Memorandum submitted by the Society of
Editors
The Society of Editors has more than 400 members
in national, regional and local newspapers, magazines, broadcasting
and new media, journalism education and media law.
We have members in all sectors of the media
and we are independent of all other media companies or organisations.
We do not have formal relationships with Pressbof, the Press Complaints
Commission or the Editors' Code Committee, although we support
their existence and work, and our members are members of those
organisations as individuals.
The society produces a pocket-sized version
of the Newspaper and Magazine Industry's Code of Practice in order
that every journalist can carry a copy with them rather than merely
keep them on file in their offices. Examples of this are included
for Committee members.
I will address the Committee's questions in
order.
1. Whether self-regulation by the press continues
to offer sufficient protection against unwarranted invasions of
privacy.
It is a voluntary system rather than a self-regulatory
system in that it has enhanced lay membership and independent
and transparent appointment and review procedures.
It is important that the Code of Practice is
written by editors and that editors sit on the PCC. They provide
invaluable insights into day to day media operations that are
of immense value to lay commissioners. Editors are often the greatest
critics of their peers, but their membership creates credibility
for the code, the organisation and the process among other editors.
The strength of the code and indeed the system of which it is
a part is that editors voluntarily sign up to its provisions.
They are more likely to live up to that code and system than one
that is forced upon them. Why join the club if you do not intend
to live by its rules? We have laws against speeding but it does
not stop it, it merely attempts to deal with the consequences.
While privacy issues make up only a minority
of complaints to newspapers the code is clear and forceful and
has been substantially strengthened over the years. The PCC has
been robust in this area.
Regulation should be about providing protection
and redress for ordinary people rather than the celebrities of
various kinds who figure in a small number of cases that have
a disproportionate influence that fuels the debate about privacy.
Generally, the media has little interest in intruding into the
privacy of ordinary people unless they come to attention for reasons
that lead to legitimate investigations in the public interest.
There is no reason to suggest that the system
is failing. It also supplements, and in some regards, goes further
than a range of existing legal protections such as the laws of
confidence and libel, the Data Protection and the Protection from
Harassment Acts.
The PCC has a pro-active role in helping to
prevent harrassment by the media, and has been able to help both
the public and the media in this regard during the course of major
and minor events.
2. If the public and Parliament are to continue
to rely upon self-regulation, whether the Press Complaints Commission
Code of Practice needs to be amended.
It is not the PCC's Code of Practice. It is
the industry's code, drawn up by editors acting independently
on behalf of their colleagues to produce, review and amend it
to the satisfaction of the whole industry and the PCC itself.
The PCC then uses the code as a basis for considering complaints.
We believe this is an important distinction. It gives ownership
and responsibility to editors to implement the code and uphold
the system.
The code is under continuous review and suggestions
for changes are debated widely before members of the Code Committee
make final judgements on the need for any amendments.
The society encourages and engages in that debate
but would not seek to usurp the important role of committee members
acting individually with a wealth of experience, a wide range
of backgrounds and their knowledge and understanding of their
readers.
Clauses on privacy have been strengthened over
time and we are confident that if a clear need for further change
is identified the Code Committee will act appropriately.
3. Whether existing law on unauthorised disclosure
of personal information should be strengthened.
Existing law is already powerful and we have
not seen any persuasive case for change. We have responded with
other industry bodies to consultation on the Department of Constitutional
Affairs proposals to increase sentences under the Data Protection
Act and to the Information Commissioner. I understand the Committee
has already received copies of this.
While the Information Commissioner says that
300 journalists have been involved in illegal exchanges of personal
information, as far as we are aware, no journalists have been
prosecuted and his investigations did not include consideration
of whether the journalistic inquiries were legitimate and could
be justified by the public interest. Simply having dealings with
inquiry agencies need not constitute an offence and may indeed
be perfectly lawful and legitimate. The 300 total is an extremely
small proportion of the number of journalists active in the UK.
Furthermore, cases that have been before the
courts have not attracted existing maximum sentences and the majority
of offences have been dealt with in lower courts. That does not
suggest that the courts believe they are lacking adequate sanctions.
On the other hand the possibility of prison
sentences could have a dramatic limiting affect on legitimate
journalistic investigation. That in itself would not be in the
public interest.
The Society and other industry organisations
are keen to work with the Information Commissioner in publishing
data protection rules and principles. So far this offer has not
been taken up.
4. What form of regulation, if any, should
apply to online news provision by newspapers and others.
The PCC's remit has already been extended in
this regard. Government and indeed society should be reluctant
to regulate any part of the media. Where a need is proven, this
industry's voluntary system should be a model.
CONCLUSION
When Clive Goodman of the News of the World
was imprisoned, the society commented through its president Paul
Horrocks of the Manchester Evening News.
He said: "Editors and the whole of the
media have taken this very seriously. We condemn this offence
and it is not representative of the media. We do not believe that
it is a widespread practice and the rules were tightened considerably
in 2004 when the law and the Editors' Code of Practice were strengthened.
"Editors do not condone law breaking and
they have responsibility for upholding the Code of Practice that
is clear and strict on these issues. Journalists will always try
to get as close to the law as possible, but there is a line you
cannot cross. The public should remember that one bad apple does
not mean the whole barrel is rotten.
"The problem with privacy issues is that
politicians can easily whip up a storm among the public, but the
public should be concerned about how the Government is making
our private information available to all its agencies, how the
Government is trying to water down the Freedom of Information
Act and how the courts are trying to bring in draconian privacy
laws by the back door.
"Everyone has a right to privacy and the
media is not interested in invading the privacy of ordinary people.
There are occasions, however, when the media can justify using
unconventional methods and subterfuge in order to expose wrongdoing
in the public interest. That is recognised by the Code of Practice
and by the law.
"The problem is that cases of this kind
can have a chilling effect on serious investigative journalism
that makes the media reluctant to reveal wrongdoing, hypocrisy
or activities that threaten public health and safety. Threats
to media freedom are also threats to everyone's freedom of expression."
In the UK there is no constitutional protection
for the freedom of the press to compare with the USA's First Amendment.
However, it should be recognised that editors voluntarily accept
the code and the PCC that inevitably intrude into the freedom
of the press and the wider human right to freedom of expression
in ways that would not be acceptable in the USA, for example.
It is rare for the limited protection for freedom of expression
offered by the Human Rights Act to be properly balanced in this
regard by the courts.
Against that background, editors have a range
of individual views about the code and the PCC. Some believe the
system is already too restrictive. Others advocate further development.
Nevertheless, the system has the respect of editors who take the
code and the work of the PCC very seriously. There is certainly
no complacency.
Those who sit in judgment over newspapers, the
PCC and the media should take care not to allow personal views
about the content of some parts of the media to colour their judgement.
Passing comment on or attempting to restrict some kinds of journalistic
endeavour can have unavoidable consequences for journalistic activity
that no one should question.
We urge the Committee to recognise the importance
of a free media in a democratic society and the industry's positive
achievements. In particular, there is a need to support publicly
the work of the Code Committee and the PCC. Inappropriate new
legislation or the misuse of existing law can undermine both the
media's role in informing the public and its efforts to set and
maintain journalistic standards.
February 2007
| 
