LOVE CELEB GOSSIP? SO DO WE, SEND US YOUR STORY!

LOVE CELEB GOSSIP? SO DO WE, SEND US YOUR STORY!

Know of a star behaving madly, sadly or badly? For your chance to bag £200 – Send us your story with all the juicy details. If we use your story, we'll send you the cash!* It's as simple as that."

¶10.12 In evidence to the Inquiry, representatives from the Daily Star emphasised the importance of showbusiness and celebrity stories to that paper. Ms Neesom, told the Inquiry that as the title was a relatively young newspaper it did not have the same established readership as some of its competitors.⁵¹⁶⁵¹⁶ p53, lines 2-7, Dawn Neesom, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf The paper therefore needed to ensure that the content it carried appealed to its readership. Ms Neesom said that reader interest lay substantially in stories about the lives of celebrities and other individuals with a public profile.⁵¹⁷⁵¹⁷ pp47-49, lines 22-10, ibid A number of these stories were sourced from members of the public responding to the call for stories published in the Star newspaper itself.⁵¹⁸⁵¹⁸ p46, lines 22-25, ibid

¶10.13 The Daily Express also advertises for stories through its website. Readers are encouraged to contact the paper through a number of media, including telephone, email and SMS text message. It is notable that the Daily Express website makes no mention of payment in exchange for information.

¶Levels of payment for material

¶10.14 Levels of payment for information vary from newspaper to newspaper. Peter Wright, the former editor of the Mail on Sunday, said that at the Mail Group payments of up to £50,000 were made for information during his tenure.⁵¹⁹⁵¹⁹ p79, lines 5-14, Peter Wright, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-11-January-2012.pdf However, he was also clear that such an amount would be paid in exceptional circumstances and only for a story of substantive and significant interest to the readers of Mail Group newspapers. Typically, such a story would take the form of an in-depth interview or a book serialisation.⁵²⁰⁵²⁰ p79, lines 5-8, ibid More typically, Mr Wright said, the amounts paid by the Mail Group for stories, and particularly to members of the public, were much smaller: in 2010, the highest amount paid was £3,500, and 'they would most be a lot less than that'.⁵²¹⁵²¹ p78 lines 12-14, ibid Mr Wright said that whilst most payments were made electronically, the Mail Group would also make cash payments, because some of those individuals supplying material might not have bank accounts.

697

¶10.15 In this respect, the operation of payment systems at the Daily Mail was similar to that at The Sun. There, cash payments were still made in a small number of circumstances. It was for individual journalists to make such requests for payments to senior staff and managing editors for authorisation. Whilst the amounts that could be paid for information to third parties could be significant, they were dependent on the final size of the story when published and also the likely interest of the subject of the story to the readers. Typically, payments for stories made by The Sun ranged from between £600 and £10,000 depending on the size and nature of the story.

¶10.16 A similar scale of payment for information also existed at the NoTW. Mr Thurlbeck said that information leading to a front page splash might result in payments of up to £20,000.⁵²²⁵²² p65, lines 17-23, Neville Thurlbeck, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-December-2011.pdf Mr McMullan explained that journalists working at the title, particularly those journalists working at the showbusiness desk, had access to substantive budgets without real oversight.⁵²³⁵²³ pp71-72, lines 21-12, Paul McMullan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf Mr McMullan has said that, as deputy features editor, he was able spend amounts of up to £10,000 on stories that resulted in a double page spread.⁵²⁴⁵²⁴ p71, lines 8-11, Paul McMullan, ibid In this position, he was able to make payments of up to £3,000 for a page lead, and sums of between £5,000 and £10,000 for larger stories.⁵²⁵⁵²⁵ p73, lines 8, Paul McMullan, ibid Payments of more than £1,000 for any other story had to be authorised by the then editor.

