Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
TUESDAY 6 MARCH 2007
MR LES
HINTON, MR
ARTHUR EDWARDS
MBE, MR PAUL
HORROCKS AND
MR BOB
SATCHWELL
Q60 Philip Davies: It is in 10 Downing
Street!
Mr Horrocks: For us, it would
be winning a campaign that has been initiated by the concerns
of our readers, when we went up against maybe authority or government
to say, "This is wrong" and we would win that campaign.
That would be a strong and compelling story for us.
Q61 Paul Farrelly: Can I throw a
question at Les, who wears so many hats that his wardrobe must
be full of them! Recently, in the Sunday Times, three of
the finest investigative journalists that I have worked with—Mike
Gillard, Jonathan Calvert and David Connett—teamed up to
write the story about the Adams family finally being brought to
book. If Mr Adams came to you and said, "These people got
me bang to rights. They hacked into my text messages"; then
maybe you had Prince Charles coming to you saying, "Clive
Goodman has hacked into my text messages"; and you said,
"Actually, Mr Adams, you're a crook"; but Clive Goodman
says to you, "Mohamed El Fayed says that Prince Charles is
a crook, and I'm trying to back up a story that actually he murdered
Princess Di", who would you find in favour of?
Mr Hinton: That is the whole point
of the debate we are having now, when it is proper or not proper
to go over the line in enquiring into stories. Usually, when you
begin making an investigation—if one of our reporters was
told, for instance, by a colleague of Mr Whittingdale that he
had been receiving daily millions of pounds from the Republic
of Congo, and we listened to his plausible story and decided that
we were only going to be able to find out by getting access to
his bank account through subterfuge—and we did so, and it
turned out to be true—we are fine. But if it turned out
that this chap had an incredible vendetta against Mr Whittingdale
and we were tumbled, trying to find out, would that person be
subject, as Mr Thomas would like him to be, to being imprisoned?
If Andy Coulson, when he was Editor of the News of the World,
had called up the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and said, "I
have to tell you, Mr Blair, that one of my reporters was accessing
a phone message, a voicemail, and we have reason to believe that,
two days from now, bombs will go off on the London Underground",
I doubt that Mr Blair's first words would have been, "Mr
Coulson, you're under arrest". We operate in this area all
the time. It is not to say that we do not make mistakes or that
we will continue to, but placing too great an inhibition on people
who are setting out to explore what they consider to be genuine
issues of public concern is a dangerous thing to do. Mr Thomas
himself has just said in his evidence to you that journalists,
in so far as he knows, who are breaching the use of these tracing
agencies are a very small minority. I think that is the most telling
part of his testimony, if I might say.
Q62 Chairman: You would presumably
accept that in the example Mr Thomas gave, which was the mother
of the man once linked romantically to a Big Brother contestant,
it is difficult to see a public interest in invading her privacy.
Mr Hinton: I cannot imagine it.
Q63 Mr Evans: Public perception out
there seems to think that a lot of journalism is squalid; that
they are ferreting around in areas of so-called mini-celebrities'
lives where perhaps they ought to be left alone. Do you think
that a lot of it is perhaps the fault of celebrities themselves;
that in fact there is collusion out there and members of the public
have not the faintest idea that that goes on?
Mr Edwards: I think that mini-celebrities
probably want publicity. They are probably getting people ringing
you up and telling you these things, so that they can get publicity
and they become major celebrities. I think that is a lot of it.
When celebrities appear in newspapers, I just think that most
of it is brought on themselves. They have courted the press getting
there and, by and large, I think they enjoy it. It helps them.
I think that it helps them to sell their films and their records.
Mr Hinton: It is true as a broad
rule, I think—and, again, this is not to say there is not
excess by certain members of the press at certain times—that
the people who depend upon a public profile are inclined to change
the rules. When they want the public profile, they will very cleverly
court it; sometimes more subtly than lay people may appreciate.
