
in the crossword puzzle: yes. Mistakes in/error of judgment by
me in an attitude to an issue: yes—or even not mistakes
about issues. But, in terms of privacy: hardly any.
Mr Bryant: I wonder whether you are drawing
a very—
Chairman: I had better move on to Derek
because we have limited time.
Derek Wyatt
374. Good morning. This is a mobile,
as you can see. The equivalent of the PCC is called ICSTIS. The
board members of ICSTIS cannot be attached in any way whatsoever
to the mobile world. They can also fine people who actually abuse
the privilege of sending pornographic spanning e-mails. They can
stop their businesses overnight, and they have. They have fined
people £1 million already. PCC is made up of both lay people
and editors. Do you think it would have greater credibility if
it was just lay people?
(Mr Morgan) No, I do not because I think part of the
unique problem with the newspapers is that you need to have people
who actually understand how they work, who are not perhaps traduced
by the mythology of the extraordinarily stereotypical view of
how we go about our practice. I actually think the balance on
the PCC is very good: there are predominantly lay members, there
are a few very experienced and very capable editors who have been
in Fleet Street a long time and understand the particular pressures
and problems of a national newspaper office. We are working in
an incredibly fast-moving and pressurised environment every day.
We are a fast-moving consumer good. You have to fill that paper
every day and get rid of it. I think that, given the speed at
which we have to work and all the regulations and restrictions
to which we work, we actually do a pretty good job. The problem
is that if we slip up it becomes huge news.
375. We have received in private (because they
wished to come to us in private) a number of people, just ordinary
citizens, who have had, I would say, a mauling according to the
newspapers that they have been dealing with, a really terrible
time, for which they have had no redress at all with the PCC.
Actually the PCC dragged it out and dragged it out, and then,
when they were just thinking the case is finished, up it comes
again and they are faced with the same issues with which they
were faced two years ago. How do you resolve that sort of issue
in the PCC? Would you object to those issues actually being heard
in public? Would you object to them being heard here in front
of the Select Committee, so that the issues could be in the open,
not dealt with by just the PCC only?
(Mr Morgan) Of course what you have just told me was
not in the open, so I do not actually know what you are talking
about, which is a shame, because I would like to have heard that
case. I suppose in my 15 years in Fleet Street and 10 years editing
papers, I have been involved personally in 300,000-400,000 stories,
of which there have been complaints about a handful, which we
have always taken very seriously in trying to deal with properly.
We are not just a pamphlet of intrusion—
376. We are not really talking about your newspaper.
(Mr Morgan) No, I understand—
Chairman: I have asked him not to interrupt,
so you must not interrupt.
Derek Wyatt
377. Quite right.
(Mr Morgan) Thank you. I understand the point you
are making but I suppose what I would say fundamentally is that
I believe the PCC works very well. Like anything, there will be
mistakes. Some genuine cases will not be dealt with properly just
through human mistakes. These are human beings on these panels.
My experience of dealing with the PCC is that they are very quick,
they are quick off the mark if somebody complains, and we are
expected to be extremely thorough in our investigation at our
end about what went on, we submit very detailed responses. These
are not just two paragraph flimflam, let's-try-to-get-out-of-this-as-quickly-as-we-can
answers; they are detailed and thorough investigations conducted
by lawyers, journalists, heads of department, myself on occasion.
I believe this works very well. I do not see how you can ever
create a better system.
378. You do not think that Ofcom therefore should
have a back-stop power in this?
(Mr Morgan) I do not mind if the Government wants
to run the media. That is fine. That is effectively what you are
saying. They have it in Zimbabwe; it works very well for Robert
Mugabe. I think if that is what is wanted, that is fine. That
is state-sponsored media. The great thing about this country is
that we have the most vibrant and popular press per head of any
country in the civilised world. Any country. More people read
tabloid papers in this country than anywhere else in the world
per head. And there is a reason for that. It is not just prurience
and all the other clichéd reasons that you might want to
come up with—and not you personally, but that is what I
hear. The reason is that we are incredibly professional. We take
what we do incredibly seriously and we provide a brilliant package,
not just the Mirror but other great tabloid papers, in
this country every day of what people want to read and we do it
with responsibility. If you are going to throw at me a series
of cases you have heard in private, which I have no involvement
with or knowledge of, it is slightly unfair. It is the kind of
system that if you were doing this on the PCC you would rightly
get very agitated about. If these people have a genuine grievance,
come forward to the PCC. I can promise you—
379. They have.
(Mr Morgan)—they will take it seriously. Well,
maybe they have in some cases—I mean, again, it is difficult
to know without knowing the case. I would love to meet these people
and talk it through with them. We learn a lot from talking to
ordinary people about these kind of things. And we are under no
illusion as an industry that when the pack descends to cover a
major news event that it is quite an ordeal for everyone concerned.
Sometimes a good ordeal and they like it and sometimes a rather
harrowing one if they are not used to it. We are aware of that.
But I think that most journalists that I have worked with in Fleet
Street, particularly in the last 10 years since I really believe
we have got our house in order, behave with responsibility and
sensitivity, particularly in the area of war widows and disasters
and tragedies. I really do. I think to portray us in the way,
as I say, Coronation Street does, which is flippant on one level
but on another level 20 million people are watching this ludicrous
portrait of these tabloid journalists rampaging around Coronation
Street, defiling every regulation in the Press Complaints Commission
code, is not helpful. It is not helpful to your thinking, it is
not helpful to the public's thinking and it is unrealistic.
Chairman: Mr Morgan, as I have said,
whatever else this Committee is responsible for, it is not responsible
for Coronation Street. Frank Doran.
|