¶10.17 Although the Inquiry has heard that payments for stories supplied by members of the public would not normally exceed £10,000, other witnesses have suggested that in certain circumstances, payments for certain stories, in particular "kiss and tell" stories involving individuals with a significant public profile, could be much higher. Mr Shear explained that competitive pressures could put significant upward pressure on payments made if the papers concerned understood the stories in question to be profitable.⁵²⁶⁵²⁶ p64, lines 15, Graham Shear, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf Mr Shear said that if stories F involved a significantly high-profile celebrity, a kiss-and-tell story might cost: "something like 10k to half a million."⁵²⁷⁵²⁷ p64, lines 15, ibid Indeed, Mr Thurlbeck claimed that Rebecca Loos was paid a six figure sum for information about her relationship with the footballer, David Beckham.⁵²⁸⁵²⁸ p73, lines 19-21, Neville Thurlbeck, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-December-2011.pdf

¶10.18 Similarly, in Mr Atkins' discussions with a NoTW journalist in relation to his 'medical records sting', the journalist set out the paper's willingness to pay amounts substantially greater than £10,000 for stories of likely interest to readers and therefore of potential value.⁵²⁹⁵²⁹ p13, para 68, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Chris-Atkins1. pdf Mr Atkins recorded the journalist as suggesting that the NoTW might be willing to pay £80,000, depending on the strength of the story.⁵³⁰⁵³⁰ p13, para 68, ibid

¶10.19 Irrespective of the final amounts that have been paid it is clear that issues around payment formed an important part of discussions between journalists and their interlocutors. Mr Atkins evidence described his efforts to supply and sell information to a number of newspapers including the Sunday Mirror and the NoTW explaining that levels of payment were raised at the very outset of his discussions with the journalists from each newspaper.

698

¶Accuracy and the credibility of material supplied by members of the public Corroboration

¶10.20 The specific concerns at payments for information crystallise not principally around the type of information disclosed by sources in exchange for payment, but rather that the fact of payment might encourage the sources of that information to exaggerate, distort or simply fabricate the information that they seek to sell. The section above dealing with Mr Atkins' 'fake stories' sting suggests that the mechanisms for corroborating such information given by third parties may not be particularly effective.

¶10.21 The Inquiry has received evidence from a number of different newspapers about the processes followed to establish the credibility of stories and the veracity of accusations that may have been made by members of the public in the information they seek to sell. These processes were also designed to protect newspapers from potential legal actions for libel or defamation.⁵³¹⁵³¹ Gordon Smart, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing- 9-January-2012.pdf; Dawn Neesom, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf Although not uniform, the descriptions of such processes in evidence to the Inquiry from journalists at The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star, as well as at the NoTW, are similar.⁵³²⁵³² p53, lines 3-6, Gordon Smart, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf It is illustrative of practices across parts of the press that these processes were not formal and whilst a number of witnesses to the Inquiry have claimed that they were generally practised, they were not obligatory or uniformly enforced.

¶10.22 Mr Smart described in broad terms the efforts made by journalists to establish both the credibility and reliability of stories that were provided by members of the public. These F efforts might include journalists separately seeking corroboration of any allegations made through a number of sources.⁵³³⁵³³ p52, lines 4-7, ibid This might be done through contacting the subject of the story directly or indirectly through their agents or other representatives.⁵³⁴⁵³⁴ pp63-64, lines 20-18, ibid Mr Smart said that the showbusiness journalists at The Sun had excellent contacts, particularly with the likely subject of stories submitted to the paper by members of the public; these contacts enable these journalists who might be pursuing such stories quickly to stand them up.⁵³⁵⁵³⁵ p52, lines 4-15, ibid

