Examination of Witness (Questions 980-999)
Wednesday 21 May 2003
SIR CHRISTOPHER
MEYER KCMG
Q980 Mr Doran: I am shocked! Why
do you say that?
Sir Christopher Meyer: This is
a really interesting subject which we could go on for a long time
about. I think that that degree of plagiarism and invention of
stories which appeared to have happened for such a long time would
have been rumbled very quickly by the British press, the culture
being very different.
Q981 Mr Doran: So you do not foresee
a situation like that arising? If you were a regular reader of
Private Eye you would probably have a different view of
the press in this country, because that is where most of the stories
appear. I accept that they are not always true, but as a regular
reader of the press, a consumer of the press in this country,
it seems to me there are many areas where ethics and integrity
are lacking. The Chairman has mentioned a couple of areas recently.
Sir Christopher Meyer: We are
not talking about perfection here, by any means.
Q982 Mr Doran: We are talking about
integrity and ethics, which should be at the heart of a democratic
system.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I agree
with that. All I am saying is, on the specific New York Times
point, in this particular case, where a journalist was able to
rise through the ranks and write stories from places with bylines
where he was not and so on, I simply do not think that would have
happened in the UK. I just say that as a judgment. You may not
agree with that. But coming back to the Code of Practice, of course
it is integrity, ethics and standards. Of course it is. I agree
with that.
Q983 Mr Doran: Moving on to another
issue, in your speech you made a statement "Slings and arrows
from some on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
Guy Black will be the first—and, I hope, last—recipient
of the PCC's specially struck Medal of Valour for coolness under
fire." What did you mean by that?
Sir Christopher Meyer: Every now
and again in that speech you will see some pitiful attempt at
humour. It is one of my trademarks. I tend to do this kind of
thing in public statements. One person's humour is another person's
poison. I was not here for Mr Black's appearance before your Committee,
but I did hear from third parties that exchanges were vigorous.
Q984 Mr Doran: It sounds as though
you thought he had a hard time.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Exchanges
were vigorous, and after several paragraphs of necessary but serious
comment in my speech, I thought the time had come to inject a
slightly lighter note, and so it goes on through the text irregularly.
That is the way I do it. I will probably do more speeches with
that sort of levity. If you do not like it, you had better tell
me.
Q985 Rosemary McKenna: Can I first
of all say I am glad that you visited Falkirk in your journey
around newspapers. I presume that was the Johnson Group that you
were visiting. They publish two very good newspapers in my area
and many more round about, and they are very consistent about
letting people know about the complaints process and how to go
about it. I am glad you visited them, because there is quite a
difference between local newspapers and national newspapers, and
how the reporters seem to operate. Early on in the questioning
I made the statement that standards had deteriorated. What I was
trying to say was that I am seeing more detail, often salacious
detail in reports, and that has certainly increased over my lifetime,
particularly in respect of reports during trials of how a person
has died, et cetera. That kind of detail I find offensive, and
sometimes I think it is absolutely unnecessary. That was what
I meant when I said I thought standards had deteriorated. I wanted
to put that on the record. I also want to ask you about a couple
of things. First of all, I heard you say on Frost on Sunday
that you were going to be looking at the apologies and how they
were handled. Some of the witnesses who came before us in camera
made it quite clear that this was really one of their problems.
One of them said "We won our case but we felt we lost,"
because the retraction and apology was so poor, and buried. Could
you tell us what you think about that as an issue?
Sir Christopher Meyer: I have
been taking various messages to the regional and local editors
and proprietors, including in Falkirk, and one of the messages
has been about consistent visibility, namely, it is in the interests
of editors themselves, because it is in the interests of self-regulation,
that when they do apologise or a correction has to be published
or a negative adjudication comes out, these things should be at
least as prominent as the original transgression. Most people
agree with that. I know there is a patchy record on this, but
wherever I go I say this: "It is in your interests that you
do this, because otherwise people will lose confidence in self-regulation.
So give it prominence, "just as I say to people, "Every
day, in every issue, put in a panel which says, `If you are not
satisfied with the way in which the editor has handled your issue,
there is this thing called the Press Complaints Commission.'"
Some newspapers do it, some do not. I have to say that up in Falkirk,
with the Johnson editors, we had a round table meeting for a good
hour, and they were terrific on this, and I got a sense of very
great responsibility. One of the editors raised precisely the
point that you raised. He said that once a coroner or a judge
or a police spokesman comes out in public with details of some
event, which may be very tragic, at that point they cannot sit
on it, they cannot pretend it has not happened and it has not
been said. There and other places around the country I have had
really quite agonised discussions with editors about what you
do in those circumstances, and, let me put it this way: you get
a very different perspective when you are outside London, which
is important to me.
Q986 Rosemary McKenna: You are going
to continue to encourage apologies to be much firmer.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Yes, otherwise
it is ridiculous. They should be, as I said, at least as prominent
as the original transgression. Sometimes it does not have to be
more than putting a letter on the letters page; sometimes it needs
to be more than that. You must judge each case on its merits,
but the bottom line here is that it is not in editors' long-term
self-interest just to let these things get buried.
