APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by Mr Malcolm Starbrook
Your Committee is looking at the impact and
effects that the Press Complaints Commission has had on journalism
in Britain over the past 10 years. For three of those years, I
operated as a Press Complaints Commissioner as well as a professional
newspaper editor in Britain's regional press. I have now set up
my own business and while I remain in journalism I am not operating
as a newspaper editor and should be grateful if you would take
into consideration my views on the crucial role that the PCC has
played in that time in shaping journalist ethics today and for
the future.
The absence of an effective Act of Parliament
to underpin Freedom of Information in the past failed to provide
the support and counterbalance to a journalist's role in collecting
information, expressing comment and criticism while striving to
eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship by state
or corporate owners. Even the new FOI act lacks sufficient teeth
to provide any watchdog with an effective bite. An effective freedom
of information flow is necessary not only for promoting a professional
media but also for good governance. In the absence of such an
environment for freedom the industry through its codes of conduct,
the Press Council, subsequently replaced by the Press Complaints
Commission, have been major forces in improving the quality of
British journalism and in particular, highlighting the ethical
dimension to British journalism.
It is probably fair to say that many journalists
in the past regarded the Press Council and the PCC as obstructions
that stood in the way of the pursuit towards this underlying truth.
They were seen, as obstacles that prevented the journalist from
aspiring towards Voltaire's belief that truth will make you free.
But in recent years the PCC has increasingly become an invaluable
tool as a self-regulatory body enabling the British press to exercise
a freedom to be controversial and wrong but also to be fair, accurate,
responsible and responsive to the needs of society that is looking
for fairness and balance in its newspapers.
Newspapers play a unique role in facilitating
the free flow of information and in the exercise of the right
of free speech and, as the Fourth Estate, provide an additional
check on the exercise of power. In consequence, we can claim to
be acting in the public interest and in furtherance of the right
to know in defence of breaches of privacy. But at the heart of
the issue of privacy and the media lies the tension between freedom
of speech and the concept of privacy itself Newspapers, as the
main source of information for most citizens, are recognised as
playing a special role in reinforcing the value of free speech.
However it is equally true that not all news stories aspire to
such lofty heights others fulfil more lightweight: most notably
in terms of entertainment and much of what they publish does not
count as "speech" for the purposes of the various rationales
for the protection of free speech.
There is an obvious tension between the exercise
of free speech through journalism, whose primary task is disclosure,
and privacy, which is best protected by preventing the publication
of private information in the first place. Privacy may be invoked
to prevent access to, or the publication of, certain information
and can be viewed as a defence of last-resort by those with secrets
to hide.
The importance of freedom of speech is undisputed.
But exercise of the right of free speech does not provide a mandate
to override the rights of others. Privacy is not an absolute value
but neither is freedom of speech; and it can be required to yield
in the interests of protecting other important values. Privacy
is one such value. Making a decision not to publish material on
the basis of ethical considerations for the protection of privacy
is not the same as censorship or restraint of free speech. Media
breaches of free speech. Media breaches of privacy can be justified
where a superior public interest is served by the disclosure of
the Particular information: that can create difficulties for any
news paper editor trying to determine whether a story is in the
public interest or merely interests the public, At such times
the PCC has proven to be a unique and essential sounding board
whereby editors can discuss and seek advice or insight on issues
prior to going to print. The "public's right to know",
frequently cited in justification of newspaper breaches of privacy,
also raises the interesting point as to whether such a right exists
in the first place. When you are contemplating running a story
that is likely to put you, as editor, in the firing line over
press freedom it can be a cold and lonely time in which to make
a decision. The PCC has been an effective device for informal
discussion free of party political, financial or similar influential
pressure. While it does not, nor should it, ever influence an
editorial decision its role in helping frame ethical judgements
by an individual editor is immeasurable.
The publication of personal information about
public figures requires practical application of public interest
considerations. In the main, complaints about the breaches of
privacy revolve around the rich and famous. Readers identify and
know a soap or sporting star and will recognise them more readily
than the next-door neighbour whose name is linked to a police
fraud inquiry. Public figures cannot expect the same degree of
privacy as the ordinary citizen but the PCC Code makes it a fundamental
rule for journalists that any "private" information
disclosed must be relevant to the assessment of issues in which
the public has a legitimate interest, for example, in the case
of a politician, assessment of fitness for office, public performance
or issues of propriety. In most cases, the PCC Code has made it
clear that intimate private information about matters such as
sexuality, health and personal relationships would not meet this
criterion of relevance. The PCC continues to underpin the ethical
issues that in gathering news, journalists should seek personal
information only in the public interest. In doing so, we should
not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and should show
respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered
in the course of gathering that information. Public figures necessarily
sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in
the public interest. However, they do not forfeit their right
to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must
be related to their public duties.