When that publicity and that spotlight which they have invited
suddenly discover things that they find less agreeable, then of
course they cry foul. Again, it is tricky, but you have to remember
that people who make the currency of their livelihood as a public
profile have to be ready sometimes to accept publicity they do
not particularly want.
Q64 Mr Evans: Would you include Chris
Tarrant in what you have just said? The Chris Tarrant divorce?
Mr Hinton: I do not know. It would
depend upon the case. I cannot remember the details.
Q65 Mr Evans: We have been written
to by the manager here. What he is saying is that clearly Chris
Tarrant likes a lot of publicity but then, when something in his
private life goes a bit "squiff", they are not really
keen. Looking at the submission put in by his manager about the
way that his wife at that stage and the child were followed, time
and time again, by the media, there is one bit here which says,
"This meant that they were forced to conduct their daily
lives behind closed curtains, the press pointing cameras and specialised
microphones at the house, which is close to the public highway.
Furthermore, when Ingrid was obliged to go out to the shops or
to take Toby to school, she was subjected to an onslaught of flashlights
before being pursued in her car. On a number of occasions, in
trying to get away from the pursuers, perilous situations occurred,
where she and those with her in the car were put in danger. I
understand that there was one occasion where the car actually
left the road and damage was done to its suspension".
Mr Hinton: That is all new to
me but I have to say that, on the face of what you have just said,
if it were all as described, Mr Tarrant would have had a very
good cause for making contact with the PCC to claim some action
be taken.
Q66 Mr Evans: Which is what he did
in this case. Are these freelancers that are doing this then?
Who is doing this?
Mr Hinton: I do not know in that
particular case. We can talk about other cases. I am a little
more familiar with the Kate Middleton case, which I know is one
that you have specified. It is very difficult, again. To treat
and harass someone in the way that that happened would seem to
me to be excessive. The PCC—and in their testimony they
will tell you later on, I know because I have seen their submission—act
frequently and very effectively when things get out of hand. In
the case of the Kate Middleton episode of a few weeks ago, when
things were clearly getting out of hand, I would guess that the
vast majority of those people outside were in fact not acting
upon assignment from big media. That did not matter; we were all
part of it. That stopped, because it was clearly wrong. However,
it is very difficult to make rules about what is the proper size
of the assembly of the press at a particular event or on a particular
occasion. It is very hard to do that.
Mr Horrocks: In general terms,
harassment is not acceptable. We have a policy at my newspaper
that, if people do not want us to be present, if we have knocked
on the door once and they say, "Go away", we go away.
All my staff are aware of that. In terms of celebrity images,
I will give you a recent example where we were supplied with an
agency photo of a celebrity footballer, out with his girlfriend,
shopping in Manchester, inside a department store. The photo had
been photographed through the window. We considered using that
photograph. We tried to contact that person's agent to see whether
they would give permission. They would not. We did not use the
photograph. On a different issue, we took photographs recently
of people on their mobile phones in their cars because, such is
the public interest in that. We did consider whether or not people
did have an expectation of privacy when they were at the wheel
of their car. We determined that, as they could be seen from the
road, they did not and that the public interest motivation in
exposing wrongdoing by driving whilst phoning justified, potentially,
a breach of their privacy. Those are the sorts of discussions
that go on, day in and day out, in newspapers—not so much
the Chris Tarrant issue.
Mr Satchwell: But you do not mention
what happened after the Tarrant family contacted the PCC. There
is all of that evidence, which I am sure that the PCC can talk
about in terms of their proactive work. Look at some of the biggest
stories that have happened over the years: Dunblane, Soham—huge
great cases—where the world's media were there. Then somebody
gets together and says, "Look, we need some peace. Can the
media leave us alone?" and the media just withdraws. The
PCC plays a big part in that. Bear in mind, with the media scrum
argument, a lot of the size of the scrum is down to the fact that
TV has to have cameras, sound people and so on, so they make up
the numbers; but the PCC is the first point of call. The PCC will
go to the broadcasters and say, "Look, we have been asked
to leave these people alone". I do not know of any instances
where, after that request has gone in, there has been a continued
problem.