¶10.23 A similar process is also followed at the Daily Mirror in response to potential stories supplied to the paper by members of the public. The practice there is to discuss potential stories with those who cold contact the paper, to make an initial assessment of the credibility as well as the value as a news item all during the initial telephone call. In those circumstances where journalists perceive stories to be credible, they might meet with the source to discuss the material further. Mr Owens suggested that journalists at the Mirror newspapers might also discuss the merits of a story with more senior colleagues on the news desk before deciding whether to pursue it further. Mr Owens also said that journalists working at the Sunday Mirror had access to a lawyer in the office at all times, to whom any concerns with stories could be addressed.⁵³⁶⁵³⁶ p60, lines 23-25, Nick Owens, www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-6-February-2012.pdf In-house lawyers might also be involved in discussions with the news desk about the merits of a given story.⁵³⁷⁵³⁷ p61, lines 1-3, ibid

699

¶10.24 Ms Neesom explained that it was the practice at the Daily Star to seek to corroborate all stories that were supplied by third parties.⁵³⁸⁵³⁸ p40, lines 1-25, Dawn Neesom, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf However, Ms Neesom also accepted that, in some cases, corroboration was not always possible, as the individuals in question were not always contactable.⁵³⁹⁵³⁹ p41, lines 1-2, ibid A failure to corroborate a story might not prevent its publication; this was so, particularly, if the story were unlikely to lead to the launch of legal challenge by the individual concerned. She also suggested that, in many cases, stories leaked to the newspaper by PR representatives working on behalf of particular celebrities would not be checked, given that they stories were essentially coming from the celebrity him or herself.⁵⁴⁰⁵⁴⁰ p40, lines 1-25, ibid The Inquiry was told that information submitted to the paper by members of the public, particularly in relation to so-called "kiss and tell" stories involving celebrities and other individuals with a public profile, was difficult to corroborate satisfactorily with the result that it was now less likely to be published than it once was.⁵⁴¹⁵⁴¹ p25, lines, 1-13, Nicole Patterson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf

¶10.25 These informal mechanisms and processes for establishing the credibility of a story are also described and elaborated by Ms Marshall in her memoir, Tabloid Girl. Ms Marshall explained that when contacted by members of the public, journalists would pose a number of questions relating to that celebrity. According to Ms Marshall, the purpose in asking such questions was intended to help separate those members of the public who may possess stories of potential interest to readers from those who had contacted the newspaper in the hope of securing payment for either spurious or fabricated information. Ms Marshall explained that the questions asked by journalists in these circumstances were often informed by the specialist knowledge that they may have about the celebrities about whom they wrote.⁵⁴²⁵⁴² Marshall, S, Tabloid Girl, passim This knowledge may be the result of relationships built up over a number of years with the celebrities in question.

¶Numbers

¶10.26 Although representatives of the press who have given evidence to the Inquiry have not provided exact figures for the number of calls received from members of the public seeking to supply stories, they were clear that the numbers were substantial and provided the source material for a significant proportion of showbusiness stories each year. Mr Smart provided some sense of the scale of the information supplied in this way, as well as the demands on journalists working on showbusiness stories which accounted for the majority of telephone calls received.

¶10.27 Mr Smart explained that the Bizarre column at The Sun received many thousands of telephone calls in response to advertisements in the paper calling for readers to sell their stories. He noted that the small team of journalists working on the Bizarre column produced approximately 60,000 stories each year. On average, each journalist working on that column was responsible for researching and writing up over 3,000 individual stories.⁵⁴³⁵⁴³ p64, lines 10-18, Gordon Smart, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf He explained that those stories provided by members of the public were important to helping achieve those targets.

700

¶10.28 Similarly, Mr Owens suggested that the volume of information received from members of the public at the Sunday Mirror was significant. Mr Owens said that the Sunday Mirror received "dozens" of stories each day from members of the public.⁵⁴⁴⁵⁴⁴ p66, lines 13, Nicholas Owens www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of-Morning- Hearing-6-February-2012.pdf Mr McMullan also reported that, during his time at the NoTW, he would receive up to 30 telephone calls each day from members of the public seeking to sell their stories.⁵⁴⁵⁵⁴⁵ p11, s1, Mr McMullan's Witness Statement was not adduced in evidence