It also makes plain the importance that a publication
must make amends for publishing any personal information that
is found to be harmfully inaccurate. That a newspaper article
is fair and accurate is true only in the sense that it deals with
an individual's viewpoint and perception. While a journalist never
seeks to base a report on a lie, his or her report must be coloured
by the recollection of the interviewee. It is for that reason
that police accident reports vary between witnesses' recollections
of a make of car, its colour, and its speed even the direction
in which it was travelling. Perception is reality and while someone
may not seek to state a complete lie his recollection can be fuzzy
at best. erroneous at worst. It is when seeking to get back to
the underlying truth that a journalist can stray into areas that
cause damage to the individual and the profession he or she serves,
No journalist or editor wants to print an untrue story. In the
final analysis the truth will out and individual reputations or
corporate ones will suffer. In the Seventies the Sunday Times
was rightly praised for its zeal, courage and journalistic
fervour in uncovering and pursuing the truth behind Thalidomide.
Unfortunately the ST is equally remembered for the Hitler Diaries'
fiasco: the Diaries may only have been a momentary aberration
but they continue to command as many column inches in the ST's
archives as the Thalidomide campaign.
When a newspaper editor has to expose his shortcomings
or inaccuracies by means of the PCC's agreed statement of published
correction it is an humiliation: it shows that the paper and its
staff to have made errors that were damaging. The journalists
never regard such statements lightly. They are the means by which
the paper, and its team, can be held in ridicule by their readers
as well as their peers.
I believe that the move to a greater understanding
of the role of Journalism in a democracy began when the PCC' s
Code of Conduct first formed a part of every editor's Contract
of Employment. Then, for the first time, the Code was seen to
have bite and indicated that it now had individual champions in
every newspaper office in the UK. For the first time we, as editors,
question what makes a good journalist. We seek the answer by questioning
why are we running this story? Is it important? Is it ethically
justifiable?
In the subsequent training of our journalists
the role of the PCC began to discussed and argued over, and from
that debate reporters moved confidently into their new careers
having had full and frank discussions over journalism ethics on
issues of:
— The role of journalism in Britain.
— The independence of newspapers.
— The history of objectivity.
— Threats to objectivity.
— Handling anonymous sources.
These discussions grew out of the increasing
influence of the PCC on newsgathering and stimulated the area
of journalistic ethics where such issues were previously glossed
over. By establishing the boundaries of what is right and acceptable,
the Code of Conduct has enabled us to question whose freedom we
seek to defend: press freedom or the freedom of the people: press
freedom or the freedom of the journalists very often these are
two vastly different concepts. And while we should never have
media content dictated by public opinion polls it is useful to
have the checks and balances to measure ourselves against in terms
of what society regards as decent or acceptable.
Newspapers do exist to inform and educate people
and an informed population is essential for a working democracy
especially when that journalism exists to celebrate triumphs and
joys as well as expose problems.
In dealing with everyday news stories one of
the most difficult areas of a reporter's role is the "death
knock" the interview with the relatives of an individual
who has died in tragic circumstances. This type of activity tends
to generate the maximum distaste among people who are not close
to the family. However, it is rare for a reporter to he regarded
as an unnecessary evil by the family. Often talking to the reporter
seems to act as catharsis for individuals. The very act of giving
the interview enables the family to explain how great a loss that
individual is to his or her family; the community; the town or
city they lived in. The Code makes us, as journalists, question
how we perform this role: to ask ourselves where does normal journalistic
endeavour end and when does intrusion into grief begin? There
is no hard and fast rule to how to conduct the "death knock".
Different situations require different handling and sensitivity.
But the fact that the Code exists provides the reporter with the
check and balance, to which I referred earlier, and enables the
individual to determine how best to handle the situation.
The same is equally true in terms of invading
privacy. It is rare for a cavalier approach to this area to he
adopted by any newspaper or editor. The PCC has encouraged us
as editors to question whether there should be an automatic right
to report just because a story has broken. Nowadays the question
we ask ourselves is: "Do the means of getting this story
fit within my value system?" Pre-PCC that idea that such
a thought could be entertained would have been ridiculous. While
we may not have a Code of Ethics enshrined within a legislative
framework the Code of Conduct fits the bill comfortably.
24 January 2003
| 
