Examination of Witnesses (Questions 402-419)
27 JANUARY 2004
MR NICK
CARTER AND
MR KEVIN
JOHNSON
Q402 Chairman: Good morning. Can I welcome
you to the Committee, to our fourth session on Social Cohesion,
and can I ask you to introduce yourselves, for the record, please?
Mr Johnson: Kevin Johnson. I am
responsible for Public and Regional Affairs at Carlton Television,
in the Midlands.
Mr Carter: Nick Carter. I am the
Editor-in-Chief, and a director of the Leicester Mercury Group.
Q403 Chairman: Thank you very much. We
will give you the opportunity, if you want, to say a few words,
but, if not, are you happy to go straight to questions?
Mr Carter: I am perfectly happy
to go straight to questions.
Mr Johnson: Likewise.
Q404 Mr O'Brien: Can I put a question
to both of you. Many newspaper reporters and television reporters
defend their independence to respond freely to any whims or prejudices
of their audiences. In your case, your organisations are seeking
to play a more proactive and responsible role in the communities.
Could you explain why you adopt that attitude?
Mr Johnson: I think there are
two reasons, and the first is economic. I do not think we should
be ashamed or feel any guilt in making the economic case. As we
all know, and I am sure members of this Committee know, the population
trends are that we will have a significantly increasing number
of minority ethnic people in our populations, particularly in
the areas which Nick and I represent, in the Midlands, Birmingham,
Leicester and elsewhere. If we do not do something about the make-up
of our workforces, if we do not do something about the way in
which we portray people from all communities, in all aspects of
society and all sections of society, the number of people watching
our programmes, in our case, will go down. If the number of people
goes down, the number of advertisers wanting to advertise their
products and brands on our station also will go down. That is
the very simple, economic argument and one I am not afraid to
mention. Also, however, there is a social and moral case, that
television and indeed all the media have a responsibility to reflect
society as it is, and indeed to promote the good things in society
as well as the bad things. Most people working in journalism and
other aspects of television have a pretty solid social duty and
their own sense of social responsibility to do that. I think,
on the moral, social and economics cases, it is a strong one,
to make sure we reflect all parts of society, and we know, and
we shall not back away from the fact, that up until certainly
recent years we have not been doing that as we might.
Mr Carter: It is the right thing
to do. Also, there is a very sound business case, which for newspapers
goes along these lines. It may be easy to sell newspapers in the
wake of trouble within communities, but that is a very short-term
benefit, if I can put it that way. Fragmented communities contain
people who are less likely to want to get involved in what is
happening in those communities, they are full of suspicion and
apprehension. In that environment, fewer people are likely to
be interested in what is going on around them, and since we are
the main provider of news and information about those communities
we are less likely to have people turning to us for information.
A cohesive community is a community which feels comfortable with
itself, its people are involved in what is happening in those
communities. They take a more active interest in what is happening,
and therefore they are more likely to turn to their local newspaper
and to other sources of local information to find out what is
happening. On top of that, of course, as our communities change,
we need to reflect also the changing make-up of those communities
in the sort of coverage that we provide.
Q405 Mr O'Brien: What you are saying
then is if the communities which you serve were predominantly
white then the attitudes would change?
Mr Carter: I do not think my attitude
would change. I think inevitably the tenor of coverage would change
because it would reflect more the make-up of those communities.
My attitude, that I would not willingly seek to publish something
which would damage community relations or community cohesion,
would apply whatever the make-up of the community.
Mr Johnson: Yes, I would agree
with that. On top of that, for television, again, Members will
know, television is still a fairly highly regulated industry,
and under the way in which our licences are granted, under the
Communications Act, under the new regulator Ofcom, we are duty
bound to make sure that our coverage is fair and impartial. Whatever
the make-up of the population, we have to be fair and impartial
and reflect that as accurately as we can. As Mick touched upon,
you are more likely to get the support and active engagement,
both in terms of viewing and the co-operation, in making programmes,
from the communities you are broadcasting to if you are part of
those communities, if you have an active dialogue and relationship
with those communities. The facts of the matter are that we have
not got a very minimal minority ethnic population, we have increasing
parts of that population, and that is what we have got to respond
to and speed the pace of change and response up to that.