Q987 Chairman: Let me just try and
get some clarification of Sir Christopher's answer. What you are
saying is that if a newspaper commits what the PCC decides is
an offence on a front page splash and at the request or requirement
of the PCC then publishes an apology, in your judgment it would
not be appropriate for an offence on a front page splash to have
the PCC-required apology published in a panel on a page well inside
the paper?
Sir Christopher Meyer: What I
am saying is this. If we go to formal adjudication, you come out
with a formal adjudication, and there had been some hideous transgression
on the front page, then I would expect the adjudication to be
published, or at least to start on the front page, depending on
how long the adjudication was going to be. I think that would
be entirely reasonable. If you start going down the hierarchy
of redress—and it does not have to be a formal adjudication
of the PCC; Chairman, most of our work, the bulk of the iceberg,
is talking to the aggrieved reader and talking to the editor and
trying to reach a common resolution, and most of the time that
works. It is part of the process of resolution for where the apology
or correction is going to be placed.
Q988 Rosemary McKenna: Can I move
on now to the appointment of the commissioners? We have had evidence
concerning the appointments procedure. Will you go ahead with
public advertising for the PCC commissioners and when can we expect
that?
Sir Christopher Meyer: I am determined
to do that. I have not come across any resistance to the idea.
There are some financial angles to this, because it will cost
some money. There is a gap on the Commission, because the Articles
of Association provide for one more lay commissioner, so there
is a gap there we can fill as fast as we can. I hope we will see
the first publicly advertised and appointed commissioner before
the end of the year. I have given myself a rather wide margin
of time, but what I am really saying is as soon as possible.
Q989 Rosemary McKenna: Would you
see any benefit in appointing someone who had actually successfully
carried a complaint to the PCC being appointed as a commissioner?
Editors are there because of their experience in publishing newspapers.
Would you see any merit in appointing someone who had actually
had a successful case at the PCC? There is going to be a Commission
of what, 13?
Sir Christopher Meyer: We would
be 17 once we had a full complement. I would have no objection
to that. If we advertise all round the country, which is the intention—not
just in London but throughout all the regions—we are going
to have to appoint a firm of headhunters to process the applications,
and if somebody like that rose to the top of the pile, no problem.
I come to this with no preconceived views at all.
Q990 Rosemary McKenna: So there would
be no presumption against anybody?
Sir Christopher Meyer: Absolutely
not. Let the best man or woman win.
Q991 Chairman: Sitting at that table,
Sir Christopher, a member of the Commission, Vivien Hepworth told
us that she became a member of the Commission after a member of
the staff of the Commission rang her up and asked her if she would
like to be a member of the Commission. Would you give us a commitment
that that will not happen again?
Sir Christopher Meyer: I made
it pretty clear in my speech that I want to move from the current
system to one of publicly advertising all future openings for
lay commissioners as and when they come up.
Q992 Chairman: May I take that as
a "yes" then?
Sir Christopher Meyer: Yes. I
could just have said "yes." I have said this already
in public before God knows how many witnesses.
Q993 Chairman: Good. That is very
helpful. Two other things following up questions by Mr Wyatt.
When Mr Wyatt raised the question of fining you said that if that
were to happen, lawyers might come in, et cetera. The Football
Association fines, and it is a voluntary organisation, and to
my knowledge, though other colleagues may correct me if I am wrong,
no club or individual fined by the FA has ever called in lawyers
to dispute the fine. So it does not always happen, and that is
not a statutory but a voluntary organisation.
Sir Christopher Meyer: There are
all kinds of organisations which are analogous to the PCC but
are not identical. So you can do lateral thinking and say, "They
do it that way and it seems to work," and you are right.
I just happen to think that there are certain specific characteristics
of the PCC that make it very likely that lawyers would get into
it. I have nothing against lawyers, except I know, because they
already make their presence felt in the activities of the PCC,
that the result is to slow everything down, and I am not clear
that the benefit that the complainant receives from having legal
representation when he or she can come direct to us is such that
it warrants that delay. I think what I am saying to you is that
they are already around the PCC, and I think they would be more
so. That is where the analogy, say, with the FA breaks down.
Q994 Chairman: Secondly, accepting
fully that there is a very major difference indeed between the
ITC, a statutory body, and the PCC, a wholly voluntary body, and
the fact that anybody who has a licence awarded to broadcast,
whether it is an ITV company or Channel 4, is getting that licence
as a result of a statute, whereas the press is and ought to remain
entirely unfettered, in the case of the ITC and its licensees,
it is able to fine an organisation which it regards as having
transgressed 5% of its turnover which, say, in the case of Channel
4, could be around £40 million. It has never happened. It
has not never happened that there has been a fine because MTV
I think was fined, but it has never happened that there has been
a whopping great fine like that by the ITC. Making it very clear
that I certainly accept the massive difference between what the
ITC is and what the PCC is, and what a TV licensee is and what
a free newspaper is, nevertheless, would you not accept that,
even though that kind of fine has never been imposed, the potentiality
of its being imposed is something that a broadcasting organisation
will have in mind, and would not the possibility of a hefty fine
by the PCC, even if the PCC were never to impose such a fine,
nevertheless be a Sword of Damocles which newspapers might take
into account when considering the way in which they conduct themselves?
