Annex 1
Letter from Paul Horrocks
I have been editor of the Manchester Evening
News for almost 10 years. I was a member of the Press Complaints
Commission for four years. I am currently president of the Society
of Editors.
I cannot stress enough how seriously this newspaper
views self-regulation and the work of the PCC.
All journalists are issued with a wallet-sized
copy of the code to carry with them at all times—and are
constantly reminded to adhere to it by senior editorial staff.
The code determines how we operate, and it is
referred to by us on a day-to-day basis as stories are prepared.
Any alerts from the PCC about changes to the
code, or details of significant adjudications, are loaded into
our electronic legal check file which is read by all staff. All
staff then get a personal e-mail alerting them that something
new has been added to the file, and the e-mail contains a link
taking them straight to the new information.
If, when preparing a story, a "grey area"
emerges, a journalist of at least assistant editor level contacts
the PCC before publication to discuss the issue with an officer,
and seek guidance on how to proceed.
If we feel that the need is so great that public
interest exceptions to the code need to be invoked, that decision
is taken by me as the Editor alone—and only in exceptional
circumstances.
On any occasion that a reader complains to the
PCC about what we have published, we treat any approach from the
PCC very seriously.
The PCC usually invites us to contact the complainant
within seven days—here we would contact them that day to
see if the issue can be resolved.
My position is that if it becomes evident we
have got an inaccuracy—or inadvertently broken the code—we
will print a correction or apology immediately and prominently.
We do not publish corrections on P68 under the
greyhound results—we print them on a page earlier in the
paper than the offending article had appeared, and usually on
page two.
Most complaints from readers have been speedily
resolved in this way—through a published correction, a letter
to Postbag giving their viewpoint or sometimes a follow-up article
sympathetic to their position.
On the very few occasions when we have not been
able to resolve the issue in this way, we have reluctantly had
to let the matter go to full adjudication by the PCC, accepting
that if the adjudication went against us we would have to publish
that prominently.
We have decided against publishing the adjudications
in our favour out of consideration for the complainants.
Self-regulation is clearly working because it
is voluntary, and because editors such as myself appreciate the
ethical and moral need to follow the code.
I see no need for a change in either the code
or the law. Both are crystal clear and any infringement either
results in a PCC adjudication, which no editor likes, or a criminal
conviction, which can and does lead to terms of imprisonment (Clive
Goodman).
In my four years as a PCC commissioner, I can
only recall one complaint under the heading of privacy involving
the publication of private e-mails, and that resulted in an adjudication
in favour of the complainant. This does not suggest to me that
interception of private texts or telephone messages is a widespread
issue.
Incidentally, in the MEN legal check file, there
is a strong warning to all staff about phone-tapping (see attached
note).[10]
February 2007
10 Not printed. Back
| 
