Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the MediaWise Trust

1.  THE MEDIAWISE TRUST

  1.01  MediaWise exists to

    —  provide free, confidential advice and assistance for members of the public affected by  inaccurate, intrusive, or sensational media coverage;

    —  deliver use-of-the-media training for the voluntary sector and members of the public;

    —  devise and deliver training on ethical issues for media professionals;

    —  conduct research and publish material about media law, policy and practice;

    —  contribute to public debate about the role and impact of the mass media.

  1.02  Originally called PressWise, the Trust was set up as a voluntary organisation in 1993  by "victims of media abuse", supported by concerned journalists, media lawyers and MPs. The Trust registered as a charity in 1999, and is funded by donations, grants and commissions. Our aims, objectives and the full range of our activities can beviewed at www.mediawise.org.uk

  1.03  MediaWise is concerned with ethical issues in all forms of mass media. On average  the Trust now receives at least three enquiries from potential complainants each week, and a similar number of approaches from journalists, students and academics.

  1.04  The Trust operates on the principle that press freedom is a responsibility exercised  by journalists and editors on behalf of the public. We consider that the most important role of journalists in a democracy is to inform the public about events,  issues and opinions which might influence the decisions people take about their lives  and the society in which they live. For that reason the Trust asserts the public's right  to know when inaccurate information has been delivered by the mass media.

  1.05  The Trust's president is Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, the last Chairman of the Press  Council before it was replaced by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in 1991.  Its current Trustees are:

Charles Fletcher MBE (Chair, Director of Caledonia Media)

Fareena Alam (Managing Editor, QNews)

Bob Borzello (former journalist & publisher)

Glenn Del Medico (former legal advisor to BBC)

Prof Roy Greenslade (columnist & former editor)

Jocelyn Hay CBE (founder, Voice of the Listener & Viewer)

Pat Healy (former Chair, NUJ Ethics Council)

Nicholas Jones (author, journalist & former BBC political correspondent)

Stephen Jukes (former head of Reuters Global News, now head of Bournemouth School of Journalism)

Jim Latham (Secretary Broadcast Journalism Training Council)

Desiree Ntolo (Rabbi & co-founder of PressWise)

Amanda Williams (Treasurer)

  1.06  Based in Bristol, MediaWise recently moved onto the campus of the University of the  West of England. Currently it has two part-time staff. The Trust's Director and  voluntary Associate Directors are experienced journalists and trainers who have worked in all sectors of the media. The Trust employs a network of working journalists to devise and deliver a wide range of training packages for media professionals and non-governmental organizations in the UK and internationally.

  1.07  MediaWise regularly contributes to public debate via the media and events concerned  with media ethics and regulation, and distributes an electronic bulletin commenting on topical issues to over 2,000 media correspondents and journalism organisations worldwide.

  1.08  The Trust also runs projects to help improve understanding of the media and coverage of problematic issues, and organises opportunities for dialogue between media professionals and the public in the UK. These have included:

    —  Children's Rights vs. Press Freedom: Who wins? (with Quarriers, Bath 2005)

    —  Journalism & Public Trust (with the NUJ, London, 2004)

    —  Reporting Suicide (with Befrienders International, London, 2001)

    —  Refugees, Asylum-seekers and the Media (London, 2001)

    —  Access to the Information Society (with EC Information Society Forum, Bristol, 1998)

    —  Ethnic Minorities and the Media (London, 1997)

    —  Child Exploitation and the Media (with Action on Child Exploitation, London, 1997)

2.  BACKGROUND TO THIS SUBMISSION

  2.01  As this document was being prepared MediaWise received a call from an anxious young man whose father had just received a jail sentence. There were "at least five" reporters and photographers' outside the family home. He and his brother were completely unprepared for such attention. They felt frightened and powerless. The journalists kept knocking on the door—it happened twice during the telephone conversation—and would not go away. We explained that while it is a journalist's job to ask questions, no-one is obliged to answer them. These teenagers had nothing to say to them and didn't know how to get rid of them. We warned them that if they expressed their fear or anger to the waiting journalists they were likely to provide a "new angle" on the story. They were effectively imprisoned in their own home. We suggested they close the curtains and not answer the 'phone. They could call the police and cite the Protection Against Harassment Act as a way of clearing the immediate area so that they could go shopping or to relatives. Even so they might be followed or photographed against their wishes. We gave them the PCC Helpline number, but since they didn't know where the journalists were from this might not achieve the relief they were seeking. Evidently the industry's guidelines on "media scrums' has yet to penetrate throughout the industry.

