CHAPTER 8: Conclusions and recommendations
263. As we explained at the start of this report,
the purpose of our work has been, against the background of perhaps
the greatest political media scandal of a generation, to look
at the future of investigative journalism in the light of the
problems currently facing the media and the technological revolution
unfolding in this area.
264. We hope that what we have done will enable those
going into the issues in greater detail than us to come forward
with proposals which will be relevant to and protect the responsible
investigative journalism of tomorrow.
265. We urge the Government to recognise the
financial problems facing newspapers and encourage them to think
creatively about any tax breaks or other financial incentives
which might help the industry through this difficult transitional
stage. (Para 49)
266. We welcome the evidence given to us by commissioning
editors from different broadcasting channels about their commitment
to investigative programming. This should continue to remain a
priority, particularly for public service broadcasting channels,
despite the difficult economic circumstances currently facing
the sector. (Para 58)
267. We note that Lord Justice Leveson and Lord
Hunt of Wirral, together with the Government as part of its forthcoming
Communications review, have confirmed that they will consider
whether it may be appropriate to bring certain forms of online
content which currently fall outwith the scope of regulation into
the remit of the relevant regulatory body. This should continue
to remain a priority. We look forward to their recommendations
in this area and to their suggestions on how to put them into
practice. (Para 63)
268. We wholeheartedly believe that media organisations
themselves should take responsibility for the decisions they take
regarding how to investigate and whether to publish a story. In
coming to decisions on these matters, however, it is important
that journalists and editors do so in a way that is rigorous,
structured and leaves an audit trail for future external scrutiny.
(Para 70)
269. We do not recommend that all relevant criminal
law be re-drafted in order to iron out inconsistency between different
pieces of legislation when it comes to a formal, statutory defence
relating to the public interest. (Para 87)
270. We do, however, urge the prosecuting authorities
to publish their broad approach to determining which cases should
be prosecuted or otherwise in cases where illegal activity undertaken
by journalists in the course of an investigation might be considered
to be in the public interest. (Para 88)
271. We do not recommend that a definition of
the public interest be included in legislation. Instead, it should
be defined by reference to good and responsible practice, not
least as defined in the relevant regulatory Codes of Practice
which contain examples of what could constitute a sufficient public
interest justification for breaching a rule or regulation. In
addition, in implementing such regulatory provisions, the regulator
should bear in mind the underlying rationale and purpose of the
rules they enforce. (Para 97)
272. We welcome the changes made in December
2011 to the Editors' Code of Practice requiring that in order
to argue a public interest exemption to breaching a certain section
of the Code, an editor must show not only that they had good reason
to believe the public interest would be served in doing so, but
also how and with whom that was established at that time. (Para
98)
273. We recommend that media organisations implement
a two-stage internal management process whereby they track and
formally record their decisions first to investigate and secondly
to publish a story if such decisions rely on the public interest.
(Para 108)
274. We believe regulators should, in turn, take
such an audit trail into account when evaluating the responsibility
or otherwise with which investigative journalism has been undertaken.
(Para 109)
275. The regulators should also take into account
the actions taken ex post facto in considering what penalty is
appropriate for any particular breach. (Para 110)
276. The working of the libel laws in the UK
can, on occasion, have a discouraging effect on responsible investigative
journalism, and this needs to be examined. We welcome the Government's
work in this area and look forward to the introduction of a Defamation
Bill later in this Parliament, which we believe should include
provisions along the lines of those set out in clause 2 of the
Draft Bill. (Para 125)
277. It is important for the future of responsible
investigative journalism that journalists are able to offer adequate
protection to their sources. We therefore call on the Government
and Lord Justice Leveson to make the question of the suitable
protection of whistleblowers a core part of their ongoing inquiries.
(Para 130)
278. In the context of investigative journalism,
it is incumbent upon journalists and news providers to be rigorous
and proactive in checking the accuracy of press releases, as with
other sources of news, as part of their commitment to accuracy.
In addition, we recommend that journalists themselves be transparent
in their use of press releases particularly online where barriers
to publishing links to press releases are low. (Para 139)
279. To address the concerns that the Committee
has heard about the potential adverse impact of the public relations
industry on investigative journalism, we recommend that PR practitioners
should abide by a stringent code of behaviour which could be derived
from the existing CIPR code or something similar, and which might
be overseen by a third party. (Para 140)
280. We also reiterate the recommendation made
by the Committee in 2008 on the need for the Government to communicate
accurately and in an impartial way information about its policies
and we urge the Coalition Government to set the benchmark in this
area by ensuring that their press releases are universally transparent
and straightforward. The Government and political parties should
require their press officers to follow guidelines similar to those
found in the CIPR code of conduct. (Para 141)
281. We encourage the Government to lead by example
in ensuring its press releases do not mislead and in particular,
when data is made public, it is in forms which enable those capable
of analysing it to do so, as advocated by the Open Data Institute.