¶10.29 As a consequence, Mr Smart suggested that the volume of work required to produce sufficient copy as well as the very real limitations on resources available to journalists militated against the corroboration of all stories.⁵⁴⁶⁵⁴⁶ pp63-65, lines 20-2, Gordon Smart, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf Mr Smart said that it was the practice of the showbusiness desk only to seek to stand up the two lead stories or those which were most contentious.⁵⁴⁷⁵⁴⁷ p64, lines 13-18, ibid Smaller stories and those which were unlikely to cause offence or reputational damage would not normally be fully corroborated.⁵⁴⁸⁵⁴⁸ p64, lines 16-18, ibid Mr Owens also admitted that, given the quantities of information received from the public, it was not always possible to run full checks on stories.

¶Judging whether a story is credible

¶10.30 A decision to run a story without having fully established the credibility of a source might be justified on a number of grounds. First, journalists might seek to establish some of the facts around a story but not necessarily all details, proceeding with the publication of the story on the basis of that partial corroboration. Second, as described in evidence by Mr Smart, journalists might judge that a story was credible given their knowledge of the individuals concerned or the knowledge of others individuals linked to that person.⁵⁴⁹⁵⁴⁹ p52, lines 4-16, ibid As an example, Mr Smart said that he decided to publish stories supplied to him by the documentary film-maker F Mr Atkins, which later turned out to be fabricated, because they chimed with his knowledge of the people concerned. In response to questions about the likely veracity of a story supplied by Mr Atkins about the film maker Guy Ritchie (who it was alleged had injured himself while drunkenly juggling cutlery in a London restaurant), Mr Smart suggested he had known that Mr Ritchie had been in the restaurant in question at the time, and that he had managed to corroborate that Mr Ritchie was drunk at the time and was 'misbehaving'. Mr Smart said that the references to juggling came only at the end of the article and were an "insignificant" part of a "trivial story".⁵⁵⁰⁵⁵⁰ p69, lines 20-25, ibid However, Mr Smart did concede that it was unacceptable that somebody should be able deliberately to make up a story and that such a story should then appear in a newspaper.⁵⁵¹⁵⁵¹ p70, lines 6-10, ibid

¶10.31 In relation to a story by Mr Atkins alleging that the singer Sarah Harding had a library full of books on astro-physics, Mr Smart suggested that, as a personal acquaintance of Miss Harding, he was well placed to judge the credibility of Mr Atkins' claim. Mr Smart told the Inquiry that he knew that Miss Harding had "quite an impressive library".⁵⁵²⁵⁵² p69, lines 11-12, ibid He also said that he contacted Miss Harding's agent who said "it wouldn't surprise me if she owned a book like that".⁵⁵³⁵⁵³ p70, lines 14-15, ibid Mr Smart explained that this provided sufficient verification to decide in favour of publishing the story, even though the fundamental allegation in the story remained untrue. It is to note that, although in both of these cases the central allegation remained untrue, the general corroboration of some of the details of the allegations by the respective agents of Miss Harding and Mr Ritchie enabled Mr Smart to stand up the story sufficiently to mitigate the risk of legal action from either party.

701

¶Risks of payments for stories

¶10.32 There are two significant risks associated with the advertisement by newspapers for stories: first, that it may incentivise fabrication and/or exaggeration, and second that it may encourage breaches of privacy. The Inquiry has seen evidence of both.

¶Incentivising fabrication and exaggeration

¶10.33 In his evidence, Mr Atkins argued that the willingness of newspapers to pay for stories encouraged distortion and exaggeration on the part of sources and incentivised fabrication of material, particularly as the materials provided may frequently go unchecked and unverified.⁵⁵⁴⁵⁵⁴ p4, para 18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Witness-Statement-of-Chris-Atkins1. pdf Mr Atkins also said that, in his view, given the potentially very high level of payments involved, those members of the public seeking to sell stories to newspapers were often motivated more by profit than accuracy.⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵⁵ p5, para 24, ibid Further, he suggested that the journalists he spoke with encouraged him to exaggerate the more sensational aspects of the stories in question, in order that they might deliver more newsworthy content to their editors. Mr Atkins noted in his evidence that the more "outlandish" and sensational the stories he offered to the newspapers, the higher the level of payment that was offered in return.⁵⁵⁶⁵⁵⁶ p4, para 20, ibid F

