APPENDIX 31
Memorandum submitted by Alison Hastings
My name is Alison Hastings and I sat as a newspaper
representative on the PCC from February 1999 until September 2002.
I was editor of the Newcastle Evening Chronicle between
1996 and 2002.
I should explain that when I was asked whether
I would consider being put forward as a member of the PCC I was
most surprised as I had been something of a public critic of the
body.
My newspaper had been adjudicated against the
previous year in what I believed to be unfair circumstances, and
I spoke out against this on the front page of Press Gazette.
You should not underestimate the damage to an
editor by having an unfavourable adjudication.
Apart from the sense of shame in having to very
publicly tell your readers you had done something professionally
wrong, it was also written into my contract that I should abide
by the Code. In other words I could be sacked for being adjudicated
against. So although I agreed to join, I was fairly cynical about
the organisation, the way it was run and what it might achieve.
It would be fair to say that I quickly became a convert. The Pre-conceptions
that I had all turned out to be false.
I had assumed the PCC was made up of the great
and the good, who needed another committee to help see out their
retirement, but had little knowledge of the press—or in
fact ordinary people—as they came from neither background.
I assumed the editors would either be clubby,
and defend their colleagues at all costs, or use their power to
inflict damage on their rivals. I also assumed it would be an
unwieldy body, bogged down in paperwork and not sorting anything
out very quickly. How wrong I was. The great and good turned out
to be an exceptionally bright bunch of people who took their role
very seriously. They had a good sense of how the media business
worked, but were in touch with people and understood their emotions
which could involve anger, outrage, fear, grief and despair.
The editors were from a varied background and,
contrary to my original belief, were often harder on newspapers
than the lay members because they could spot a lame excuse a mile
off. However they certainly left their personal grievances outside
the room—it would have been very transparent to have done
otherwise.
As for the officers—they were informed
and efficient, giving advice where necessary but always leaving
decisions to the members. Complaints are dealt with very quickly,
and although you cannot please all the people all of the time,
my impression is that the vast majority of people who contact
the PCC are happy with the service they receive. The officers
are also flexible enough to change things where necessary.
Last year several lay members and editors were
concerned that members of the public might be being unfairly treated
by the rule of how quickly you had to complain after an article
had appeared in a publication. We felt that where they had obviously
made contact with the newspaper and were potentially being messed
about or had got lost in the system, this should no preclude them
from bringing a complaint.
This proposed change was duly noted and actioned
within a month. To conclude, it is my firmly held opinion, as
a journalist and a reader, that newspapers have very much smartened
up their act in the past 10 years—and particularly the last
five.
One only has to look at the type of complaints
made on issues such as section 9 (Hospitals) to see that change.
I know for a fact that the Code, and its implications, are often
discussed in newspaper conferences all over the land when dealing
with specific stories. Often phone calls are put in in advance
of publication for informal advice.
I personally train journalists—from post
graduates to regional editors—on the Code, and can assure
you it is taken very seriously.
21 January 2003
| 