(Para 142)
282. We encourage Ofcom, Lord Justice Leveson
and the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and
Sport to consider carefully the following issues as part of their
inquiries:
- Whether the criteria for application of the public
interest test should be extended to include cases of organic growth
as well as in proposed mergers;
- Whether the decision to invoke the public interest
test in media mergers should remain solely with the Secretary
of State; and
- The application of the 'fit and proper person'
test and whether this should be extended to cover newspaper mergers.
(Para 149)
283. With regard to the public interest test,
we believe that there may be a case for legislation to allow for
this to be invoked in cases where a news organisation develops
over a 25% share of the national newspaper market through organic
growth, rather than just in cases of proposed mergers, as is the
case at present under the Enterprise Act 2002. (Para 150)
284. In assessing this, we encourage Ofcom, Lord
Justice Leveson and the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture,
Media and Sport to consider the following issues in more detail:
- Whether 25% would be the right threshold for
invoking the public interest test in cases of organic growth;
and
- How would market share be determined? For example,
would Ofcom be required to conduct a regular review of the newspaper
industry in order to determine whether this threshold in terms
of market share had been reached? (Para 151)
285. Given the importance of ownership, we wish
to repeat the recommendation made in the 2008 ownership of the
news report by our Committee that the Communications Act 2003
should be amended to enable the public interest test to be invoked
at the discretion of either the Secretary of State or
Ofcom. (Para 152)
286. We encourage the relevant inquiries examining
this issue to consider whether or not it may be appropriate to
extend the 'fit and proper' test, currently determined by Ofcom
before awarding a broadcasting licence, to include potential newspaper
proprietors. If this is deemed appropriate, we believe that
as Ofcom currently conducts this process with regard to broadcasting
it may be best placed to set the criteria and carry out the test
in cases of proposed newspaper mergers as well. (Para 153)
287. We note the Government's recent removal
of rules relating to local cross-media ownership and hope that
this will provide an opportunity for local media organisations
to develop a sustainable business model through consolidation
in future if they wish to do so. (Para 160)
288. At a local level, we recommend that Ofcom's
role in assessing local media mergers should be strengthened compared
to the Competition Commission's in order to ensure that the vital
watchdog and informational role of the local media is given greater
weight when assessing merger proposals. We welcome the Secretary
of State's commitment to look at this issue and we support the
suggestion that any legislative changes required should be included
in any Communications Bill. (Para 161)
289. It is crucial that the existing media ownership
rules at a national level are examined to assess whether the correct
balance is being struck between the need to protect the plurality
of news ownership, essential in a democracy, and securing the
financial viability of the industry. Any proposals to amend the
cross-media ownership rules should form part of the Government's
Communications review. (Para 165)
290. In order to encourage continued investment
in broadcast investigative journalism, we recommend that Ofcom,
working with the public service broadcasters, amends the definition
of current affairs in the guidance on public service quota requirements
to include, but not expressly require, investigative journalism
in this genre. This would provide further stimulus for public
service broadcasters to broadcast high-quality investigative programmes
which we hope would be replicated by other commercial broadcasters.
(Para 170)
291. Zero-rating VAT is a form of state support
for the newspaper industry which is a transitional power open
to the UK Government to implement as it deems appropriate under
the terms of the EU Directive. Given the economic pressures facing
the newspaper industry, we believe it is appropriate that the
Government should maintain zero-rated VAT for newspapers in order
to provide a continued form of public support for this struggling
and vital industry. (Para 175)
292. We recommend that the Government should
consider further the legality of any proposals to limit the receipt
of zero-rating for VAT purposes to those newspapers which are
members of the PCC (or any successor body). (Para 177)
293. Given that the BBC receives public money
in the form of the licence fee in order to deliver a public good,
we believe that it should continue to provide high-quality investigative
content in both its television and radio services, including at
a regional level. We are concerned about the reported cuts in
staff on the flagship investigative programme, Panorama, but we
welcome the BBC's commitment to continue to invest in investigative
content at international, national, regional and local level.
We encourage it to continue to do this, despite the cost-saving
measures which the corporation must make. (Para 184)
294. We have found that what matters in terms
of ownership and support for investigative journalism is not the
type of ownership structure but whether the owners be they an
individual, a company, a charity, trust or co-operative, are prepared
to ensure the money to support this type of journalism. (Para 189)
295. We call on the Charity Commission to provide
greater clarity and guidelines on which activities related to
the media, and in particular investigative journalism, are charitable
in the current state of the law. Furthermore, we ask the Charity
Commission to take into consideration both the current pressures
on investigative journalism as well as its democratic importance
when interpreting the relevant legislation. (Para 201)
296. While recognising the Government's current
disinclination to legislate in this area, it seems to us that
reform of charity law is the only way in which certainty in this
area could be achieved. We therefore urge the Government to reconsider.
