Memorandum submitted by Jane Ennis, Editor
of NOW Magazine
Magazines in general enjoy very good relationships
with the public and receive very few complaints concerning privacy.
The two areas where these rare problems occur are quite distinct.
The first involves ordinary members of the public whose "real
life" stories are featured in magazines like Woman, Bella,
Take a Break and Best. The second concerns complaints
from celebrities about gossip stories and paparazzi photographs
which appear in celebrity magazines like Hello, OK, Now and
Heat.
Magazines that feature dramatic real life stories
take a great deal of trouble to ensure that the people who are
featured are happy with the coverage they receive. The normal
practice is as follows:
The stories arrive at the magazines either through
news agencies or through the magazines' own reporting staff and
freelance contributors. No matter what the source, the magazine
will then issue that person with a contract to sign saying they
agree to being interviewed and photographed and in certain cases,
are happy for the story to be sold on to another publication.
Where children are concerned, parents have to sign their agreement
to the child being featured. A small payment is usually made for
these stories.
On the rare occasions when something goes wrong
with this process, the Press Complaints Commission offers a speedy
and satisfactory remedy. Very few of these complaints end up in
the law courts.
Celebrity magazines that deal in gossip stories
and unofficial photographs also receive relatively few complaints.
(During my six years of editing NOW, we have averaged two
a year. All of them have been settled out of court to the satisfaction
of both parties) Although many of these complaints could easily
be settled through the PCC, celebrities are notoriously keen on
getting their lawyers involved which is very nice for the lawyers.
On NOW Magazine, a libel lawyer reads
all our copy and sees all our pages before we go to print. He
will quiz us carefully over our sources if he sees anything that
concerns him. I would like to point out that during any given
week, we will turn down many badly sourced stories and decline
to take various paparazzi photographs which appear to break the
PCC code. This does not stop certain celebrities acting in tandem
with paparazzi photographers to produce phoney candid shots which
are sold for huge sums to newspapers and magazines with the celebrity
taking a share of the profits. And this nice little earner is
on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some celebrities
get for throwing their doors open to certain magazines. The Commission
has always taken the view that celebrities who sell stories and
give interviews about their private lives limit their ability
to complain and protect themselves in the future.
Celebrities can be tricky customers as many
of them spend their lives seeking publicity and then get angry
when they can't control it. This does not mean that we don't believe
celebrities should have any private moments or that they have
no right to accurate reporting. The PCC code clearly states where
the lines must be drawn on this.
One final point I would like to make that covers
all types of magazines is that because of our long sales periods
(a week, a fortnight or a month or more) no magazine wants to
risk printing something that could result in a court order to
collect and destroy all copies. This threat, which does not concern
newspapers to the same degree, is a real deterrent to magazines
and, by and large, keeps us on the straight and narrow.
Because of our good record (I believe that only
8% of the complaints received by the PCC in 2002 concerned magazines)
and the way in which we operate within the PCC code, I submit
that further privacy laws are unnecessary. All they would result
in is duller magazines some tedious and court cases, a few very
rich lawyers and an erosion of our traditional press freedom.
13 February 2003
| 
