Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2007
MEDIAWISE
TRUST AND
NATIONAL UNION
OF JOURNALISTS
Chairman: Good morning, everybody. This
is a special one-off session of the Culture, Media and Sport Select
Committee, to examine the self-regulation of the Press and the
efficacy of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
We have decided to hold this session in the light of a number
of incidents which have occurred in the last few months which
have raised question marks over the extent to which the PCC Code
is being kept to by the Press. We have a number of witnesses and
we need to get through relatively swiftly, so could I ask all
witnesses to keep their answers as brief as possible. In our first
session, we have the Director of the MediaWise Trust, Mike Jempson,
Professor Chris Frost, the Chair of the Ethics Council, and Jeremy
Dear, the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists.
I will invite Nigel Evans to begin.
Q1 Mr Evans: Thank you, Chairman.
MediaWise Trust states that "there is a rich seam of excellent
journalism in Britain's newspapers and magazines, but there is
also a faultline of tawdry and slipshod journalism driven by competitive
pressures." Is that where we are, that we are seeing this
once great institution descending into the murky waters? Or is
it that generally standards are very high but with just a few
exceptions?
Professor Jempson: No. I think
the feet have always been dabbling in the gutter, because that
sells papers. You are always going to get that cross-section which
we have tried to describe there. I am saying that you don't throw
the baby out with the bathwater but it would be nice if they cleaned
up their act occasionally. One of the difficulties, of course,
is that it is all about making money and so people will do what
is necessary, especially if the conditions for journalists are
such that they are fighting, like the newspapers are, competing
with each other for jobs and reputation.
Q2 Mr Evans: Are some newspapers
worse than other?
Professor Jempson: Some are bound
to be worse than others, yes.
Q3 Mr Evans: Do any come to mind?
Professor Jempson: Whatever you
say you are going to get shot but—
Q4 Mr Evans: So go on then!
Professor Jempson:—on occasions,
the News of the World scrapes the bottom of the barrel,
but then you also get other newspapers indulging in practices
which we are somewhat suspicious of. In the last couple of weeks,
for instance, we have been approached by a number of complainants.
One of them was somebody just out of prison, who had been approached
by a newspaper—I am not going to name it for the minute—offering
to buy his story. As we know, there is an inquiry about whether
or not this should be made a criminal act. When the matter of
money was raised, they said, "It would be a bit off for us
to pay you direct but we could pay you into an offshore account
or pay you through a friend." It is quite clear what the
rules are about this, but this was a respectable newspaper. Another
client we were dealing with was dealing with a terrible tragedy
in a family and was persuaded by a number of separate journalists
to give information which was very private—and persuaded
to do this for money. Once having done it for money, they were
persuaded that the only way to protect themselves was to sell
the story again, which of course made them very vulnerable, and
then, once there was interest in the story, you had a journalist
insisting that they sign up as an exclusive deal with a journalist
as an agent. These sorts of things when people are in extremely
vulnerable positions do not strike me as sticking to the spirit
and the word of the Code.
Q5 Mr Evans: Chris or Jeremy, would
you like to comment on that?
Professor Frost: Certainly some
newspapers are worse than others, without a doubt. We need to
remember that all newspapers are businesses. Part of that business
is journalism. Some newspapers carry out their journalism better
than others, but they are there to sell, to entertain and to attract
audiences, and that inevitably is going to lead to problems on
occasions. That is why we need a code of ethics and some kind
of regulatory mechanism. If they were not those kinds of businesses,
we would not need that.
Mr Dear: Also, we put forward
the idea that individual journalists should have an individual
right to refuse assignments that breach PCC codes because there
are these pressures on individual journalists because of the commercial
interests of the papers and companies for which they work. That
individual right for the journalist is an added bonus to that
ethical code of practice.
Q6 Mr Evans: The sort of antics that
we see happening which you have mentioned, Mike, does it only
happen in the United Kingdom or is this a world phenomenon? Clearly
the media in a lot of countries, including the United States,
are very competitive but the reputation in the United States does
not seem to be the same. People talk about the paparazzi and antics
of journalists here in a different vein. Is it a British phenomenon?
Professor Jempson: I do a lot
of training all over the world and people are really shocked at
what they learn about the British media. Everybody looks up to
British journalism but they are also horrified by some of the
ways in which stories are covered in the newspapers here. The
phenomenon is beginning to appear, particularly, for instance,
in Eastern European countries, where western commercial publishers
are beginning to move in. The yellow Press is really spreading
there and you are getting similar sorts of stories. But I do not
think anything quite as—my words—"sophisticated
and debased" as some of the things we have seen happen in
the papers here. The problem is that journalists have always been
curiously inquisitive folk and their managers, being desperately
keen to make money for their employers, are always going to push
the envelope and very often it is going to break. For me, it is
not about demanding that everybody act as angels but first of
all recognising the human consequences of some of these stories,
which can be appalling, and also being willing to admit that mistakes
have been made. If we look at the Goodman case, you had to wait
until somebody was jailed before people held their hands up and
said, "This was out of order."