  2.02  Over the last 14 years MediaWise has made submissions and/or given evidence to a number of parliamentary inquiries about aspects of media regulation, including most recently the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee Inquiry into Privacy and Media Intrusion in 2003 (our detailed submission was entitled Stop the Rot!), and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Corporate Responsibility (Social responsibility and the media) in 2006. All have been based on our experience of dealing with consequences to individual citizens and social groups of inaccurate, intrusive or sensational press coverage.

  2.03  Our efforts to strengthen the PressBof Editor's Code of Practice and encourage reform of Press Complaints Commission procedures have met with some success. In 2004 we published Satisfaction Guaranteed? Press complaints systems under scrutiny (ISBN 0-9547620-1-0) a detailed analysis of the short-comings of the PCC with proposals for reform, many of which have since been adopted—notably a hotline for complainants, regular public consultation on the Code of Practice, and a system of internal audit—though regrettably this does not include the opportunity to appeal decisions with which either party to a complaint might be dissatisfied.

  2.04  MediaWise also deals with complaints about inaccuracy and unfairness in the broadcast media. As a result we have been able to contribute useful suggestions in the development of Ofcom's codes and procedures for handling complaints about privacy and fairness.

  2.05  There is a rich seam of excellent journalism in Britain's newspapers and magazines, but there is also a fault-line of tawdry and slipshod journalism driven by competitive pressures. As newsrooms and investment in "frontline" journalism shrinks, journalists become more desk-based and reliant on tips and material originated by the myriad forms of public relations that seek to influence public tastes and opinions.

  2.06  The competitive approach to news-gathering is inevitable in the "free market", but making money out of others' misfortune cannot be justified by calling in aid "press freedom". MediaWise regards press freedom as a responsibility exercised by journalists on behalf of the public—to research and disseminate information of direct relevance to people's lives that might otherwise remain hidden from the public domain and to provide citizens with information that they can rely upon in making decisions about their personal and political decisions. It should not be abused as "a licence to print money".

3.  THE GOODMAN CASE AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS

  3.01  The recent jailing of News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and his associate Glenn Mulcaire, followed by the resignation of NoW editor Andy Coulson, is likely to have a more lasting effect on press behaviour than the half-hearted slap on the wrist issued by the PCC when it occasionally finds a newspaper at fault. Giving judgement Mr Justice Gross described the men's behaviour as "sustained criminal conduct". As he said: "This case was not about press freedom; it was about a grave, inexcusable and illegal invasion of privacy."

  3.02  After the two men pled guilty in 2006 NoW editor Andy Coulson announced that he had "put in place measures to ensure that (Clive Goodman's actions) will not be repeated by any member of my staff." Such measures should already have been in place. Clause 3 and Clause 10 (i) of the Editors' Code to which Coulson had signed up, is unequivocal on the matter. Any reasonable person might have expected the editor of a newspaper whose investigative techniques are often criticised to have been taking more than a passing interest in his staff's methods.

  3.03  Coulson did not explain how his new measures would apply to non-staff members. Goodman's accomplice Glenn Mulcaire, who had been supplying information to the NoW since 1997, was an external contractor. The police investigation uncovered a contract apparently signed by the  paper's managing editor Stuart Kuttner, guaranteeing Mulcaire's company The Nine Consultancy, over £100,000 for one year's work.

  3.04  The case has shone a light on long-known but often-denied techniques used by many newspapers to obtain personal information. In the 15 years since the industry launched the PCC, supposedly to demonstrate a willingness to clean up its own act, thousands of ordinary people, as well as "celebrities" have had personal details splattered over intrusive and often inaccurate stories.

  3.05  MediaWise has dealt with hundreds of citizens over the years who do not have the benefit of expensive lawyers when complaining. They express fear, anger and confusion when details of the phone calls, phone bills, bank accounts and even health records have found their way into the public domain. Often their only direct contact with a journalist has been the fateful call (if indeed it comes) asking for a comment on the revelations that are about to be published. The PCC has rarely commented on the methods used to obtain such information, and no prosecutions have followed.