Q67 Mr Evans: How much of this do
you think has come out after the death of Diana? You talk about
a media scrum and everybody being interested. A lot of people
out there, whenever they saw her—and, Arthur, you are probably
one of the Royals' favourites here—the public perception
was that they were harassing her, persecuting her wherever she
went.
Mr Edwards: We are talking about
Diana?
Q68 Mr Evans: Diana in this case.
Do you think that a lot of change has happened since because of
that?
Mr Edwards: I think they pursued
Diana towards the end. In 1997 when she was going to the gym and
everything, I did think that was outrageous, yes. I think that
was uncalled for. Princess Di used to wear the same shirt every
day, so that perhaps it would deter photographers from taking
that same picture; but it did not. They just kept going and going
and going. It was a feeding frenzy on it. After her death, where
photographers pursuing the car had something to do with it—and
I believe that—I certainly looked at what I did every day
and how I approached photographing the Royals. In the early 1980s,
when Kelvin was the Editor of The Sun, the Royals were
open season; it is no secret. I used to go to do private things,
private holidays. I do not do that any more. It is all finished;
it has changed. The whole idea of covering the Royal family, for
me, is very different now. The recent thing with Kate Middleton,
when I saw the video footage outside her house on her birthday,
I felt really sorry for that girl. I just did not want anything
to do with that. When I saw the pictures the next day of the girl
with a camera right up to her face, I was horrified—because
I knew that girl and she is a very good photographer, works for
Associated Press and, for a long while, she covered the Royals
with me. It was a kind of freak frame that the photographer took
of the girl, where she was walking past her and it did look worse
than it actually was. When I saw the pack break and they all surrounded
her, I felt awful about that. It does remind me of what happened
to Princess Diana, and I hope that we do not make that same mistake
again. I think that we should pull back a bit and start to look
at this girl's life. She is a private citizen; she needs a bit
of space. She is in love with Prince William. I am sure of that
and I am sure that one day they will get married. I have talked
to William about this. (Laughter)
Mr Satchwell: You have heard it
here first!
Q69 Mr Evans: I can see Sky News
now—"Breaking News: We're going live to the Select
Committee"!
Mr Edwards: I have talked to him
about it and he has made it clear that he wants to get married,
and I believe what he says. So I think this girl should be left
alone.
Mr Hinton: It is also true in
the case of Kate Middleton—and I think a sign of the times,
and the others have made references to some events—that,
very quickly, when it became clear that it was out of hand, that
pack dissipated within 24 hours. One morning it was very bad;
the next morning I think there were two people there, and one
of them, I think, was an ITN camera crew.
Q70 Mr Evans: Can I ask you, Arthur,
a further question on this? You say that you have shown great
restraint and you have looked at your procedures since the death
of Diana. However, there are a lot of freelancers out there and
there are a lot of other people who must be under pressure from
editors who say, "How come they got that photograph there,
and you didn't get it?". Are you under any pressure ever
from that?
Mr Edwards: No, not at all. In
fact, I do not feel under pressure. If Kate Middleton had won
the Lottery or was playing a piano in a pub somewhere, I think
that it would be fair to go along and photograph that—if
she was doing something of interest, not just going to work every
day and driving a car. Some of the things she has been subjected
to, Nigel, I have to tell you, are pretty bad. She has been stopped
at traffic lights, where they climb off their motorbikes and start
photographing her. She has been out shopping in stores and they
run into the stores after her. She uses public transport a lot—or
she did—but they climb on the buses and the bus driver is
having to throw them off. That is what is happening, and that
is not how I was taught. When I worked on local papers and came
through to work on The Sun and other national newspapers,
I did not do it that way. I normally approach the person and ask
them. The first picture I took of Princess Diana I said, "Are
you Lady Diana Spencer?". She said, "Yes". I said,
"Can I take your photograph, please?". She said "Yes",
and she posed for me. That is how I was brought up. Today, it
is not like that. It is young people who buy a digital camera
and think they are a photographer. They go into the scene; they
do not care; they just rush in; they have no idea the suffering
that person is undergoing. I think that when Les made that rule
on our papers, "No more paparazzi pictures of this lady",
that was it. Suddenly everybody came to their senses. This girl
was going through hell—for what? For a picture. It just
was not worth it. Very easily, we could be responsible for her
having another accident, like Diana did, by pursuing her in traffic;
bothering her at work; climbing over the wall at work, where security
guards have to throw the paparazzi out. It is not the way—
Q71 Mr Evans: Have the Royals told
you personally about their feeling about the intrusion into their
private lives?
