Memorandum submitted by the Editor of
the Wakefield Express and Editorial Director of the Yorkshire
Weekly Newspaper Group
On behalf of the weekly newspapers in my remit
I wish to submit our views on the efficacy and standing of the
Press Complaints Commission.
Editorial accountability is the key issue and
we regard the PCC as an important element in the operation of
that principle.
We respect the jurisdiction of the PCC; we try
to resolve editorial complaints before they need the commission's
involvement, and usually succeed in doing so. But if the matter
goes to the commission, and it delivers a verdict against us,
we would admit to being shamed by it. The published verdict tells
our readers that we got it wrong, and as we are closer to our
readers than national newspapers that hurts us more. Equally,
we would feel vindication if a third party such as the PCC supports
our case because we regard it is an independent referee.
Our readers can visit us to complain, face to
face. They see us at local functions, they write us lots of letters
and they know who we are. It's in our interests to get it right
and behave in a way we can defend; they expect the newspaper to
have a voice, to speak out on local issues, and to be tough on
community problems and the causes of community problems. In doing
so we can upset some groups, organisations or individuals.
But to anyone justifiably aggrieved, we would
always offer a right of reply, or a follow-up story to redress
the balance, or we would be prepared to publish a letter which
could be critical of our newspaper, or we would invite a complainant
to take up the PCC option. For "ordinary people," it
is an easy, free option costing just the price of a stamp. Our
experience is that people do see the PCC as a watchdog on any
excesses or inaccuracies. If the verdict is in their favour, it's
obviously published for all to see—for all their friends
and family, and for other readers and organisations to be aware.
We carry panels within our papers, giving details of how to contact
the PCC; our support of which is itemised in our standing editorial
agreement with the journalists.
We have many trainee journalists who are learning
their craft as reporters or sub-editors: what is remarkable is
how few the serious mistakes are. To make sure we are operating
to known editorial guidelines, reporters have mini copies of the
code. Also, we encourage them to make reference to it, if appropriate,
in answering particular questions in their journalist training
examinations. There is a greater appreciation among our journalists
of the importance of the role of such a body as the PCC compared
with when I started as a trainee reporter.
If one of our editors considers that a complaint
is justified, a correction, and, if necessary, an apology is published
in a similar position to the original. This has resulted in very
few complaints to the PCC.
On the matter of intrusion, all reporters are
fully aware of the Code of Conduct and follow its guidelines.
Regarding intrusion into private grief, a visit is made to the
home (never done over the phone and sometimes a visit only after
asking the organisation or company undertaking funeral arrangements
to make contact with the family first). A reporter would announce
he is from one of our newspapers. If the family declines to speak,
the reporter goes away, leaving name and phone number in case
they wish to reconsider. In reality, the vast majority of people,
even in the most tragic of circumstances, are willing to speak
to us, and to provide photographs.
On the infrequent occasions on which the PCC
becomes involved and asks us to explain a particular editorial
problem, we find its investigation to be intelligent and efficient,
acting like an editorial surgeon, cutting to the pertinent points
and focussing on the proper issues. We say to you as a group of
MPs looking at whether the PCC is working that we support it and
that, for us, there is no need to replace it. We certainly don't
regard our newspapers or the PCC as being in the Last-chance Saloon.
In preparation for this submission, I asked
the editors in my group for their views. One editor, who had dealings
with the PCC last year, said it was helpful and efficient, and
it was through the commission's involvement that the matter was
resolved. Another said that while we rely on the trust and co-operation
of our readership, and while we value our reputation as a voice
for the community, this does not prevent us from making vigorous
inquiries where necessary—but within the remit of the PCC
code.
1 April 2003
|