  3.06  Many of those "caught" by the press have lost relationships, jobs and even homes after publication of prurient stories sometimes based on illicitly obtained information. Some have contemplated suicide, or felt the need to seek psychiatric or psychotherapeutic care. Few ever received compensation from erring newspapers, yet Glenn Mulcaire pocketed four times the national average wage under an exclusive contract to collect such data for just one newspaper. Tragically one man who was compensated, for being wrongly identified by the Daily Mail in December 2006 as the suspect in the Suffolk serial killings, died shortly afterwards. Gareth Roberts, a waiter from North Wales, had had to convince his children, his ex-wife and others that he never been near the murder scene. Apparently he then went on a drinking binge and was found dead early in February 2007.

  3.07  Although newspapers may be peppered with brief admissions of error for which substantial payments or donations to charity have been made, the public is never informed about how many millions are spent each year discreetly satisfying claims for damages out of court. At the time the Human Rights Bill was first introduced the industry argued against newspapers being covered, for fear that they might be required to compensate their "victims". Their argument was massaged into concern for ordinary members of the public who might incur heavy legal fees for asserting their rights. Adjustments were made to allow the PCC—which advertises itself as being "Fast, Free and Fair" (sic)—to become the first port of call for claims that a person's privacy had been breached.

  3.08  The industry wilfully ignores the fact that inaccuracy and intrusion can cost people immense and unjustifiable suffering and ensure, while literally profiting by titillating the public at others' expense. The PCC provides the industry with a cheap alternative—because it offers no compensation.

  3.09  Trading in improperly obtained personal material with newspapers is commonplace. For years newspapers have published "snatched" pictures of prisoners and patients in special hospitals (Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley, etc) with apparent impunity. More worrying still was the claim by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas in his May 2006 report What price privacy? that 305 journalists had obtained details of criminal records, telephone accounts and other personal data from a single private detective (not Mulcaire).

  3.10  Referring to the report at the time Goodman was arrested in August 2006, an editorial in the Guardian newspaper commented: "(T)he PCC has until now remained remarkably incurious and unwilling to instigate an inquiry of its own, despite the prima facie evidence against hundreds of journalists."

  3.11  In his follow-up report What price privacy now? (Dec 2006) Richard Thomas announced that between them 305 journalists had improperly obtained well over 3,000 separate pieces of personal data. Topping the list was the Daily Mail with 952 items obtained by 58 of its staff, followed by The People (80 items for 50 journalists), the Daily Mirror (681 for 45 journalists), and the Mail on Sunday (266 for 19 staff). Nineteen News of the World staffers purchased 182 items between them, and four journalists from The Observer received 103 items. None has yet been prosecuted.

(a)  The failings of the Press Complaints Commission

  3.12  Apart from reminding editors that such behaviour is a breach of the industry Code, the PCC kept its powder dry until Goodman was locked away and his editor had fallen on his sword. On 1 Feb 2007, the PCC Chairman Sir Christopher Meyer, announced that he would be writing to editors about the "reprehensible" practices revealed by the Goodman case and seeking their views about what lessons have been learned. "The Commission will consider these industry responses with a view to publishing a review of the current situation, with recommendations for best practice if necessary, in order to prevent a similar situation arising in the future," he announced. Note the "if necessary".

  3.13  The PCC has always tended to give the benefit of the doubt to newspapers when Joe and Mary Public complain about the underhand methods used to manufacture sensational stories. It has been criticised by journalists, media commentators and politicians for waiting for complaints to be made rather than contacting editors at the first sign that they are in breach of their own Code of Practice.

  3.14  The proliferation of miniature digital recording devices (sound, stills and moving images) and the rise of so-called "citizen journalism" has heightened the likelihood that unwarranted intrusions into privacy will occur. MediaWise recently received a call for advice from a distraught young Muslim woman who discovered that images of her with a non-Muslim boyfriend had been posted on the Internet, laying her open to all manner of potentially harmful consequences. She was concerned that they might also end up in a newspaper.

  3.15  The growing trend among newspapers to rely on the supply of personal information from distinctly dubious sources, has been recorded by MediaWise Trustee and former BBC political correspondent Nicholas Jones, in his most recent book Trading Information: Leaks, Lies and Tip-offs. People with access to private information know that some newspapers are willing to pay for it. As he later wrote in a piece for a MediaWise event last year ("Journeys into Journalism on the SS Robin", September 06), "The News of the World is encouraging readers to engage in a degree of intrusion which would have been unheard of a few years ago. Every Sunday they offer "big money for stories and pictures'. The offer couldn't be more enticing: "Send us your camera phone photos of celebs and we'll flash you the cash [...] sizzling shots of showbiz love-cheats doing what they shouldn't ought to."