Mr Edwards: No, they have not;
but I have spoken to people close to them and I know that it really
is distressing this girl. You get the argument, "Well, she's
smiling"; but she is a really decent, nice person. She is
not going to walk out scowling and looking miserable. She just
tries to look her best every day. It is a big pressure on her
every morning, when she walks out and sees young men out there
with cameras, and who have no respect for her.
Q72 Mr Evans: Arthur, can I ask this
one question then? Do you believe that the procedures in place
now are therefore sufficient to protect the privacy, the rightful
privacy under the Code that is currently there, of those like
the members of the Royal family?
Mr Edwards: Yes. I think the birthday
just went hopelessly wrong. What our company did by immediately
stopping that, as Les said, immediately the next day it was nothing.
In fact, one TV crew went down there to photograph paparazzi and
there was no one there. So it did stop it. I checked yesterday,
and I am told that it is maybe one, maybe two, now and again.
So it has stopped it.
Mr Hinton: I have to say, Nigel,
that 20 years ago or longer, when I was on the road, it would
have been impossible to do that.
Mr Satchwell: Going back to your
original question about Princess Diana and 1997, there was a sea
change that happened then. The Code was rewritten quite importantly
but, more than that, I think the spirit behind the Code was changed.
In fact, the Code began to say that it should be followed in its
spirit as well as to its letter. That was a very important change.
That change happened at that time. Big events tend to make people
think again, and I think what happened was that the press was
beginning to say, "Okay, we can do this, that and the other,
but we should ask ourselves who are we hurting, who are we damaging,
before we do it". I think that helped at that time, and that
is where the change has happened over the 20 years. As Arthur
bears out, you get another event which just serves as a reminder
recently, which makes everyone think again. With these sorts of
things, we have to be reminded from time to time where the Code
takes us; but it certainly has had a huge effect over that 15-year
period.
Q73 Mr Evans: Foreign photographers—there
is no Code over them though, is there?
Mr Horrocks: No, but we still
have a responsibility to look at the source of those photographs.
The fact is that photographs now come from all over the world
and they come from members of the public. It is back to the Code
and back to the editor's responsibility to establish, if possible,
where that picture was taken, who took it, and what were the circumstances.
That is why the Code is so important, and that is why it is discussed
and has been raised up the agenda of every newsroom that I am
aware of.
Q74 Chairman: Les, you were active
regarding Kate Middleton. Kate Middleton is a very popular figure;
the public like her; she may be Queen one day. It was probably
in the interests of your newspaper to take the stand that, "We're
not going to be a part of this". What about people who are
not popular with the public? Somebody like Jade Goody or like
Jo O'Meara, who were pursued when they came out of the Big
Brother house and certainly did not have the kind of public
support that Kate Middleton did—should they not also have
some degree of protection?
Mr Hinton: It is not an entirely
answerable question, but it is also fair to say that people leaving
the Big Brother house are often making sure that they do
not travel too quickly, so that the press can keep up with them.
So I would be a little cynical about the particular example that
you have employed. However, I do recognise that when ordinary
people suddenly find themselves in a very special situation and
are subject to intense attention, it may or may not be warranted
but I do think that it is beholden on the industry and individual
newspapers to make sure that they are behaving in a proper manner.
