Memorandum submitted by The Sunday Times
1. The Sunday Times has long believed
that the most effective means of regulation is self-regulation.
We believe it is always preferable to have all parties agree voluntarily
to a code than to have a set of rules imposed. We treat this code
extremely seriously and have it written in to the terms of employment
for our journalists.
2. As managing editor of The Sunday Times
I have had the responsibility, delegated by the editor, to act
as ombudsman on complaints from individuals or institutions about
the content of our newspaper. As such I have a close working knowledge
of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and its evolution in
recent years.
3. Given that John Witherow, the editor
of The Sunday Times, is a former member of the PCC who
now sits on the code committee, and Les Hinton, executive chairman
of News International, owner of the newspaper, chairs the
committee, it is not surprising that our newspaper takes seriously
any complaint it receives.
4. All complaints are investigated by me.
This is likely to entail the interview of reporters and scrutiny
of notes and tape-recordings. A conclusion is discussed with the
editor in advance of a formal response to the complainant. All
complaints are handled in this manner, not just those made through
the PCC.
5. Should the newspaper have made a mistake
in any article, or if any comments have been distorted or taken
out of context, they will be corrected or clarified. The culture
of the newspaper is such that any inaccuracy, however seemingly
insignificant, is willingly corrected. Our readers have come to
expect this vigilance and regard it as a sign of confidence in
the newspaper.
6. The Sunday Times fully co-operates
with the PCC in their investigations. It is the world's most independent
self-regulatory body governing the press and it is used as a template
in other countries. We know that we have to justify ourselves
in terms of the code or seek to resolve the complaint by taking
an appropriate and agreed action.
7. Even before a complaint is lodged, the
PCC can play an important role in guiding the press on sensitive
matters. I have often called the PCC for advice prior to publication
on such issues as privacy. By the same token the PCC has contacted
newspapers directly in advance of publication to give guidance
on coverage.
8. For example, should there be a complaint
of harassment to the PCC it is possible to resolve the issue within
hours without the need for a full and time-consuming investigation.
A series of phone calls between the paper and commission can result
in senior executives reviewing the public interest before proceeding
any further. This light touch of balancing interests to help prevent
breaches of the code would not be possible within a formal, punitive
legal framework.
9. In the last five years the PCC has investigated
59 complaints against The Sunday Times and two have been
upheld. In my experience, when a breach of the code has occurred,
this has been a genuine mistake on the part of the journalist
rather than any determination to flout the code. Sometimes complaints
are resolved before a formal adjudication by the commission by
publication of a correction, a letter of apology or removal of
an item from an archive. The key point is that these are agreed
resolutions by all parties in a settlement negotiated by the commission.
10. A more rigid and punitive regime would,
we believe, corrode the commission's ability to act quickly and
effectively. There are already broad restrictions on usage of
private material governed by the Data Protection Act and other
legislation. I know of no evidence of growing public opinion that
would welcome the imposition of further fines or other punishments.
Above all, a privacy law would only provide shelter for the rich
and powerful to hide what is genuinely in the public interest.
It is the job of the press to test the credibility of those who
have influence over us, and in the words of a high court judge,
to act as the "eyes and ears" of the public.
11. People subject to journalistic inquiry
already have the option of going beyond the commission and seeking
legal redress to prevent publication of material they believe
should remain private. For example, Lord Levy sought an injunction
to prevent The Sunday Times from publishing details of
how little personal tax he paid. The Sunday Times argued
that, given his position in public life as chief fundraiser for
the prime minister, these facts were in the public interest. A
high court judge dismissed Lord Levy's application for an injunction
and the article was published. Bizarrely, the Information Commissioner
then chose to become involved and requested to interview the editor
under caution. This request was rejected because the case had
already been heard and adjudicated by a high court judge. My point
is that a variety of remedies already exist for complainants and
that there is a danger in trying to stifle legitimate journalistic
inquiry by adding a new layer of legislation and penalties.
12. The digital dissemination of information
across the world poses the biggest hurdle for anyone trying to
impose a privacy law. Should such a law come into effect it is
likely to be unworkable in this new era of global digital convergence
and at best is open to challenge for being anti-competitive.
February 2007
| 