  3.16  He pointed out that the industry award for Scoop of the Year went to a Daily Mirror "exclusive" of "Cocaine Kate (Moss)" pictured "snorting line after line", and that The Sun won Front Page of the Year for its picture of "(Prince) Harry the Nazi" at a fancy dress party. Both pictures were taken by "insiders" and sold to the press. It was left to the rival Sunday Mirror to unmask the "student who sold the Nazi picture" for a five figure sum.

  3.17  MediaWise has always urged people not to sell their stories to a newspaper, in the belief that if information is genuinely in the public interest it should not have a price tag. Our advice is also based on concern for the wellbeing of anyone who is tempted by the large sums on offer for "exclusives". They quickly learn that they have lain themselves open to attack from rival newspapers who will dredge up anything they can use as a "spoiler" to put them in a poor light just because they had the temerity to take cash from a competitor.

  3.18  Nick Jones worries that in their "desperation to get exclusives [...] some of the newspapers (are) beginning to rely too much on cheque-book journalism rather than proper investigative reporting' and asked "Are we all being forced to stand up stories which don't quite make it but which are helped along through the use of anonymous quotes?" He believes that "we now seeing the emergence of a generation of journalists who think there is nothing wrong in "manufacturing anonymous quotes: an onlooker said this, an insider hinted at that, a friend revealed this, another anonymous source disclosed that."

  3.19  Over the last 14 years MediaWise has grown accustomed to hearing this charge, and has had to deal with any number of distressing cases where manufactured quotes and circumstances masquerading as actuality has added insult to injury to the protagonists. The PCC seems reluctant to investigate such charges on the grounds that it is a mere citizen's word against that of a journalist. This attitude does little to enhance the credibility of self-regulation, just as malpractices like Goodman's undermines the role and respect that journalists should have among the public.

  3.20  Some of our own investigations have demonstrated that partially or wholly fabricated stories still make it onto the newsstands. For example we were able to debunk The Sun's "Swan Bake" front page splash (4 July 03)—but it took six months for the paper to bury its "clarification" on page 41 of a Saturday edition (6 Dec 03), despite the PCC's intervention. Our deconstruction of the Daily Express' "Britain here we come" claim (20 Jan 04) that a Slovakian Roma family was planning to come and live off benefits in the UK was never allowed to reach a wider public following a threat to sue The Guardian. And our revelation that its "Plot to Kill Blair" front page (Daily Express, 16 Aug 04) was indeed "rubbish"—as the police who had briefed reporters made clear—was dismissed by the paper as publicity seeking. However when we investigated the truth behind a Sunday Mirror allegation ("For sale age 3", 25 Jan 04) that a young Christian charity worker in Montenegro was a child trafficker, the newspaper had to apologise and pay him substantial damages (although the uncorrected story can still be accessed on the Internet).

  3.21  Recently the public were given access to the private notes of Heather Mills McCartney, regarding to her impending divorce. While enterprising journalists may claim that she carried the notes in clear view of photographers as she walked towards Victoria railway station, does she not have the benefit of an assumption of privacy in such matters? This as one of a series of breaches of the couples' private business which show how little regard is not given to the privacy of the adults in the public eye, and the three-year-old child involved.

  3.22  Meanwhile more details of flawed and sensational News of the World "investigations" continue to emerge. Columnist and MediaWise Trustee Prof Roy Greenslade recently revealed (Evening Standard, 14 Feb 07) that the paper's unreliable informant in the "Beckham kidnap case' had not only set up the protagonists, whose arrest after a "tip off" was captured on camera, but supplied them with a gun (a starter pistol). These sorts of incident give the lie to claims that all such stories are genuinely in the public interest. Too often they are "got up" stories designed to sell papers and enhance reputations; often they involve what most reasonable people would regard as "entrapment"—a concept that the PCC refuses to countenance.

  3.23  The public would be better served if journalists used their ingenuity to shine a light on more important matters than the personal foibles of the rich and famous.

(b)  The media and citizens' rights

  3.24  An unspoken and uncodified "compact of trust" exists between readers/audiences and the purveyors of information, but editors and the PCC operate on a self-serving assumption that readers can decipher which information they are supposed to believe and which to take with a pinch of salt. Clearly that is not good enough.