Judging what the proper manner should be, in relation to the particular
reason that they have attracted attention, is a very tricky thing
to do; but I think that the industry is far better at measuring
its conduct than it was 20 years ago.
Mr Horrocks: What the vast majority
of complainants want—and I know this from my own experience
as editor and being involved in the PCC—is a resolution
to their complaint. They may not want a correction; they may not
want an apology. They either want something to stop or they want
the newspaper to say either "Sorry" or "We'll amend
our records". What the PCC is very good at doing is brokering
those arrangements; and the vast majority of complaints are resolved
in that way: amicably, properly and—the point is—very
quickly.
Q75 Alan Keen: Could I ask Les this
question? I have asked this question before. Should the owners
of newspapers be more prominent and would that make a difference?
The fact that Rupert Murdoch identifies himself very clearly with
his newspapers—does that mean that you are more careful
than an editor of a newspaper whose ownership is unknown? Would
it be better if people were forced to identify with the newspaper
that is making their money for them?
Mr Hinton: For me, of course,
that is a pretty academic question, since we are not actually
under the ownership of a retiring proprietor. However, I think
that there is often a balance between proprietorial control over
what a newspaper does and editorial control over what a newspaper
does. The Guardian is famously run by a trust that allows
total independence to its editor. I think that it is perfectly
reasonable for readers to know who owns their newspapers; but
it is not a particular secret. The vast majority of newspapers
in this country are owned by big public companies, such as ours
is, and there are shareholders. There are insurance companies
and pension groups that own News Corporation—the company
I work for—and I am sure it is the same with Paul. So breaking
down the actual ownership of a newspaper, when you start to dissect
it, is tricky but, in the end, it is a question of how a newspaper
has conducted itself; how an editor is behaving; how its readers
are reacting to what those newspapers are doing—and that
reaction is buying them or not.
Q76 Alan Keen: I understand that
Rupert Murdoch does not own all the shares, of course, but he
is high profile. If the shares are owned ultimately by a public
company, should that chairman and that group of companies be identified
with the newspaper? Would it make the newspaper more responsible?
You have a very direct line through to Rupert Murdoch, obviously.
Mr Hinton: I am not quite sure
what the merit would be. If you take, for example, regional newspapers,
and Johnston Press is an example—I am a non-executive director
of it—it places great pride and importance on allowing its
editors to make individual policy decisions based upon the editor's
view of the community. There is never an editorial discussion
of board meetings; that is the way it works. I think that, for
community newspapers, is actually a good thing. In the end, the
relationship is between a community and its newspaper and the
editor of that newspaper. I think that is the visibility that
matters most of all. The broader ownership issue is of course
important, but I think that is the most important connection.
Mr Horrocks: And that is where
self-regulation works, I think, because at the end of the day
no editor wants to have in their newspaper an adjudication against
them that their own community then sees. That is a harsh penalty.
Q77 Mr Hall: Can we just go back
to the Kate Middleton case? You have said that self-regulation
works, but it did not work in this case. We had the media scrum
outside her house; we had a complete intrusion into her personal
space and her privacy. It was only a reaction to that which got
the scrum outside her house removed. Do you not think that editors
have some kind of responsibility to make sure that that thing
does not actually take place in the first place?
Mr Horrocks: You can be responsible
for your own staff and give your own staff instructions as to
how behave. You cannot legislate for freelance activity or for
members of the public also acting as photographers. The main thing
is that, when a scrum situation like that occurs, there was a
mechanism to stop it.
Q78 Mr Hall: But there is not a mechanism
to stop it happening in the first place.
Mr Hinton: It does happen spontaneously—
Q79 Mr Hall: Come on! Everybody knew
it was her birthday.
Mr Edwards: But there was a lead-up
to it.
Mr Hinton: It was going on before
the birthday.
Mr Edwards: There was a lead-up
to it, and a lot of people thought that, because it was her birthday,
there might be an announcement of an engagement.
|