¶10.34 By way of example, Mr Atkins described to the Inquiry his attempt to sell a story about the Canadian pop singer, Avril Lavigne. Mr Atkins explained that he contacted the Daily Express and attempted to see if he might be able to interest the newspaper in a story about the singer falling asleep in the nightclub, Bungalow 8. Although the story was rejected by the journalist at the Express, that journalist suggested that the title would be more interested in running the story if Mr Atkins could come back with a story that Ms Lavigne had been found "smoking crack". Mr Atkins was able to sell the original story to the Daily Mirror for £50 and the story was published without verification.⁵⁵⁷⁵⁵⁷ p4, para 19, ibid Trinity Mirror has since accepted that it was wrong to have published the article and have published both a correction and issued an apology to Miss Lavigne.

¶10.35 Mr Davies explained that the Guardian had adopted the approach that, as a matter of principle, it would not pay for stories. He sought to explain that reasoning as one driven by practicalities rather than ethical, legal or financial considerations (although consideration of those issues had helped to inform the Guardian's position).⁵⁵⁸⁵⁵⁸ p88, lines 9-25, Nick Davies, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf Essentially at one with Mr Leigh, the position of Mr Davies was that the purchase of information might lead individuals to fabricate material or exaggerate the extent and impact of material in order to increase the value of that information.⁵⁵⁹⁵⁵⁹ p167, lines 20-25, ibid

702

¶10.36 Mr Leigh gave a specific example of a situation in which the Guardian had maintained this position, even where the information for sale was thought to be in the public interest. He spoke of a potential story about the infiltration by a major weapons manufacturer of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. The source of the information, who Mr Leigh and his colleagues believed to be credible, had requested payment of approximately £20,000. Mr Leigh said that whilst he believed that the story was in the public interest, he could not in the circumstance justify the sum of money requested and also because it caused concerns that relevant details had been embellished or exaggerated.⁵⁶⁰⁵⁶⁰ pp63-64, lines 9-1, David Leigh, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-December-20111.pdf Mr Leigh also made it clear that he did not think that it would be possible to stand up the story without the information held by his source.⁵⁶¹⁵⁶¹ p64, lines 2-13, ibid

¶10.37 The Guardian's approach is admirable and, by adopting a hard line on payments for information, the risk of fabrication and/or exaggeration is substantially limited. However, in saying that, I should not be interpreted as saying that the Guardian's approach is the only legitimate approach and should therefore be adopted by all titles. As noted above, the Daily Telegraph paid a substantial sum of money for the information which led to the MPs' expenses scandal and I have made no criticism of the Telegraph's decision to pay that money. The Times, The Independent and the Daily Telegraph also made clear that they would pay for stories, exceptionally, if they perceived there to be a clear public interest in the story in question. I accept that there may be many circumstances in which payments for information are justified in the public interest.

¶10.38 I also accept that payments for information may also be acceptable in the pursuit of pure entertainment stories or diary pages, provided that the publication does not lead to the F publication of fiction, and/or the breach of privacy (see below).It is essential that titles which choose to make payments for stories (whether in the public interest, or merely because they interest the public) are fully aware of the risks involved, including the very real risks of providing an incentive for fabrication and/or exaggeration. It seems that at present, parts of the press are not sufficiently aware of those risks and do not seek to corroborate or check the stories published.

