Written evidence submitted by Shane Morris
1. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
1.1 I am a member of the public, an Irish
citizen and a publicly funded researcher in the area of biotechnology.
The evidence supplied herein is my own and does not represent
my past or present employers, colleagues or other organizations.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 My evidence regards what I consider
the "chilling effect" of a print media organization.
Mr Hislop, editor of Private Eye, in his evidence on 5
May 2009, waved around a letter claiming that legal threats were
common by those "rich and powerful" people (Q852: 5
May 2009 evidence) seeking to prevent publication of claims against
them.
2.2 However, my experience shows that Mr Hislop
and his publication can induce their own "chill effect"
by refusing a person a right to reply and printing stories containing
falsehoods that countering in the court system would cost the
average private person thousands of pounds and risk their family's
livelihood. I believe this "chill" tactic by Mr Hislop
is possible as his publication has deep pockets due to "generous
readers" (Q916: 5 May 2009 evidence) who will likely underwrite
his court costs when it suits their agenda. This legal support
is not available to many other people (eg civil servants, etc.)
and puts ordinary members of the public at a distinct disadvantage?
This I believe should be considered by the Culture, Media and
Sport Committee in its deliberations on the matter of press standards,
privacy and libel.
3. INFORMATION
3.1 On 28 September 2007 an article appeared
in Private Eye regarding my requests for a privately funded
anti-GM food website to correct claims they made against me. The
Private Eye article in question identified me as a Canadian
civil servant and was near identical to the erroneous claims made
by the owners of the anti-GM websites GMWATCH (previously funded
by Zac Goldsmith's JMG Foundation) and GMFREE Ireland. Both websites
had finally removed the claims in question after numerous personal
written requests and then finally, unfortunately, the indication
that I would be forced to take legal action. The claims in question
suggested I had committed fraud as I was involved in research
that was "fraudulent". Private Eye made no effort
to contact me or any other member of the research team prior to
publication of their first set of claims.
3.2 Due to the errors in the Private Eye
article I wrote a letter to the editor (Appendix I)[111]
where I explained the supposed evidence relied upon by Private
Eye was in fact based on a photograph of a research consumer
display that Greenpeace representative Mr Michael Khoo had tampered
with (and not simply standing "next" to as Private
Eye had claimed).
3.3 In reply to my letter to the editor
I was contacted by Private Eye employee Ms Heather Mills.
Ms Mills is the author of Private Eye's now infamous and
widely condemned 2002 anti-MMR vaccine Private Eye article.
Ms Mills is well known in scientific circles for the fact she
carried out a "long-running campaign against MMR"
(Brian Deer, 2002) and has had her "journalistic responsibility"
called into question (Elliman, D. and Bedford, H., British Medical
Journal, 2002).
3.4 Ms Mills surprisingly informed me that
due to Private Eye's libel fears the editor was refusing
to publish my letter (which has since been published elsewhere
without consequence). Private Eye declined my follow up
requests to identify any segments of my letter they had concerns
with so I could edit my right to reply to ensure it satisfied
their legal concerns. Nevertheless, I was informed by Private
Eye they do not fall under the remit of the Press Complaints
Council (PCC) and would not, contrary to the PCC's code of practice,
be providing me a fair opportunity for reply to the inaccuracies
in their first article which they has published without first
putting the claims they made to the persons named. Instead, I
was informed by Ms Mills that Private Eye would be doing
a second story and would I answer 12 questions. I answered the
majority of the questions, included additional information and
furnished a detailed explanation of how I had caught Greenpeace
tamping with signs in our consumer research display. This explanation
read: "When Mr Khoo continued his actions it was decided
to photograph these actions which show Mr Khoo moving an orange
sign. I would note that it took time to turn on the camera, focus
it and wait for his repeated actions"
3.5 On 11 January 2008, based on a blatant
lie made in a privileged Early Day Motion by Mr Michael Meacher
MP, Private Eye published their second article which I
consider to be as equally defamatory as their first. It contained
none of the information I had provided in response to Ms Mills'
original 12 questions, ignored the photographic evidence provided
and allowed Mr Michael Khoo to lie. This left me in a situation
to either enter an expensive and time consuming court action against
Private Eye or ignore their one side biased articles. Due
to the fact that I am not independently wealthy, had just had
my first child and as a public servant I was not in a position
to accept third party support for legal expenses, I was left with
no choice but to let the matter rest.
3.6 As matter of record the research in
question by has not been found to be fraudulent by the publishers
and the award the research received for the research still remains.
4. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
my evidence and I look forward to the outcomes of your work which
I hope will prevent "rich and powerful" "generous
readers" from bank rolling a "chill effect"
against those members of the public wishing to counter inaccurate
and damaging claims by certain publications in manner that will
not risk their livelihoods.
REFERENCESBrian Deer,
2002—http:/briandeer.com/wakefield/private-eye.htm.
Elliman, D. and Bedford, H. Press: Private Eye Special
Report on MMR, BMJ 2002;324:1224, doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1224
May 2009
111 Ev not printed. Back
| 
