Letter from Northcliffe Media Limited
I refer to your letter of 5 December 2007 on
the above subject. You requested that I explain Northcliffe's
policy on editorial freedom. I set out my response to you in the
same sequence as the five questions which you pose.
— Northcliffe Media does not have any
written guidelines on editorial freedom. However, it is Northcliffe's
policy that editors have freedom to edit without interference
from general management. This is reinforced by the reporting structure
within Northcliffe. Editors do not report to local or regional
managing directors. Instead, they report into regional editorial
directors who, in turn, report into the managing director of Northcliffe.
Thus, if there were ever a dispute between a local or regional
managing director and an editor over a commercially sensitive
issue, the ultimate arbiter would be the group managing director.
— Our editors are free to decide the
news agendas of their respective titles. Indeed, we have titles
serving overlapping or adjacent communities which have, in the
past, taken diametrically opposing views on certain issues. Northcliffe
does require editors to abide by the rules of the Press Complaints
Commission. We also expect editors to show no party political
bias.
— As far as I am aware, all our editors
have good relationships with their local managing directors. If
a managing director has a view on a particular story, then he
or she would express that to the editor. However, as I have explained
in an earlier paragraph, that would not require the editor to
share this view. It is worth pointing out that issues do arise
with organisations, principally local councils, with whom our
titles have both editorial and commercial relationships. On such
occasions, we draw clear distinctions between editorial coverage
of council business and advertising placed by the council.
— I have worked for Northcliffe Media
for over 19 years and I do not recall there ever being an occasion
when management has pulled or altered a story based on commercial
interests. I have consulted with two long-serving senior editorial
colleagues, one with 25 years' service. They confirm my understanding
that management has never pulled or altered a story based on the
commercial interests of the group.
— Local advertisers have no influence
over editorial content.
You wrote in your letter that you and your committee
members were looking into the issue of editorial freedom, the
inference being that editorial freedom may in some way be restricted
or curtailed by non journalistic mangers and executives.
May I take this opportunity, therefore, of saying
that editorial freedom is under pressure, not from proprietors
or publishing executives, but from the iniquitous system of Conditional
Fee Agreements, by which the majority of libel claimants fund
their claims. It is the view of Northcliffe Media that CFAs pose
a serious and immediate threat to freedom of expression, which
is why we await the outcome of the Ministry of Justice's current
review of the CFA regime with more than mere passing interest.
In this respect, I refer you to the article
which was published in the Evening Standard on this topic
on 18 December. Joshua Rozenberg very clearly encapsulated the
issues. At the end of the article, you will see that our principal
editorial solicitor, Tony Jaffa, was quoted as saying that claims
of limited merit are being settled purely because of the fear
of adverse costs orders, and it will take an exceptional case
to persuade regional publishers such as Northcliffe to defend
a claim to trial.
I trust this answers your questions fully. However,
if there is anything further I can help you with, I would be only
too pleased to elaborate further.
20 December 2007
|