(Para 202)
297. We admire the non-traditional model of providing
investigative journalism which originated in the USA with organisations
such as ProPublica and we welcome its development in the UK with
organisations such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Whereas in the past investment in long-form investigative stories
relied on support and continued investment from a newspaper proprietor
or broadcaster; newspapers and television and radio stations are
increasingly outsourcing this toor responding to initiatives
fromspecialist organisations. We encourage UK broadcasters
to support these organisations by working in partnership with
them. (Para 211)
298. We recognise that public funding is a potential
model for financing investigative journalism and one which works
in other European countries. However, given the strong independent
character of the printed press in the UK and our political traditions,
we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the UK Government
to fund investigative journalism directly in the form of state
subsidies other than with the continued support for zero-VAT rating
for newspapers and of the BBC licence fee in broadcasting. (Para 216)
299. If fines are introduced for breaches of
the Editors' Code of Practice by newspapers and magazines under
a new system of press self-regulation, we recommend that a proportion
of all media fines (including fines for breaches of the Ofcom
Broadcasting Code) should be allocated to a fund reserved for
financing investigative journalism or for the training of investigative
journalists. This fund should be open to all investigative journalists
and journalism organisationsbig and small, who publish
in print, broadcast or online. The money would need to be distributed
fairly by an independent regulatory body, such as Ofcom or the
reformed PCC and there would need to be a system of accountability
in place to ensure that the money was used appropriately, bearing
in mind that, due to the nature of investigative journalism, some
investigations would not lead to material which could be published.
(Para 219)
300. We welcome the use of social media by journalists
as a means of contacting people around the world in order to access
content and information which might otherwise be extremely difficult
and time-consuming to identify. We recommend that the PCC tightens
its guidance on the use of information provided by citizen journalists
using social media and we warn journalists to be extra vigilant
in verifying information found online. Where appropriate, news
organisations should issue clear internal guidelines for all staff
on how to use such data. In addition, given the challenges which
will only intensify in this area, we recommend that further thought
be given to considering what, if any, workable ways might be proposed
to aid the processes of validating material and verifying sources.
(Para 230)
301. We welcome the innovation which is emerging
in trying to find a way of monetising investigative journalism
content online and making this information available to users
in a variety of different ways at a range of different price-points.
However, although take up of online services is increasing rapidly,
these remain relatively new developments and we are in the early
decades of a digital revolution which will bring change on a scale
that is irresistible and profound. We heard much evidence which
painted a pessimistic picture of the economic problems facing
investigative journalism but we have heard no evidence that leads
us to conclude that investigative journalism will disappear: we
believe that it will continue. (Para 240)
302. As news organisations adapt their business
models to these changing circumstances and new players enter the
marketplace, we will observe with interest the extent to which
people are prepared to pay to access online content and if so,
which devices will prove most popular and what the correct price-point
for investigative stories will be. (Para 241)
303. The technologies upon which investigative
journalism now often relies are developing at an ever-faster rate.
The outcome of developments in this area remains uncertain but
we are confident that investigative journalism will adapt if sufficient
scope is given to allow the industry to build successful models
online. It is essential that any legal or regulatory reforms take
account of these new technologies and that in an age of increasing
convergence it is often the same content which is delivered through
different platforms. It is vital that any such changes do not
make the position of investigative journalism yet more precarious
in what is already a difficult market in which to operate. (Para
242)
304. We welcome the investment made in training
journalists by the whole media and encourage continued investment
in this area, especially in digital technology skills. In particular
we appreciate the financial pressures facing all media organisations,
especially the local newspaper industry but we encourage local
newspapers, wherever possible, to provide both paid and voluntary
opportunities for aspiring journalists to gain practical experience
in local news organisations. (Para 251)
305. We welcome the opportunities which internships
offer but these should not be considered as an alternative to
paid employment opportunities for journalists. (Para 252)
306. We encourage all media companies to offer
training opportunities. In those media industries where there
is a regulator, the regulator should consider whether there are
circumstances in which they should mandate the offering of training
opportunities. (Para 253)
307. We recognise the important role played by
universities in training investigative journalists and encourage
the Government to support these educational facilities in providing
useful and practical training opportunities for aspiring journalists.
(Para 257)
308. We welcome the establishment of charitable
sponsorship and mentoring bodies, and hope to see this model replicated
more widely. (Para 262)
|