Supplementary written evidence from Terence Ewing (PS 175)

 

Further to previous letters, I am writing again to the Committee to also draw to its attention the fact that the BBC in connection with its recent Panorama programme concerning Ryanair, entered into considerable correspondence with that company prior to transmission.

 

This was obviously in the interests of professional journalism, as Ryanair were given a full opportunity of commenting on and correcting any misunderstandings prior to the broadcast.

 

As can be seen from the enclosed attached correspondence downloaded from the Ryanair web site at the time, there was considerable dispute concerning the facts of the case, which Ryanair made plain both in the letters from Mr. O'Leary and his company representatives.

 

It is fair to say that the programme when eventually broadcast was a damp squib, as the original claims that were to have been adverse to Ryanair were omitted for the most part, and the only concrete criticism leveled so far as I could see was concerning items on their web site. Ryanair to their credit made a number of minor adjustments to their site prior to transmission.

 

This was due to Ryanair being able to place the BBC on notice beforehand that some of their more contentious claims and allegations were hotly denied.

 

Clearly in those circumstances, the BBC wouldn't have had any defence of Qualified Privilege or even a "Reynolds" style defence, if they had then proceeded to broadcast some of the more controversial original allegations in the form that they had originally intended.

 

You will also note that Mr. O'Leary declined to be interviewed on the programme unless he was given an assurance that it would be transmitted in its entirety in unedited form, something that in my opinion the BBC unreasonably refused to do.

 

However, when Mr. O'Leary did appear on the programme when he emerged from a company meeting, he made his views very plain to BBC reporter Mr. Vivian White, and in my view came out with flying colours, making the BBC look stupid and biased against him and Ryanair.

 

I would again however draw to the Committee's attention that Ryanair were contacted by Mr Vivian White and the BBC several weeks prior to transmission, and their original allegations were put to the company and Mr. O'Leary in the correspondence, so that they had adequate opportunities of fully refuting and responding to them.

 

As a result, Ryanair also acted perfectly properly in publishing this correspondence on their web site for public viewing.

 

I feel that this case is therefore extremely relevant to Mr. Mosley's case, and his proposition that subjects of proposed media articles should always be contacted prior to publication and be given a full opportunity of commenting on and refuting any disputed allegations.

 

As I have previously stated, this should be at least 14 or possibly seven days beforehand and in view of the Panorama programme, these should if necessary be in writing.

 

The opportunities given to Mr O'Leary and Ryanair are rarely afforded to persons who are given adverse publicity by the media, and in particular by the News International Group, who as the Committee have heard, have been subject to the most adverse criticism at the recent hearings.

 

It is therefore imperative that private individuals who are proposed to be the subject of adverse publicity be given full details of any allegations against them, and an opportunity of responding, in writing if necessary.

 

As I have previously stated, a phone call from a journalist from a Sunday newspaper on a Friday evening after the courts have closed and solicitors have gone home for the weekend is wholly insufficient.

 

Newspaper editors can under the present conditions, currently clearly adopt a "publish and be damned" policy, which they have done with veracity in recent cases as the Committee have heard.

 

Clearly the BBC had reservations about broadcasting without giving Ryanair the opportunity of fully responding in writing.

 

The issue of concern therefore, is that this luxury is rarely if ever provided to ordinary members of the public, or even high profile figures like Mr. Mosley who in my opinion, was treated abominably by the News of the World and News International run by Rupert Murdoch and his son.

 

The Committee may therefore like to take this further recent case into account when considering its recommendations in its final report on Press Standards Privacy and Libel.

 

December 2009