¶Providing an incentive for intrusions into private life

¶10.39 A further concern arising from the solicitation of stories for payment is that the practice provides an incentive for breaches of privacy. The "kiss and tell" is a prime example of this. While the evidence heard by the Inquiry suggested that traditional "kiss and tell" stories are declining, they are clearly not merely of historic interest and continue to appear in tabloid newspapers. Sometimes, these will involve breaches of privacy justified by the public interest,⁵⁶²⁵⁶² Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB) but other times they will not be so justified. What is clear is that the offer of payment by the individual titles is often a significant motivating factor for the (generally) women who sell their stories. The Inquiry also heard that the offer of payments to (generally) women involved in intimate relationship with well-known people can lead to conduct at least verging on the blackmail of those people: Mr Flitcroft said that one of the women with whom he was involved demanded £3,000 to keep quiet; a second woman demanded £5,000. One can only infer that those sums were close to the sums offered by the newspaper for their stories.⁵⁶³⁵⁶³ p1, para 7-12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Garry- Flitcroft.pdf; pp48-51, lines 16-6, Garry Flitcroft, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf

703

¶10.40 In addition, the evidence emerging from the "medical records sting" in Chris Atkins' Starsuckers (discussed above) supports the conclusion that the offer of payments for stories incentivises breaches of private life. Notable in that evidence was the discussion between Mr Atkins and a journalist from the Sunday People, in particular on how the private information could be used without revealing that it derived from medical records; the journalist suggested instead that a woman who had allegedly had a breast enlargement could be featured in a "silhouette spread" or a "have they, haven't they story". This causes some concern because it suggests that even information that a newspaper judges too private to publish in the form disclosed by the source may be used as the foundation for a different story, which is not based directly on the source material.

¶10.41 Further, as Steve Turner of the BPPA has noted, the request by some newspapers for readers to send photographs of people in the public eye, in return for payment, has led to the development of "amateur celebrity chasing paparazzi" or "stakerazzi". As discussed above in Section 5 of this Chapter, this has caused significant invasions of privacy for many people in the public eye.

¶10.42 It is important to note that the payment for information about the private life of an individual may not always be unethical. It may also be ethical in certain circumstances to pay for a photographs provided by members of the public. I should make it absolutely clear that I am not advocating the banning of payments for information, even payments for private information. What concerns me is the degree to which some newspapers appear to rely on the provision of private information to fill their pages, and therefore actively encourage the disclosure of private information via eye-catching advertisements which offer monetary reward. This approach risks the wholesale disclosure of private information without consideration of the F public interest in doing so. Even if the newspaper does not subsequently publish the disclosed information, the disclosure is itself a breach of privacy.

¶Conclusions

¶10.43 Plainly, there are circumstances where the making of payment for information for stories is clearly illegal as a matter of criminal law: the Bribery Act 2010 forbids the payments to public officials, and there is no defence based on actual or perceived public interest. The extent of such criminal activity is not a matter for this Inquiry given that it forms the basis of Operation Elveden.⁵⁶⁴⁵⁶⁴ Part E, Chapter 5

¶10.44 Beyond the specific confines of the Bribery Act, the paying of sources for information is not contrary to the criminal law (although it should be noted and underscored that the general principle which permits the protection of the confidentiality of sources does not justify paying money to a public official and then 'protecting' his or her identity), although it may often be unethical, for a number of clear and obvious reasons. First, the source may require payment for the very reason that he or she has obtained the information in question by illegal, unethical or otherwise dubious means, and the payment is, as it were, the price for taking the risk. Second, the fact that a source apparently requires payment for supplying the information in question may well be an incentive for exaggeration and embellishment. Put another way, it is legitimate to argue that a source who provides information without seeking remuneration for it is more likely to be acting out of sound motives. Third, the offering of money for stories may well encourage members of the public to engage in intrusive methods in circumstances where there is no clear public interest.

704

¶10.45 Overall, paying for information may be seen as increasing the risk of unethical if not illegal conduct by the source and, in consequence, by the journalist acting on the information purchased. In order to reduce these risks to acceptable levels, if newspapers are to continue to offer payment for stories, at the very least what is required are clear and effective internal systems of accountability and reporting, together with an acute assessment of where the public interest lies. In large parts of the press, this does not appear to have been occurring.