Professor Frost: I think it would
be wrong to assume the UK is particularly worse than anywhere
else, but the approach is different. We have a very different
newspaper industry in this country, say, from America, where there
is not the range of national papers all chasing the same level
of market. We are more applicable to some other countries, such
as Australia, for instance, where they often do have fairly similar
problems. Mike is right about Eastern Europe, but, again, if you
look at the Eastern Europe newspapers, the kind of ethical problems
they are having there are just as bad from our perspective but
different and the expectations of their publics are different.
Where you are selling a product, part of which includes journalism,
you are always going to get these kinds of problems. The only
way to prevent it is not to make a commercial product, but clearly
that is not an option here—and quite right, as many would
say.
Mr Dear: You also have in the
US a better and more robust Freedom of Information Act, which
allows investigative journalism to happen in different ways sometimes
than it does in the UK. But clearly we are also concerned about
proposals from other quarters to restrict the Freedom of Information
Act here by increasing charges or by aggregating the demands from
individual news organisations. You also have in some other places
stronger public interest defences and therefore we may be seeing
less in terms of numbers of complaints but not that much difference
in terms of journalism.
Q7 Chairman: It was suggested that
Clive Goodman was a senior reporter who had previously achieved
some very good stories but was now struggling to do so. There
were young Turks snapping at his heels and therefore the pressure
was on for him to get exclusives and that as a result, perhaps,
he went beyond the terms of the Code and, indeed, the terms of
the law. Does that sound familiar to you? Is that something which
your members might commonly experience?
Mr Dear: Certainly we receive
complaints from lots of members who are put under pressure to
breach PCC and NUJ codes of practice and codes of ethics in pursuit
of a story.
Q8 Chairman: Put under pressure by
their editors?
Mr Dear: Yes.
Q9 Chairman: In breach of the Code?
Mr Dear: Absolutely. In an intensely
competitive newspaper industry, in which single photographs can
be sold for £250,000, when that is the case you are going
to get a photographer who thinks: "This time I'm going to
breach the Code because this may well be my making." You
are also going to get that in terms of journalists investigating
stories. I think that is at the heart of it. It is not, as I think
the PCC's own evidence to your Committee suggests, that these
are individual mistakes. I am sorry, I do not accept that they
are individual mistakes; they are the result of pressure applied
on journalists to deliver more and more exclusive stories in order
to boost circulation levels.
Q10 Chairman: You are telling us
that the editors who have the job of enforcing the PCC Code are
saying to their journalists, "We'll turn a blind eye if you
can produce good stories."
Mr Dear: Some of them certainly
are.
Professor Frost: There is also
a culture of expectation amongst journalists, of trying to pursue
stories where, because there is no specific direction to say "We
will not do these kinds of things," the temptation is to
do them, because they feel they are obliged to provide the stories
that their editors want. That is the reason why we want this conscience
clause, so that journalists feel much more prepared to say, "I'm
not doing that. That is not acceptable," and we can move
the debate on a stage. We do not anticipate that there will be
a large number of people somehow going to law or going to the
PCC saying that they have been instructed to do something that
breached the Code of Practice but it would give journalists the
courage, if you like, to be able to say to their office that they
do not feel that is the right way to behave, without fear of being
dismissed or of damaging their career potential.
Professor Jempson: The other point
about the Goodman case is that this was not something which just
happened recently. Mulcaire had been supplying information on
a contract to the News of the World since 1997. The methodology
for collecting information which may or may not be useful for
a story has been used for a long time. We know that a contract
signed by Stuart Kuttner of the News of the World was found
as part of this investigation just for one year's dealings—but
he had been doing it since 1997. That indicates that this is not
something that has suddenly come out of a bit of a mid-life crisis
in one journalist's career.
Q11 Paul Farrelly: I am possibly
the only member of the panel here who has been an investigative
journalist in my time. I think the Goodman case is just a sideshow
really because he was doing stuff that was just about gossip and
nonsense. When Government routinely taps, sometimes legally, journalists
pursuing serious stories, when is it justified to use the same
tactics back?
