APPENDIX 123
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Society of Editors
The society is pleased that the committee has
now taken oral evidence from a wider range of editors.
As the society, which has more than 400 members
in all sectors of the media including national, regional and local
newspapers, magazines, broadcasting new media, media law and journalism
education, was not called upon to give oral evidence, we were
told that it would be possible to submit further views.
The following comments attempt to illuminate
further some of the issues that arose during oral evidence sessions.
1. EVIDENCE FROM
THE PCC
We were somewhat dismayed that there appeared
to be a perception that the detailed and comprehensive submission
from the Press Complaints Commission, and indeed that from some
national newspaper editors, was defensive and, as one of the committee
said, "an over reaction" to the inquiry.
We believe that it is in fact a necessary and
full explanation of the achievements of self regulation. There
appears to have been little credit given for these many achievements.
There is a danger that key points will be missed about the huge
changes that have happened across all papers over the last decade.
This is especially true since the major changes
concerning privacy following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Editors on the Code Committee were concerned not to destroy the
essential balance between privacy and the public's right to know
and free expression. At that time there was much debate about
the required strengthening of the Code of Practice. In the end
some editors had to be persuaded that amendments had not gone
too far. Interestingly, this view came mainly from the regional
rather than national press. They were certainly not seen as an
easy option.
But it was not only a change of wording that
was achieved. The addition of a preamble pointing to the need
to apply the code in spirit as well as in its letter was vitally
important. This brought about a valuable and sensible change in
how the code was interpreted and applied. Until then it was frequently
the case that editors and journalists tended to look at the precise
terms of the code in isolation. If particular behaviour was covered
in the code, it was avoided. If the code was silent on an issue,
newspapers considered themselves free to publish.
The effects of the code changes and the addition
of the preamble were that editors were encouraged to look at issues
in a wider context. While it did not necessarily prevent reporting,
it made editors think carefully before publication and they had
to be prepared to justify their decision in terms of the public
interest. The care and attention given to the code by editors
across the board was certainly made clear in evidence.
This brought substantial benefits not only for
well known people but also the privacy of those who are not normally
in the public eye.
This is important in the context of some of
the evidence provided by PressWise and others. Frequently, examples
cited of inappropriate behaviour pre-date the 1997 changes and
in some cases even the establishment of the PCC and the Code of
Practice.
Any idea that the industry is complacent is
simply incorrect. There have been at least 30 amendments to strengthen
the code of practice and several changes in the working and organisation
of the PCC.
We made it clear in our original submission
that there is robust debate among editors about the code and the
PCC. Behind the headlines everyone agrees that self regulation
has improved behaviour.
Some of the changes have come from within and
some have been prompted from outside. The most recent changes
in the code concerning Payments to Witnesses are a case in point.
Far from these changes being forced on the industry, we responded
to concerns raised by the Lord Chancellor in detail. He was persuaded
that his concerns could be addressed more successfully through
self regulation rather than legislation. As a result the code,
that was already strict in this regard, has been strengthened
further with a still more explicit clause.
The arrival of Sir Christopher Meyer as chairman
of the PCC will bring another fresh look at the code, the PCC
and self regulation as a whole. His assessment of where we are
and where we should be, will be a central part of the society's
annual conference in the autumn. There is no doubt that all of
the points raised in evidence to the committee and the perceptions
of politicians and the public will be properly and thoroughly
considered.
2. PUBLICISING
SELF REGULATION
As we pointed out in our submission, many newspapers
already provide prominent and regular advertisements explaining
how the public can complain. The society is already undertaking
a survey to establish best practice in this regard and will undertake
a renewed campaign to encourage the implementation of that best
practice. At its conference last autumn the society provided a
platform to explain the successes and benefits of the Readers'
Editor system already adopted by The Guardian. As you have
heard, while that might not be an example that can be followed
in all newspapers, editors are keen to establish their own systems
in order to achieve similar benefits.
3. FINES AND
PENALTIES
The committee heard substantial endorsement
of the points we made at the outset about the effectiveness of
the requirement to publicise adverse adjudications by the PCC.
Any system of fines or other "punishments"
would not only lead to time delays and costs for ordinary people.
A financial penalty of say £10,000 would be the cost of a
trainee journalist for a year on a weekly paper or it could put
a publication out of business. Reporters or editors threatened
with dismissal would seek, and be entitled under natural justice,
to legal representation.
Some complainants would remain dissatisfied
even if editors were taken out and shot. Many people remain dissatisfied
with sentences in court cases especially in highly emotive death
by dangerous driving cases, for example. The law and imprisonment
does not necessarily satisfy them. The few who remain dissatisfied
with the PCC should be seen in the context of the many who accept
its decisions or make use its services.
