APPENDIX 116
Memorandum submitted by the Centre for
Studies in Crime and Social Justice, Edge Hill
PRESS REPORTING
OF CONTROVERSIAL
DEATHS AND
TRAUMATIC EVENTS
The Centre for Studies in Crime and Social Justice
(CSCSJ) at Edge Hill has an established reputation for researching
issues relating to media accountability. In 1989, Liverpool City
Council provided a significant three year grant to CSCSJ to conduct
a research project into the Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster.
One central concern of the Hillsborough Project was to examine
the role of the media in the aftermath and the longer term. Members
of the Project Team were invited to give evidence to the Special
Parliamentary Hearings on Freedom and Responsibility of the Press
which took place in December 1992. The hearings were organised
by Clive Soley MP who sponsored the Bill, "Freedom and Responsibility
of the Press". Two of the team members, Professor Phil Scraton
and Ann Jemphrey presented oral evidence and a written submission
(please see pages 50-52 and Appendix 7 of the Report).
PREVIOUS REVIEWS
Clive Soley's Bill advocated the establishment
of an Independent Press Authority (IPA). The IPA would be concerned
primarily with facilitating the correction of inaccuracies and
enable "ordinary" citizens to seek redress. It was proposed
that the IPA seek nomination from "interested" individuals
or organisations and that selection should ensure a membership
reflective of the "current demographic pattern of society
regarding age, gender, sexuality, disability, regions and minority
ethnic groups". The power of veto over appointments would
be held by a Commons Select Committee. Perhaps the most controversial
recommendation was that the IPA would be funded through central
government rather than the industry.
In the same year, 1992, Calcutt chaired a second
review of self-regulation. His first review which took place in
1990 had resulted eventually in the adoption of a watered down
version of recommendations to strengthen the Code of Practice.
His second report recommended the introduction of a "statutory
press complaints tribunal". However, this attempt to enforce
external and independent regulation was resisted fiercely by the
newspaper industry. Certain proposals were implemented and assurances
given that the industry had both the capacity and the will to
put its own house in order.
In 1993 the National Heritage Select Committee
made a number of further recommendations, some of which have been
implemented in part. Several issues particularly relevant to this
submission remain outstanding: The issue of third party complaints
(ie at present the PCC can exercise discretion in this area);
compensation and fines—the PCC remains opposed to this recommendation;
appointments to the Commission—some progress has been made
on the representation of women and minority ethnic members (it
is our view, however, that it remains unrepresentative of "ordinary
people"). While it is acknowledged that improvements have
been implemented following the NHSC report, they have been "piecemeal"
and the "business of reporting" remains relatively undisturbed.
The majority of recommendations concerning disaster reporting,
made by CSCSJ in support of Clive Soley's Bill in 1992, have not
been implemented.
The Centre for Studies in Crime and Social Justice
has continued to develop its work in the area of media reporting
of controversial deaths and traumatic events. During the past
18 months, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has
provided funding to support an International Seminar Series entitled,
"Disasters: Origins, Consequences and Responses". Seminar
participants include: academics, social workers, lawyers, counsellors,
emergency planners and representatives from bereaved and survivors'
groups. Through previous research and discussion within the seminar
group, a number of serious concerns have been highlighted by those
who have had direct experience of the media in the aftermath of
personal disaster and tragedy.
It is on behalf of the seminar group hosted
by CSCSJ that we make the following submission to highlight concerns
relating to press reporting of disaster.
PRESS ACCOUNTABILITY
On initial consideration and to the layperson,
the setting up and operation of an effective system of press accountability
would not seem to be a difficult proposition. Some form of redress
for inaccurate reporting, inappropriate comment and poor journalistic
practices is necessary and seemingly straightforward, to safeguard
people's interests and rights. However it is not that simple.
On the one hand is an important principle of press freedom—a
press supposedly free from the direction, manipulation or control
of government, state institutions, corporate interests, etc. On
the other, there is an equally important principle, press accountability.
In addition, there is the added difficulty of finding a truly
independent system for funding an agency with the role of overseeing
press accountability. Central government funding, quite rightly,
raises fears of expanding existing powers to an already influential
system. However, the present arrangements whereby the PCC is funded
by the industry, and has six of the 14 serving members on the
Commission, leaves it open to criticism regarding its impartiality
and accountablity. Although industry representatives are a minority
they are powerfully placed to influence discussion and outcomes.
They are the "experts", the members of the Commission
with inside knowledge and "hands on" experience of the
day-to-day running of newspapers.
Debates around privacy and intrusion continue
to be driven by dramatic events and the complaints of high-profile
figures, royalty and celebrities. There remains an urgent need
for putting into place effective safeguards against intrusion
and effective means of redress for ordinary members of the public
who, often through no fault or desire of their own, become newsworthy;
especially those caught up in personal tragedies.
The incorporation of the European Convention
of Human Rights into British law through the 1998 Human Rights
Act has generated renewed debate over press freedom within the
industry. Articles 8 and 10, on privacy and freedom of expression
respectively, provide safeguards, but also offer contradictory
messages. However in reporting controversial deaths it is unlikely
that much will change, as the industry will draw on the "public
interest" defence against Article 8 and the safeguards of
Article 10 protecting the right to publish.