Sir Christopher Meyer: First of
all, I am not an expert on broadcasting. I am not good on broadcasting.
ITC is going to be folded into OFCOM, I think, when the Communications
Bill has gone through. I certainly know that Lord Currie has no
interest whatsoever in becoming involved in the regulation of
newspapers.
Q995 Chairman: That is not the issue.
I am not bringing that in as an issue, Sir Christopher.
Sir Christopher Meyer: The answer
to your question is, of course, if you were in a regime where
an editor thought that if he transgressed his newspaper would
be whacked for millions, this would concentrate the mind. There
is no doubt about that at all. But were you to have that, you
would be in a wholly different system than the one we have now
which is called the Press Complaints Commission. I do believe
very strongly that—I said this in the speech and forgive
me for repeating it—but I think it is apt—Churchill
said—and I paraphrase now—"Democracy is the least
efficient form of government until you compare it to everything
else." Self-regulation is similar to that. It is not perfect;
it has jagged edges. It can be improved, and I am going to make
it my job for the next three or six years or however long it is
going to be to improve it. But for all its imperfections, it is
better than any alternative, and that is really where I come from
on this.
Q996 Mr Bryant: We have been talking
about analogies to other organisations, and I have thought of
another one, which is the Advertising Standards Authority, which
seeks quite specifically to adjudicate, whereas what you were
just saying and what we have heard before is that on the whole,
you see your job as trying to resolve before you have to come
to an adjudication, and you only end up adjudicating in certain
situations. Can I propose to you that the problem that that presents
for ordinary members of the public who end up in the limelight
because they are the victim of a crime or a tragedy or whatever
is that they have their privacy peeled off them like an onion,
and you cannot put that back on. They do not feel they have a
strong hand when they are in these discussions with the newspaper
because the moment has already gone; they have already been hurt,
they have already been damaged, and when you do not then adjudicate,
when you seek to resolve rather than to adjudicate, you actually
make it worse for them.
Sir Christopher Meyer: My answer
to that is that advertising is very different from press, very
different indeed. There is a superficial similarity but I think
it is more superficial than similar. On the issue, if we go back
to the original Calcutt Committee, way back to the days of the
last chance saloon and all that stuff, it was made very clear
at the genesis of all this that where possible you should try
and resolve a dispute between a reader, a complainant and an editor.
All I can say to you is this: that the three-monthly surveys that
the PCC takes of its complainants, people who have come to the
PCC, of whom over half, one way or another, find that their complaints
do not prosper, we do these surveys and we keep on getting tremendous
positives, positives that politicians would die for. For example,
we did a survey of several hundred people for the first three
months of this year, and we broke down the questions, but the
overall approval rating of the PCC and the way it handled their
complaints, including those whose complaints did not prosper,
was just under 70%. I think that runs contrary to what you were
saying to me. Most of the punters who use the PCC like the way
their complaints are handled. There is another factor. The number
of complaints is going up this year. If we annualise the rate
for the first quarter of the year, we may hit a record number
of somewhere between 3,000-3,500. Does this mean that newspaper
standards are declining? Since a goodly portion of these complaints
come from the regional press as well as from the national press,
I think it is a difficult argument to make. I suspect it has something
to do with the increasing knowledge of the PCC and its increasing
visibility. All I am saying is there are not many objective standards
by which to judge us, but those that exist suggest that people
are not worried about what is going to happen to them during the
process.
Q997 Mr Bryant: Can I suggest two
things in response to that: one, there is a logical hiatus somewhere
in the middle of that which is around the fact that if the number
of complaints is low and you are only talking about the satisfaction
of those who have complained, I think 70% is actually pretty low,
and you might want to set your standards a little higher.
Sir Christopher Meyer: If the
Prime Minister had a 70% approval rating.
Q998 Mr Bryant: If you judged everything
by politicians' ratings, everybody in the world would be doing
well. That is my bit of humour. Can I just ask: do you think that
you will have done a good job in five years' time if the number
of complaints has grown, because that will show that the PCC is
more available, more open, that people feel that they have better
access to the process, or will you feel that that is a sign that
somehow or other the industry is failing?
Sir Christopher Meyer: That is
a horrible question! I cannot give you an answer.
Q999 Mr Bryant: That is a horrible
answer!
Sir Christopher Meyer: I will
try and make it a bit more palatable. You can have a graph in
which you can trace an upward curve of complaints and be able
to say this is because people know it better, it is advertised
more in the newspapers, I and my colleagues are whizzing round
the country doing these town meetings, which I hope we will be
able to do pretty soon, but I agree with you; at some point, if
that line on that graph continues to go up, you are going to have
to say "Actually, thee is something wrong here." But
we are nowhere near that yet. I do not know when we will be. I
cannot say.
|