The PCC evidence points to the number of complainants
that are dealt with by editors with the help of robust complaints
officers and the level of satisfaction with the system. It is
not a failure that there are relatively few adjudications. That
is clear evidence of the success of self regulation. Both the
editors involved in complaints and those who read reports from
the PCC learn from their resolution and help to prevent behaviour
likely to lead to complaints.
The essential point of self regulation is that
it works to prevent inappropriate behaviour rather than simply
to deal with its aftermath. Again, that is a strength, not a weakness.
4. OMBUDSMAN
The danger is one of creating a state-appointed
policeman of the press, able to institute investigations arbitrarily,
bringing the risk of political or establishment pressure and the
perils of prior restraint and censorship. We doubt that is what
the committee would intend.
An Ombudsman, appointed and paid for by the
government, either directly or indirectly, would be the first
step towards licensing of journalism. How do you define a journalist?
How do you define a newspaper or magazine? In itself such a definition,
that would be a necessary part of even a semi-statutory system,
would be an infringement of free expression for everyone, not
just the existing press.
5. EDITOR MEMBERS
OF THE
PCC
Professional membership of the PCC is another
essential cornerstone of the system. Their involvement gives other
editors confidence in the system and explains their acceptance
of PCC decisions. It is vital that editors retain "ownership"
of the code and its implementation. It is far more effective than
a code imposed on them.
Changes that have created a majority of lay
members of the commission were welcomed by editors. Comments to
the committee on this issue and on transparency are already being
debated, as the committee heard in evidence, and will be properly
considered.
6. COMPARISON
WITH OTHER
REGULATORS
The society rejects any suggestion that PCC
system is not as good as the BSC or other regulators. Evidence
the committee has received from Geoff Elliott and the summary
of his experience based on his membership of the Press Council,
the PCC and now the BSC is especially apposite
7. LOCAL AND
REGIONAL NEWSPAPERS
Several committee members expressed concern
about complaints raised by their constituents. Many complaints
received by local editors particularly concern their reporting
of inquests and the courts. While that can of course be intrusive,
open justice is an essential part of the administration of justice.
Intrusion into grief is always a particular
concern of editors and journalists at every level. The experience
of most reporters who have to knock on doors in difficult circumstances
is that for every one who slams the door, there are dozens of
cases of grieving people who want to talk to a reporter about
their loved ones and want to see something in the paper. Often
it is a well-meaning friend or relative who thinks they do not
want any media attention. Newspapers are now very sensitive about
this and they are extremely careful not to be the deliverers of
bad news and to withdraw when asked.
An impression that appeared to have been created
by some of the evidence the committee heard was that print editors
blamed broadcasters for creating "media scrums". It
is not a matter of blame. It is simply a fact that the growing
number of broadcasting outlets, all of which need reporters and
equipment, can make a situation appear worse.
8. NAMING AND
SHAMING
The evidence of regional editors is important.
While they, personally, may not have felt the need to name paedophiles,
several other editors have done so, in some cases long before
the News of the World started its campaign. The thrust
of the evidence from the regional editors who appeared was that
this was an issue for individual editors, all of whom operate
within the law. Editors across the country have entered into protocols
with police forces through which they agree to warn the police
and other authorities in advance of publication to help deal with
potential vigilante incidents and to help prevent offenders "going
underground". The Society of Editors and indeed the PCC have
been involved in establishing these protocols.
9. THE CODE
AND THE
LAW
There was some discussion of activities by the
media that might be unlawful. The Code of Practice is not a substitute
for the law. Editors and journalists ask for no special treatment
under the law, although there is an exception for journalism and
artistic work under the Data Protection Act. This is in line with
European practice and was requested and accepted by the media
in the UK only reluctantly.
It is assumed that the media abides by the law
so any issue that is unlawful is not a matter for the Code of
Practice, which is designed to deal with issues not covered by
the law.
The society's key concern is that the efforts
of the publishing industry to improve standards should be recognised.
Too often, some politicians and some members of the public sneer
at the press, particularly the tabloids. They are quick to criticise
yet, through history, the papers have been a force for good rather
than evil.
Hopefully, the committee might try to catch
the press doing something good and praise it, rather than only
criticising its mistakes. Against that background it is perhaps
little wonder that some witnesses may have seemed a tad defensive.
Given the millions of words published each day
and each week, at speed, by so many newspapers and magazines,
the low level of complaints that are upheld is remarkable. The
apparent dismissal of the PCC evidence as complacent simply because
it is long and detailed was bound to be controversial. It does
not mean the press has a closed mind to constructive criticism.
The society and indeed the whole of the industry
is concerned to improve standards and to encourage complaints
where they are justified. This will continue because newspapers
recognise their commercial interest in improving public perceptions
as well as the ethical concerns surrounding those complaints.
9 April 2003
| 