PRESS REPORTING
OF DISASTERS
On paper, the PCC Code of Practice appears to
provide protection against invasions of privacy and intrusion
into grief or shock. Clause 3 on privacy states that "everyone
is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life,
home, health and correspondence. A publication will be expected
to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without
consent ... ." Clause 5, relating to intrusion into grief
or shock, states that "enquiries must be carried out and
approaches made with sympathy and discretion. Publication must
be handled sensitively at such times but this should not be interpreted
as restricting the right to report judicial proceedings."
Yet, editors and proprietors possess considerable
discretionary powers over the tone and style of reporting. Ethical
considerations and codes of conduct are easily sacrificed, with
little fear of censure, in the harsh competitive climate of newspaper
publishing. The reality for survivors and those bereaved by disasters
is that they experience press intrusion at a time when they are
least able to protect themselves or seek redress. The complex
relationships between media ownership, the market and the routines
of journalistic practice exhibit many tensions. In disaster reporting,
journalists are under pressure to produce copy quickly and to
dramatise and sensationalise what are already dramatic stories.
In complying with these editorial demands, the rights and expectations
of bereaved people and survivors are endangered, and sensitivity
is lost to the business and managerial imperatives of publishing.
Further, in the battle of increased sales there is an important
shared responsibility between proprietors, editors, journalists
and the public. As long as there is a market for prurience, sensation
and intrusion, newspapers will strive to meet that public demand.
The competitive nature of newspaper reporting
creates a tension between journalists' need for information and
the privacy of those affected by the event. The "death-knock"
or "door-stepping" is routine practice for many journalists.
How many journalists seek to obtain "consent" prior
to these approaches being made? It is acknowledged that some people
may want to speak to the press, and may even derive some comfort
from a sensitively handled interview, but others wish to be left
alone. The press has a clear responsibility to those interviewed
to present the published material in an appropriate tone and style
of reporting, paying careful attention to use of language and
accompanying visuals.
All people are faced with bereavement or crisis
at some point in their lives. While death and dying are often
viewed as taboo or morbid there are coping strategies for dealing
with bereavement within communities, religions or families. Coping
with bereavement through disaster, or in sudden or violent circumstances,
is of a different order. If the death is one of many, or it occurs
in unusal circumstances, inevitably it receives widespread and
prolonged media attention. Examples include the death of a child
or children (eg James Bulger; Sarah Payne; Jessica Chapman and
Holly Wells). The level and intensity of coverage may increase
if there is a disappearance/abduction followed by a delay before
a body is found. In this time parents in particular may be invited
to make appeals for the safe return of their child. Reporting
establishes a public sense of knowledge of the child/family, leading
to increased interest in the story. Such appeals have become routine,
but the problem lies in the uneasy relationship between what the
public need to know (in terms of helping to find the missing child)
and what they want to know. This can create pressure on journalists
to access information and put families under pressure to provide
details, photographs or offer comment. Some families want to do
this and become involved in campaigns (eg Sarah Payne's parents)
but it must be clear that other families may not wish to do so.
Their needs and wishes should be the primary consideration.
From our research it is clear that coverage
intensifies when there is controversy over responsibility or liability,
especially if state institutions or private corporations are involved.
Liability extends to the possibility of criminal investigation/prosecution,
the issue of compensation, civil litigation and the coronial inquest.
In circumstances of intense public concern this will include public
inquiries. The long-drawn out legal or official procedures, so
evident in the Hillsborough Disaster, guarantee that a major story
will remain newsworthy for years. Just as the procedures themselves
place intolerable pressures on the bereaved, preventing the grieving
process and exacerbating the suffering, so the media coverage
is of major significance. Accounts from those bereaved or those
who survived recent disasters, emphasise that the role and impact
of media coverage cannot be underestimated.
There are many examples of recent tragedies
and disaster demonstrating that intrusive and sensationalised
reporting (particularly in the tabloid press) continues unabated.
Serial killings provide a further example of deaths inviting high
levels of media attention. In the West case, abduction, torture,
sexualised violence, murder and mutilation fascinated readers.
The involvement of a woman as one of the perpetrators further
added to interest in the story. Recent reporting of the death
of Myra Hindley demonstrated the impact and longevity of reporting.
One of the chief difficulties lies in determining the nature and
extent of the "public interest" and how far the media
should go in terms of investigation and publication. Further,
a major concern identified by CSCSJ research lies in the way demand
for detail and sensation is stoked by reporting. Beyond simply
meeting readers' needs for information, the press encourages and
stimulates demands for graphic, explicit reporting and salacious
stories that can be incredibly hurtful, distressing and damaging
to those involved.