  3.25  Collecting and presenting information that is of civic value to the public is not an easy job; it requires skill, patience, curiosity and a willingness to persevere when obstacles are placed in the way. If information cannot be elicited through the "normal channels" of discreet enquiries and the willingness of individuals to supply information freely, few would object to skilled cajoling and a reasonable level of persistence conducted in a professional manner. There may be occasions when unacceptable levels of subterfuge may have to be employed by those who seek to expose corruption and venality, but for trust to be maintained between journalists and the public these should be acknowledged as exceptions rather than the rule.

  3.26  It cannot be acceptable that media executives alone are free to determine the extent to which any person might be considered to enjoy privacy. Genuinely independent scrutiny needs to be applied to the "public interest defence" when it is called in aid to justify placing a person's private life in the public gaze.

  3.27  The "Fourth Estate" won its status by championing the public interest in the constant struggle between individual rights and the power of the state and commercial organisations yet, perversely, almost as a body it took umbrage against the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Some newspapers continue to clamour for repeal of the Human Rights Act, regarding it as a "villain's charter", simply because it might occasionally challenge a newspaper's commercial interest in boosting sales and profits by publishing intrusive and often inaccurate stories which are unlikely to pass the "public interest" test. The rich, powerful and corrupt did not need a Human Rights Act to protect themselves against publication of their misdemeanours—witness the antics of media baron Robert Maxwell.

  3.28  Journalists should be in the vanguard of those who value the Human Rights Act. They like to see themselves as autonomous individuals and the first to insist that they should have the right to live without let or hindrance from anyone. Case law at the European Court on Human Rights has tended to value freedom of expression (Article 10) over the right to privacy (Article 8) and upheld journalist Bill Goodwin's right to protect his source after he had been fined £5,000 under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 for refusing to identify his informant about a company's financial affairs for a story he was never allowed to publish.

  3.29  Normal rules do not appear to apply, however, when the chase is on for stories, the news desk is breathing down your neck, and little thought is given to whether a journalist's behaviour might impinge upon the rights of others. That is when a reasonable person might expect an editor, or the PCC to step in. But the PCC will not move unless prompted by the individual most directly affected—witness its inertia over the hounding of Kate Middleton (Jan 2007), or its refusal to act on some complaints about publication of photographs of the suicide of lawyer Katherine Ward (Jan 2006).

  3.30  The press never satisfactorily explains why the arguments marshalled against others do not apply to the Fourth Estate. It wants to be the sole arbiter of what is in the public interest and what is a breach of privacy. In the PCC it pays for a system of public "justice" in which it is judge and jury, but would not tolerate a similar system for any other sector of society.

  3.31  The PCC's role in all this should be to strike a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the newspapers' right to freedom of expression once complaints are made. If it were even-handed and suitably robust in condemning any breaches of the law or the industry's own Code, the current form of self-regulation might be regarded as a sufficient buttress against abuse of power by the press.

  3.32  However, the PCC has sat back and allowed the press to push the boundaries of coverage of crime far beyond what is supposed to be acceptable under the principle of innocent until proved guilty. It failed to intervene during the coverage of the Soham murder inquiry, the Suffolk murders and the police anti-terror raids in London (2006) and Birmingham (2007) when even journalists themselves have questioned the extent to which names and police allegations were made public in a way that could prejudice future trials.

  3.33  The inevitable consequence of its failures will be pressure for statutory controls, yet MPs themselves know that to take too strong a stand against media power is to court disaster. The press have no compunction about revealing the weaknesses of elected representatives, especially if they have the temerity to take on the Fourth Estate. There is an unhealthy imbalance of power.

  3.34  In effect the industry rejects any notion that elected representatives or the legislature should curtail its right to define for itself whether it has trampled on the rights of others—laying itself open to the charge of arrogance and abuse of power against which the Human Rights Act is designed to protect the public.

4.  REMEDIAL ACTION

  4.01  This Select Committee inquiry, set up because a senior journalist has now been jailed for breaking the law, provides an ideal opportunity to launch a wide ranging debate about the role and function of journalism and media regulation, without the threat of legislation but with the intention of moving towards a regulatory system more befitting social attitudes and the changing nature of mass communications.

  4.02  As the inquiry was announced the newspaper industry declared that it had extended the remit of the PCC to include all content published by online versions of newspapers and magazines, in effect seeking to pre-empt any recommendations that might emerge from the inquiry. This is par for the course.

  4.03  The PCC was set up in 1991 to forestall statutory  regulation at the time of the Calcutt inquiry into press invasions of privacy. In 1996, on the morning the PCC and its industry paymaster PressBof were to face a National Heritage Select Committee inquiry into payments to witnesses, they announced a tightening of the editors' Code to silence critics.