Professor Frost: We are talking
about the public interest and the level at which we are providing
stories which the public needs to know about. On occasion that
might be true. The line we take as the NUJ and as the Ethics Council
is that journalists should only use unstraightforward means of
that sort if it is the only way of getting the story. There may
be occasions when that is the only way.
Q12 Paul Farrelly: Even if it is
illegal?
Professor Frost: Then it becomes
much more difficult. If it is illegal, we would certainly advise
them not to do it.
Q13 Paul Farrelly: Have you ever
been an investigative journalist, Professor Frost?
Professor Frost: Not at that level,
no. I am not saying that people do not do it and should not, but
we would advise against it.
Q14 Philip Davies: It seems from
what you have all said that you think self-regulation is a busted
flush, in that there needs to be some kind of statutory control,
whether it is an Ombudsman or some kind of privacy law. Do you
think there are any dangers in going down that line, that people,
perhaps some unscrupulous people, might be protected by that kind
of regime?
Mr Dear: I certainly do not think
that self-regulation as a concept is a busted flush. Self-regulation,
as it is currently operated, is failing journalism. Public distrust
of journalism shows that is the case. Someone who is prepared
to pay £1,000 for information is not going to be put off
by a speech made by Sir Christopher Meyer—no matter how
great that speech is—admonishing them for doing it. There
has to be a system of penalties and greater adjudication and greater
guidance that goes alongside the self-regulation—and it
is 15 years now that the PCC has been in charge of self-regulation—rather
than just the kind of warm words that we hear every time there
is the kind of scandal you are talking about. We think very much
that there needs to be a system of penalties that penalises those
who breach these codes—which they all voluntarily sign up
to and, yet, when there is a significant commercial interest to
them, whether that is adding to circulation or adding to profit
levels of their companies, they are prepared to breach.
Professor Jempson: It is also
true and worth pointing out that, during the history of the PCC,
each time there has been a crisis, apart from the early days,
there have been quite significant changes and it is now a much
more comprehensive organisation. Its website is a much healthier
and more helpful document, they have become more aware of the
way in which they need to relate to their public, but at the same
time it is quite clear that for that part, if you like, of the
public relations role of self-regulation, it is the only real
industry in which they expect to be judge and jury. They are always
coming up with arguments against penalties, for instance, or compensation,
because they say it might get the lawyers involved, but in fact
just getting a rap on the knuckles does not really make any difference
to anybody, especially if you can bury a complaint or a correction
deep in the newspaper and get away with it. It is really a toughening
up of both the way in which adjudications or investigations are
embarked upon and the sorts of sanctions that can be imposed.
But I think the other point we need to be thinking about right
now is this business of the fact that all the media are merging.
Newspapers are now running TV stations on their websites and you
can get audio podcasts or whatever off the websites of newspapers.
You have the PCC gaily saying, "We're now going to be adjudicating
and regulating those items" whereas in fact broadcast items
are supposed to be caught by a completely different system of
regulation which is a statutory system. Where does that leave
the journalists? By which code of conduct are they now supposed
to be operating when they are carrying a webcam, for instance,
for a newspaper?
Q15 Philip Davies: Some members of
the public think that newspapers give a big splash on a false
story and then bury a correction on page 35, underneath the classified
adverts. Is that a fair criticism, that public perception?
Professor Frost: The PCC's figure
suggests that apologies and corrections are run further up but
I think the perception is there because there is some evidence
to support it. The difficulty is around issues of privacy. The
Committee is very concerned—and quite rightly—about
privacy. The way self-regulation is working at the moment means
that privacy is not handled extremely well. The number of complaints
that are sent into the PCC has remained consistent as a percentage
overall for its 15 years of existence and yet the number of complaints
on privacy on which the PCC adjudicates is tiny. I also wonder
how many of us, if our privacy were to be invaded, would choose
to go to the PCC, when the only penalty—the only penalty—they
are able to give is to publish an adjudication in the paper which
merely reminds everybody that it has happened. Even if your name
is anonymised, clearly the only penalty is to remind people of
this breach of your privacy. There has to be another way to deal
with that. I think it is possible to do that through self-regulation
but it is not in the present system.
Q16 Philip Davies: We are having
a picture painted here of the holier than thou journalists who
are being bullied into submission by these horrible, unscrupulous
editors, and that if these horrible editors were not about we
would just have nice stories, fluffy stories about knitting and
all the rest of it. Would you not say that the people who are
chiefly to blame for what is going on in the papers are your members?
Because your members are the ones trotting out all of these stories.