Q406 Mr O'Brien: Do the police have any
influence in your decisions?
Mr Carter: We have a close working
relationship with the Leicestershire Constabulary, as we have
with all of the major organisations that are players, in one way
or another, in our communities. We have formal and informal contacts
which keep us in the picture about what is happening and make
us aware in advance of issues coming up. It is part of the network
that we use to help ourselves discharge our responsibilities.
Mr Johnson: Likewise. Let me add,
just for the record, as it were, that indeed Leicestershire Constabulary's
own Diversity Adviser sits as an adviser on our Diversity Panel
looking at these issues and trying to bring the experience of
the public sector into our sector. I think it is fair to say,
in some parts, not all, of the public sector, they have been ahead
of the game with putting practice into motion.
Q407 Chris Mole: Good morning, gentlemen.
You have set out in your submission a long list of what the media
should be doing, and you are shining examples yourselves, and
you have suggested everything from editors becoming proactive
and getting involved with the communities through to looking at
the impact of individual stories on communities. How should the
Government ensure that other editors and producers follow this
guidance?
Mr Carter: I think this is the
central matter, really, is it not, around this whole issue of
how you persuade the media to act in a more responsible way. Certainly
you do not legislate, in my view. I think an essential ingredient
of a free society is a free media. The minute you start telling
editors like me what to write then you have opened the door to
all kinds of issues, and where do you stop, who makes those kinds
of decisions? Also, you remove the credibility that is so vital
to the good that responsibly managed newspapers can achieve. If
my readers know that I am instructed to act in certain ways, they
will pay that much less attention to what I write and what is
produced in the whole newspaper. I think there has to be a multi-pronged
approach to this, which is about raising awareness, it is about
creating the right climate within which responsible editors can
operate more effectively, it is about looking at the existing
self-regulation regime, and the Code of Practice is being reviewed.
I hope that there would be some acknowledgement of the importance
of the newspaper and the media role in social cohesion being included,
both in the Code itself and in the guide book which is attached
to it. It is about encouraging local authorities, in particular,
to be proactive in talking to the local media as well, because
without local authority involvement our role is that much more
difficult.
Mr Johnson: I would agree. I do
not think legislation or regulation is the way forward and, as
Nick says, this is the current debate. The Home Office Advisory
Group, on which both Nick and I sit, is itself having this very
debate and there are those round that table who think that stronger
regulation or legislation is the way forward. Really, I do not.
I think the reasons why we have made the improvements that we
have over the last two years, in representing better the people
who make up our communities, and increasing the number of people
from minority ethnic backgrounds into our workforce, is because
we have sold the argument to our staff and the staff share in
that argument now, particularly in programme-making areas but
in other areas of the business as well. I do not believe they
would have responded as professionally as they have done to that
if it had been imposed by statute or by some form of regulation.
We are moving away, I think, in television, from the heavy-handed
regulation, we hope, under the auspices of Ofcom, and to reverse
that in any way I think would be wrong. We have already signed
up all the broadcasters, all the broadcasting trade organisations,
including the ITC, I am sure, now Ofcom, have signed up to the
cultural diversity network, which is about sharing best practice
and identifying trends and identifying new ways to respond to
these issues. I think the best way forward perhaps for those areas
of the media that you might be inferring, which have not yet responded
in the same way that both Nick's and my organisations have, is
by the likes of Nick and I and many others sharing our best practice
and making the same kinds of arguments that we have debated in
our own chambers, as it were. Taking those out to those other
media organisations and using whatever tactics, be it embarrassment,
strong argument, whatever, to make those media organisations take
on the same kinds of practices that we have. Regulation and legislation
is not the answer.