  4.04  We have spelled out our views on how the PCC might be reformed in Satisfaction Guaranteed? (see above). Below we examine some other ideas about how the regulatory framework could be adjusted to suit the times.

(a)  A unified system of media regulation

  4.05  There are some who believe that the time has come to make a reluctant Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, take responsibility for podcasts and streamed video. Others believe that regulation should be abandoned altogether. In a recent report commissioned by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (Future Broadcasting Regulation, DCMS, Jan 2007), Robin Forster envisages "a reduction in regulation and its associated costs—for example with greater reliance on self-regulation, and the exercise of individual consumer responsibility to address concerns about undesirable content". No doubt that would please those publishers who straddle both print and broadcasting.

  4.06  MediaWise has always argued for a genuinely independent regulatory system which  protects everyone's rights—including the freedom of the press—with power residing neither with Government nor the industry. The Trust, after all owes its origins to MP Clive Soley's efforts to create such a body with his Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill in 1992.

  4.07  Digitisation has put paid to the old arguments for separate regulation of broadcasting. Digital compression means that sound, vision, telephony and print are merely data—and so "caught" by data protection legislation, for example. Furthermore, cross-media ownership has now reached a level where it is difficult for the public to measure the extent to which a company's involvement in one medium ends and its involvement in another begins. The web of ownership has become so complex that many people working in the media are unsure about who is their ultimate employer.

  4.08  The frequent takeovers, mergers and brand changes that confuse consumers of other products (from food to the supply of what were once public utilities) also occur in the communications industries, so that most citizens are unlikely to know who owns or controls the production of print and broadcast material, let alone the platforms  through which they are communicated, or the corporate vested interests at work behind the scenes. The link up between Virgin, NTL and Telewest with their all-in-one telecommunications, broadband and entertainments packages is just the latest sign that cross-media ownership and technological convergence require a complete rethink of media regulation.

  4.09  Today's journalists are expected to be "multi-skilled" producing material compatible with the various communication platforms controlled by their employers. Some are required to carry notebooks, video-cams and other recording devices so their material can appear in print and online. The online News of the World incorporates video into its news stories; the online Sun's video section re-broadcasts bulletins from Reuters; The Times website has a section called "Times online TV". Elsewhere the Telegraph online re-broadcasts news clips from ITN among others; the Daily Mail runs it own online showbiz news mini-programmes alongside trailers for the latest movies; and visitors to the Daily Mirror site can access its showbiz and sports video newscasts.

  4.10  One nonsense of the current regulatory regime is that journalists are expected to abide by different standards as they switch between media. These changes strengthen the argument for a single basic code of conduct across all media, including a "conscience clause" so that journalists can opt out without fear of reprisals if they believe the assignment they are given breaches the code.

  4.11  Broadcasters retain public confidence because they are obliged to function under extensive but tried, tested and perfectly reasonable regulations. Print publishers believe that "press freedom" exempts them from all but the limitations they are prepared to place on themselves. Small wonder the public has grown increasing sceptical about how much trust they can place in print publications.

  4.12  A single "content regulator" with a clear and accessible system for adjudication on complaints and the awarding of redress across all media, could restore public confidence about the quality of the journalism they receive. Free independent professional advice and support should be available to members of the public who need assistance with complaints about any aspect of abuse of power by the mass communications industries. (It has proved almost impossible to fund the core complaints work undertaken by MediaWise, which now has to operate on a largely voluntary basis).

  4.13  Perhaps it is time that a reformed, "rights-based" system of media content regulation were considered. It would serve the best interests of all concerned. Press freedom would be upheld through defence of freedom of expression, and the right to personal privacy would be upheld unless a clear and valid public interest defence could be demonstrated.

  4.14  Financing of content regulation could follow the model currently used in broadcasting, with a mix of public funds to protect the democratic agenda, and levies upon the communications companies.

  4.15  Supervision of content regulation should be as independent of government and the industry as possible with a strong element of public involvement at all levels, reflecting the diversity of society. Of course the media industries should be represented, as should media workers, nominated by representative bodies. The role of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the first instance might be to propose a lay appointments panel, and then provide occasional public scrutiny of the regulator's activities.

  4.16  The public interest is best protected if there are regular opportunities to review the performance and practices of the mass media. An all-party Standing Committee on the Mass Media, with no powers to intervene directly, could use its parliamentary platform to generate debate about abuses of media power, including ownership issues, offering a mirror in which to reflect changing attitudes towards media content and regulation.