The reporting of the 1996 Dunblane tragedy,
although by no means above criticism, did provide some evidence
of "good practice". There was some standing back by
national editors and journalists from "doorstepping"
the bereaved in the immediate aftermath and the decision to withdraw
prior to the funerals taking place was welcomed by those directly
involved. The efforts of the organisation "PressWise"
to provide advice and information on handling the media to Dunblane
residents was positive and it is suggested that such initiatives
should be properly funded and made available in future disaster
situations. It is also important to note that the relationship
of police spokespersons to the media was criticised by families.
There was a perception that the needs of journalists were prioritised
over the desperate need of families for accurate information regarding
the circumstances surrounding their dead and injured children.
As stated previously, on paper, there are sufficient
safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens from press intrusion
and inaccuracy. At present, however, the sanctions available for
breaching the Code are inadequate. As an industry the press is
based on competiton and profit—unless the publication of
critical adjudications is given proper priority or that hefty
fines are imposed for serious breaches of the Code, there will
be little change. The arguments against the imposition of compensatory
payments and fines are unconvincing. It should be viewed as a
"last resort" measure against serious breaches. Adjudications
should be taken by an appeal body established above the PCC, independent
of industry representatives. Such an arrangement would undoubtedly
act as a further disincentive to flout the Code.
The present reality is that most newspapers
seem to "get away" with infringing the Code with little
fear of censure. Unless the press demonstrates a collective will
to honour the spirit of self-regulation in relation to the reporting
of grief and sudden bereavement, it is unlikely individuals will
receive better protection from intrusion. Perhaps the strongest
motive for making the present system of self-regulation work is
fear of statutory regulation. It is, therefore, in the industry's
interests to use this Inquiry as an opportunity to listen to individuals
and organisations that seek to represent the interests of "ordinary
people" and to strive to strengthen existing codes of practice
in order to protect freedoms of the press and provide a press
that is accountable.
SUMMARY
The following summary of the key issues regarding
privacy and intrusion are derived in CSCSJ's primary research,
and its discussions with those with direct experience of the media
in the aftermath of personal tragedy:
— The over-emphasis on personalised
reporting of tragedy and the question "whose interests this
serves".
— The routine practice of "doorstepping"
or the "death knock" in the aftermath of tragic events.
— The loss of personal privacy and
dignity. Within this, the right to respect, privacy and the power
over the timing of disclosure of personal information.
— The relationship between tabloid
journalism, in particular, and the public appetite for sensationalised
stories that fail to record or reflect the extreme pain and suffering
of those directly affected.
— The concern that over-saturation
with this type of story dulls public sensitivities.
— The conflict between the commercially-driven
demands for "filling space" and the need for "personal
space" during the initial impact of disaster and tragedy.
— The practice of contacting "inappropriate
sources" in the immediate aftermath to fill gaps in reporting.
— The use of stereotypical imagery
to portray those directly affected and their "communities"
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. There is required a clear acceptance
by the press and broadcast media that those bereaved, injured
or affected by disasters have a right to privacy and a right to
be protected from additional suffering occasioned by intrusive
journalism or the publication of explicit photographs.
2. The present clauses in the PCC Code of
Practice relating to "Privacy" and "Intrusion into
grief or shock" are clearly inadequate. Existing "codes
of practice" should be re-assessed and re-written to include
sections specifically on the reporting of disaster and tragedy.
3. Effective sanctions are required to act
as a deterrent to editors who publish material that breaches agreed
codes and guidelines.
4. The principle of financial compensation
should be agreed with the establishment of an independent award
panel to assess payments in cases of inaccurate or intrusive reporting
that cause personal distress.
5. News organisations should attribute all
sources in which serious allegations are made and presented as
factual accounts.
6. Coverage should provide a balance of
sources and guard against the establishment and maintenance of
"hierarchies of credibility" based solely on the "official"
status of statements or information.
7. As part of local disaster plans, local
authorities should establish provision for intensive media coverage
including centralised facilities, close liaison with agencies
and consultation with local press officers.
8. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster,
all individuals directly affected should be provided with information
on the role of the media, the practices regularly adopted by journalists,
the rights of the individual and the procedures for making complaints.
9. An intermediary body (rather than an
expansion of the police role) should be established to provide
protection and advice to those directly affected who do not wish
to speak to the media. Conversely, it should liaise between journalists
and those who do wish to speak to the media.
10. There is a need to guard against reporting
that could jeopardise legal outcomes or compensation payments.
11. Training journalists in media ethics
must become an integral part of journalism courses and "in-house"
training.
12. Membership of the Press Complaints Commission
should strive to reflect a balance of age, race, class and gender
to ensure that the rights of "ordinary" people are protected.
13. Employment protection for journalists
should be guaranteed in situations where editorial/proprietorial
control is in conflict with established codes of practice.
NOTES
1. Recommendations extracted from: Scraton
P, Jemphrey A and Coleman S, "No Last Rights: The Denial
of Justice and the Promotion of Myth in the Aftermath of the Hillsborough
Disaster" (1995) Alden Press/Liverpool City Council; evidence
submitted to the "Report of the Special Parliamentary Hearings
on Freedom and Responsibility of the Press", December 1992
and from discussions within the ESRC-funded Seminar Series, "Disasters:
Origins, Consequences and Responses" http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/cscsj/
| 