Professor Frost: Certainly a lot
of our members write those stories. We would also claim there
are some journalists who are not our members—and it would
be nice to think they are the ones who are trotting out this kind
of story, but I am not really that naïve. I am saying that
by having the conscience clause we are able to shift the balance
a little bit, we are able to move the debate a bit more, we are
able to talk to our members about what would be appropriate and
what is not without them feeling scared of losing their jobs.
Certainly some will continue to produce those kinds of stories
because there is money in it. Just as newspapers make money out
of those stories, yes, so do some of our members. We have to understand
that. That is why we need a self-regulatory system. If all our
members were perfect and all editors were perfect there would
be no need for the PCC, because nothing would ever go wrong. We
need a self-regulatory system and we have to look at one which
deals properly with invasions to people's privacy. It is no good
just having a PCC that really just insists that editors print
corrections of small, factual errors. Frankly, that is all we
have at the moment.
Q17 Philip Davies: In your submission
you made a differential between what was in the public interest
and what would interest the public. Do you not think the Code
of Practice in its present form already makes that distinction?
Do you blame the general public, who on the one hand complain
about the invasion of people's privacy but on the other hand rush
out to buy the paper that has just invaded people's privacy?
Professor Frost: I think the Code
of Practice of the PCC, by and large, is pretty good. I have made
reference to the one exception to that. Its public interest defence
is also a reasonably sound one. Defining the public interest is
quite difficult and the way the PCC does it is as good as any
other. It would be foolish to blame the public for wanting to
read the kinds of things that the public want to read. I am not
even suggesting that we should not provide that on occasions,
but if it means invading someone's privacy, damaging their personal
right to privacy in a way that is unacceptable, then we should
not be doing that and the PCC should be making it easier for the
media to understand where that divide comes. That means they need
to adjudicate much more often than they do. There were 22 cases
adjudicated last year and only five of them were upheld. Admittedly
they print the resolutions, but it is quite difficult for the
Press to get the lessons that come from these adjudications if
there are only five of them. We need more guidance, we need to
make it clear where that divide is, and there need to be appropriate
penalties.
Mr Dear: It is not that there
should not be the kinds of stories you refer to; it is about the
methods for getting those stories. If the methods that are used
are outside the standards normally expected then there has to
be an overriding public interest, and in our paper we define that
public interest. It is the kind of information that allows citizens
to make decisions about political issues, about the exercise of
power and so on. It is more about the methods than about what
the stories are.
Professor Jempson: The problem
is that when the methods are raised by complainants the PCC almost
always refuses to deal with that. They look to the editors on
their panel for advice. They almost always take their side over
and against an ordinary member of the public who is saying, "The
way they got the story was unpleasant. They did this and they
did that." The PCC's line always tends to be, "It's
your word against a reputable journalist" and they will go
with the journalist, thank you very much, and yet it is the methodology
that is often the problem.
Q18 Paul Farrelly: Sadly, in my life,
I have always worked for organisations which would not (Reuters)
or could not (The Independent or The Observer) pay
to get stories. But if you asked me who I would trust to bag a
criminal on the Costa del Crime with a bag of cash, a Sun
reporter or someone from The Sunday Times, like David Leppard,
or a team from the Met Police, I would back the reporter any time.
Sometimes you have to pay a criminal to catch a criminal. The
police do it all the time. If that happened, Professor Frost,
on your Ethics Council, and Mr Big from Costa Del Crime came and
said, "This is really unethical. You've paid a small-time
crook to finger me," how would you adjudicate that?
Professor Frost: Quite clearly
I am going to say I would need to see the case itself and go through
the evidence. We are talking about extremely difficult areas,
where the public interest has to be measured against the invasion
of someone's privacy and their human right to privacy and the
newspaper/reporter's right to freedom of expression. The balance
then has to be made, looking at both the methods of doing that
and the final result. It may be that the final result is so much
in the public interest that the method used—
Q19 Paul Farrelly: That the end justifies
the means.
Professor Frost: It may well do
and I would not want to rule that out. That is why it is important
that the PCC should adjudicate more, to give us more guidance
on where that divide actually falls. We simply do not get that
at the moment because a lot of cases do not come to the PCC, particularly
in relation to privacy. The other thing to remember about the
PCC is they are very limited in the number of third-party complaints
that they make. If, for instance, you want to complain about Jerry
Springer the Opera appearing on BBC Two, people wrote to the
BBC in their droves—56,000 springs to memory. If you want
to complain about the way the News of the World use their
false sheikh, for instance, in stories, then you cannot complain
to the PCC. They will not accept it. It is a third-party complaint.
Again, that limits complaints. We have not mentioned that in here
but it is something the Committee should remember, that it is
quite difficult for members of the public to complain about the
way newspapers behave unless they are involved as the subject
of the story.
| 