(b)  Compensation

  4.17  The PCC and the industry insist that proprietors and editors should determine what  punishment should fit which media "crime". Yet it is proprietors and editors who cry loudest about the shortcomings of self-regulation among other professions—from the police to politicians. If it is inappropriate for the police to police the police, it is surely inappropriate for the newspaper industry to be its own judge and jury.

  4.18  Significant awards in damages have been won through industrial tribunals for abuse of power by employers in the public sector. Surgeons and solicitors have been struck off, and police officers disciplined by their internal regulatory systems. Even parliamentarians have been forced out of office or suspended for unethical behaviour.

  4.19  MediaWise would not suggest that such direct punitive measures should be applied as a matter of course to an individual editor for breaches of the industry code. Press freedom would indeed be at risk if editors were not free to make mistakes, and personal liability of this type could become the thin end of a wedge leading to licensing of journalists. Nonetheless the public must find it disquieting that some editors wear their breaches with pride rather than humility. The credibility of the Code of Practice and the PCC might rise were proprietors to make clear that editors whose publications repeatedly in breach cannot expect advancement.

  4.20  Even so, they would no doubt still be compensated generously for their service to  journalism, yet innocent victims of media abuse are expected to cover the cost of pursuing a complaint (it can take a lot of time, lost work and effort and stress) and defend their reputation. Where genuine hardship, including the need to relocate even temporarily, results from inaccurate or sensational coverage, a successful complainant should be compensated by the offending publication.

  4.21  The public are aware of the enormous harm that unethical behaviour can do, and is more likely to place its trust in a body that has powers to hit commercial concerns where it hurts most if their agents breach professional or ethical standards. Those editors who breach the industry's Codes of Conduct should be required to compensate their victims, and such "fines" would be a very effective way of reminding editors and proprietors of their responsibilities.

  4.22  Before publishing personal information, editors have a duty of care to be satisfied that they have a strong public interest defence and that the information they intend to publish is accurate. After all they are the first to reach for their lawyers when complaints are made; journalists are instructed never to admit to mistakes over the phone for fear of incurring a later penalty.

  4.23  Breaches of the Code should be dealt with like any other violation of human rights with appropriate sanctions. A graduated system of financial sanctions—say £10,000 for an extreme violation; £5,000 for a serious breach, £1,000 for a significant intrusion. The Regulator could seek to obtain consensus as to which should apply, to avoid the necessity for costly legal action.

  4.24  The newspaper industry is reluctant to give PCC the power to impose fines (whether based on an arbitrary sliding scale, on circulation figures or a tax on advertising revenue) for serious breaches of the Code, yet advertisers expect to be compensated when errors appear in their copy, or print or broadcast publishers fail to honour their obligations under contract.

  4.25  There is no reason why all publications should be expected to contribute equally to a general compensation fund. To avoid the anomaly of responsible publications being required to subsidise the offences of more cavalier editors, the system of "quality bonds" first envisaged by the Broadcasting Act 1990 could be introduced. Editors would avoid having to draw upon this "set-aside" by adhering to the Editors' Code, but at least its existence would demonstrate their commitment, and a willingness to take the medicine if they fell short of their own standards or failed to meet the "public interest" test. This could help to rebuild trust in journalism and the role of the media, by assuring the public that media owners recognise their responsibilities.

(c)  A Media Ombudsman

  4.26  MediaWise has always encouraged publications to appoint their own in-house Readers' Editor, to deal with complaints, act as an internal auditor reviewing the publication's journalism, and publish a well sign-posted Corrections' Column. As The Guardian has demonstrated this system can perform a dual function, providing accountability and enhancing media literacy.

  4.27  MediaWise also believes that there is still room for a variant on the idea promulgated in the (National Heritage) Select Committee's 1993 Report on Privacy and Media Intrusion—the appointment of a Media Ombudsman.

  4.28  This too would bolster public confidence in the accountability of the print and broadcasting industries. A Media Ombudsman could be to act as a back-stop—dealing with appeals by either party over the decisions of the regulator, acting as a bulwark against erosions of press freedom, and initiating public debate about the role and responsibilities of the media.

  4.29  The Media Ombudsman might also play a useful role in ensuring that those entering the media industries are aware of their responsibilities and receive a thorough grounding in media regulation and codes of conduct, whether through vocational training courses or in-service and mid-career training.