Q408 Chris Mole: You are both members
of the Home Office's Media Practitioners Group. How is it preparing
its good practice guide and how should it be implemented?
Mr Carter: It is in the process
of drafting its conclusions and its advice, and it falls into
four areas of activity. I have mentioned this revision and guidance
of the Code of Conduct and representations and discussions are
underway in that respect. It is looking at draft guidance for
local authorities on how they can interact more effectively with
local media. It is talking with the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport on training and employment issues. Then the handbook
for the industry, which will identify examples of effective reporting,
so looking at case studies of how newspapers have approached particular
issues, examples of damaging reporting where newspapers have got
it wrong and where other media have got it wrong. Highlighting
good practice and restating the business case that we both mentioned
at the beginning. They are the sorts of broad areas that it is
looking at. It is collating examples of good practice from various
sources, because obviously there are lots of examples of good
practice, although they tend to centre round comparatively small
areas of the country.
Q409 Chris Mole: Do you think that guidance
has very much discouraged newspapers from having anonymous letters
pages?
Mr Carter: I would not publish
a letter if I did not know from whom it had come. If I believe
that there is an acceptable reason for the person's identity to
remain anonymous in the newspaper then I will put "Name and
address supplied." Personally, I think that should be standard
practice. There has to be a good reason.
Q410 Chairman: On this Code of Practice,
how does it sort out the questions of the adjectives that you
use after an individual, whether you mention their race or their
colour?
Mr Carter: The Code of Practice,
at present, contains a clause which basically controls discrimination,
so newspapers should not publish material that is likely to be
discriminatory.
Q411 Chairman: Come on, explain that
to me?
Mr Carter: In a sense, it is much
as the law of the land stands currently. It is using racial characteristics
in a pejorative way, it is singling people out, mentioning racial
characteristics when they are not relevant to the particular story,
or seeking them to insert them into a story to imply that there
is some racial application to it.
Q412 Chairman: If you are looking at
certain crimes, like a hold-up of a post office, or something
like that, putting in a piece of racial information may well help
identify the people involved, may it not?
Mr Carter: Absolutely.
Q413 Chairman: In other circumstances,
putting in that information has no way of helping to solve the
crime. Are there clear guidelines, or is it left to an individual
reporter as to whether they think it is appropriate or not?
Mr Carter: At the moment, in the
Code of Practice, there is no clear guideline on that. That is
one of the areas which the Code Committee undoubtedly would be
looking at.
Q414 Chairman: What do you do, as far
as your paper is concerned?
Mr Carter: As far as our paper
is concerned, if the racial characteristics or ethnic origin of
the people involved in a suspected crime are relevant to the police
investigation, or if the police issue a description, we would
use it; other than that, we would not.
Q415 Mr O'Brien: In my previous question,
Mr Carter, when I asked about the co-operation from the police,
you did say that there was this co-operation you had from the
police but there have to be other organisations, like the local
authorities, and in the community, if you are going to make progress.
What is the situation with the support from the local authority
in Leicester?
Mr Carter: As I mentioned in my
submission, a few years ago we set up a group which is now called
the Multicultural Advisory Group, which brought together around
a table a number of the different organisations and community
groups involved in the city, and that acts now as a sounding-board
and a discussion group around the issues of multiculturalism,
diversity and cohesion in the city. That is apart from the ongoing
relationships that we have. If you take any newspaper, any local
media organisation, it has to have good relationships with all
the different organisations. Our objective is to achieve a state
in those relationships where there is the maximum flow of information
in advance, to allow us to put information in front of our readers
in a proper and informed way, but also understanding that there
will be occasions when the emphasis we place on that information
may cause disagreement, and that, notwithstanding those disagreements,
we should still be able to have a dialogue, that basically they
do not run the wagons into a circle if we disagree. So far, those
relationships have proceeded pretty well. Leicester City Council
has a very good track record of support for community cohesion.
It has a new administration in now which has a different view,
the relationship still exists and we are talking about those issues.