  4.30  The Media Ombudsman might also act as a conduit through which the views of "consumers" of mass communications are fed into the media producers, conducting research and encouraging dialogue between producers and consumers, particularly around ethical issues and reviews of Codes of Practice. This could include supplying opportunities for the regulators, editors and journalists to learn about the human damage done by inaccurate or intrusive coverage.

(d)  A privacy law?

  4.31  MediaWise has always taken the view that a privacy law directed specifically against the media is inimical to press freedom, although print and broadcast journalists and executives may find it helpful if there were a precise definition as to what protection the individual can expect from unwarranted intrusion by any public authority or commercial institution.

  4.32  The Human Rights Act, existing laws covering confidentiality, and the powers vested in the Information Commissioner should suffice as a safeguard against unwarranted intrusion. However it has become clear that penalties are not severe enough to dissuade the unscrupulous from abusing personal information.

  4.33  The media industries have indicated their intention to resist any attempt to impose custodial sentences (of up to two years) for misuse of personal information, according to a Department of Constitutional Affairs report (7 Feb 2007) of its 2006 consultation about reform of the Data Protection Act (Increasing penalties for deliberate and wilful misuse of personal data, CP 9/06). It also records that the Information Commissioner got nowhere with his efforts to effect a voluntary understanding with PressBof and the PCC for a strengthening of the Code of Practice.

  4.34  The ostensible reason given for their opposition is the risk that a threat of imprisonment would have a "chilling" effect on investigative journalism. The evidence of the Privacy Commissioner's 2006 reports (cited above) about misuse of personal information by the media highlights the disingenuousness of this line of argument.

  4.35  There may be occasions when the publication of personal information is genuinely justifiable in the public interest—exposing criminal behaviour or protecting public health, safety and security, for example. The opportunity to mount a "public interest defence" must always be available. However commercial exploitation of personal information in whatever form—including blazing headlines—is a gross breach of the citizen's right to privacy. It should be a criminal office whether committed by a public authority, a private company or an individual.

  4.36  It is both sad and strange that an industry which prides itself on protecting the  individual from oppressive behaviour by others should set such store by going through people's rubbish bins, buying illegally obtained data, and hanging out anybody's dirty washing if it will sell more papers. Worse still is that having exploited a market for salacious and intrusive stories and pictures, media executives then "blame" the public appetite for gossip as if that in someway justifies unethical behaviour by the media. As more people begin to rely on the Internet, and broadcasting for news, the agenda of newspapers and human interest magazines now extends to anything which might prove financially beneficial to the publisher.

  4.37  The right to freedom of expression ends when it begins to intrude upon another's human and civil rights. That is also where a person's privacy could be said to end. Just because a private life might excite prurient interest does not make it automatically newsworthy. All citizens, including celebrities and public figures, are entitled to a private life free from intrusion—unless they specifically invite media attention to their private life or can be shown to be engaged in corruption, law- breaking, abuse of power, or significant hypocrisy, or if their behaviour might be considered a risk in some way to the health and safety of others.

  4.38  Abuse of power by the media is equally as intolerable as abuse by agencies of the state. Some sections of the media appropriate people's lives as if they were merely bit part players in a soap opera. They operate on the assumption that "dishing the dirt" to strangers is acceptable behaviour if "the price is right". This pecuniary attitude may be distasteful, but it does not justify introducing a restrictive privacy law directed specifically at the press. That would be a retrograde step especially since, as we have seen, a raft of other remedies are available, and the impact of the proposed tougher penalties for abuses of the Data Protection Act have yet to be tested.

(e)  A "Third Way"?

  4.39  Rather than tinkering with current systems of media regulation, perhaps the answer would be to create a Human Rights Commission (HRC) able to offer guidance or assistance to members of the public with complaints about the media, and with the power to initiate legal challenges where important issues of principle are at stake.

  4.40  Like Ofcom, it could develop systems of co-regulation in which individual or corporate complainants can call upon the HRC to intervene if all else fails. The "first line" of complaint should, as now, be to the editor of a print or broadcast publication, although not obligatory. The second, obligatory, line should be to Ofcom or the PCC for arbitration. The HRC could then perform the function of the Media Ombudsman (as outlined above) should either party believe that justice has not been done. Its rulings would then firmly establish "case law" as a guide to the balance that needs to exist between the power of the mass media and the rights of the citizen.

February 2007





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 11 July 2007