It will be an interesting test of the relationship, I think.
Q416 Mr O'Brien: The new administration
is the Liberal/Conservative group and they are committed to cut
£2 million out of the current budget towards community groups.
Is that going to have an impact upon the relationship with the
new authority?
Mr Carter: There is considerable
concern at the effect that those cuts will have in the communities.
My newspaper has called for the issue to be reviewed. We have
expressed concern about what we perceive to be the lack of strategy
in the approach to community cohesion in the city by this new
administration. I have had private discussions with the administration
and they will continue. Yes, it is an alarming situation at the
moment for us.
Q417 Christine Russell: Can I move on
and talk about the communications put out by local authorities.
In your opinion, do you feel that sometimes the lack of communication
or poor communication by local authorities does contribute to
fuelling resentment, and how can you, as media people, perhaps
help local authorities to communicate a bit better?
Mr Johnson: Obviously, we are
dealing with a much larger number of local authorities, and indeed
other public organisations, as Nick is in his area. We are a big
region. It is fair to say that the quality of communication varies
quite considerably, I think, between some of those local authorities.
I think some of their understanding of how to deal with media
relations issues, particularly around sensitive areas like this,
and trying to promote something which is about the better good
and a better representation of society and a better connection
between different communities, is a difficult thing for any organisation
to get its head round and I think there are difficulties there.
Probably elsewhere in the country, outside of both Nick's and
my regions, there are greater difficulties than the ones we are
facing. I think that kind of active engagement, which Nick touched
on, in terms of the group that he set up, and we have a similar
group and similar relationships with community groups and local
authorities, and so on, and understanding of how our organisation
works, how our newsroom works, leads to a better quality of communication
from those local authorities and other bodies. I think one of
the things that we can do, and, again, Nick touched on this when
talking about the Home Office group, is lay down some of that
best practice, lay down some of the best ways in which to deal
with our respective newsrooms, and go round and sell that into
local authorities to modernise their media relations and PR practices.
I can think of one particular example, where a protocol, or some
such way of defining it, was established by Birmingham City Council
to try to sign up all the media organisations in the City of Birmingham
to a particular way of going about representing our large ethnic
communities. I think it was ill-conceived. Actually the best way
of going about these things is not by slapping down a piece of
paper that everybody just signs up to, with some rather bland
descriptions, but actually by engaging, by having a real relationship
with the editor or the managing director and with other staff.
I think that is what we have got to move towards.
Q418 Christine Russell: How can you be
more helpful perhaps and help local authorities to stop some of
the rumour-mongering that tends to go around in some communities?
Mr Johnson: I think one of the
issues, and the Chairman touched on it a moment ago, is that of
language and descriptions, and that seems to be one of the issues
which comes out, the way we describe people, and indeed whether
we need to put a racial description on them in any way. Often
it is a problem of language, about the way these groups are identified,
the way that individuals are identified and the way in which they
are described, and the subtleties of it do come down to language,
in the end, in many ways, as well as a deeper understanding. I
think, often, in local authorities and elsewhere, many of the
media relations operators probably have not stepped into a newspaper
newsroom or a television newsroom and do not understand the process
which goes by, in terms of decision-making in news, in the way
that piece of news is either presented in a paper or produced
on a television programme. I think we have got to get better training
of those individuals and a better understanding from the top of
those organisations about the way in which we work, and the very
fast decisions which Nick and his colleagues and my journalist
colleagues have to make in a day. Clearly, in some of those decisions
mistakes can happen or we can rush to very quick judgments. It
is about a better understanding being the way forward, I think.
Q419 Christine Russell: You have just
mentioned training. How important do you believe it is for journalists,
whether working in television or for the local media, how important
is their awareness and their knowledge of the communities of the
area that they are covering?
Mr Johnson: I think it is essential.
Mr Carter: This is an essential
part of the whole process of establishing the right sorts of relationships,
both with organisations and communities. We run various training
programmes.
|