11. Treatment of critics

¶11.1 The way in which an individual, an organisation, or an industry treats its critics can reveal a lot about its culture. Openness to legitimate criticism is the hallmark of many thriving organisations and industries. By contrast, defensiveness and intimidation in response to legitimate criticism tends to be a feature of closed-minded and entrenched industries. The phone hacking scandal as a whole revealed that large parts of the press tended to the latter: over the course of five years, much of the press showed a complete unwillingness to engage with those critics who pointed to evidence of unlawful and unethical practices within one newspaper, and to practices which are likely to have taken place in others too. Indeed, rather than engaging with those critics, much of the press subjected them to intense scrutiny, occasionally amounting to intimidation.

¶11.2 The clearest example of this is the approach adopted by NI in response to high profile phone hacking critics. As discussed above,⁵⁶⁵⁵⁶⁵ Part F, Chapter 4 lawyers bringing claims against NI were subjected to ongoing surveillance, commissioned with a view to trying to force them to remove F themselves from the litigation. Similarly a member of the CMS Select Committee was placed under surveillance during its investigation of phone hacking. Mr Webb confirmed that he was instructed to place Tom Watson MP under surveillance for a period of a week, trying to prove an alleged affair (which was not in fact taking place) in order to pressure Mr Watson to step back from the phone hacking issue. Another member of the Select Committee Mr Bryant, told the Inquiry of his experience of direct intimidation. In early 2011 he was called by a friend who informed him that two people close to Rupert Murdoch had warned that it would be wise for Mr Bryant to desist from the phone hacking investigations, or Mr Murdoch would "get him, in time". While there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that Mr Murdoch had in fact made any threats, there is no reason to doubt that a phone call between Mr Bryant and his friend took place and that something which could be construed as a threat purporting to be from Mr Murdoch was passed on. Mr Bryant said that further threats were passed on in March 2011.⁵⁶⁶⁵⁶⁶ p2, para 4–22, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-by-Chris- Bryant-MP.pdf

¶11.3 Mr Grant, who was seen as a figurehead of the Hacked Off campaign, was also the subject of threats. The mother of his child was called by an anonymous caller when he was on television discussing the phone hacking issue and told to "Tell Hugh Grant to shut the fuck up!"⁵⁶⁷⁵⁶⁷ p1, para 3-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Supplemental-Witness-Statement- of-Hugh-Grant.pdf.

¶11.4 These examples of surveillance and intimidation in the context of the phone hacking scandal are particularly egregious. It seems clear that certain people within the NoTW, or, perhaps, unsought supporters, were determined to prevent many of the facts discussed at elsewhere⁵⁶⁸⁵⁶⁸ Part F, Chapter 4 Chapter 4 from being revealed, and so resorted to deeply unethical methods to prevent that from happening. However, although the evidence as a whole did not suggest that the use of direct threats and the like by the press was commonplace, the limited evidence of those methods in the context of the phone hacking scandal was consistent with evidence given by a number of the Core Participants complaining of press misconduct, who spoke to a general atmosphere of intimidation by parts of the press. The evidence of that atmosphere came in two forms: first, evidence of the press launching direct personal attacks on critics; and second, evidence from a wide range of witnesses of a failure to speak out or criticise, litigate, or seek assistance from the regulator, for fear of the personal consequences.

705

¶11.5 The Inquiry saw numerous examples of parts of the press adopting attack as the best form of defence against critics. When Mr Peppiatt resigned from the Daily Star and published his resignation letter in the Guardian, he was subjected to a campaign of harassment and threats. He received phone calls and text messages telling him, for instance, he was "a marked man until the day you die", or "RD will get you", which he understood to be a reference to Daily Star proprietor Richard Desmond: again, there is no evidence that Mr Desmond was personally responsible for any such communication. An individual with long established links to the tabloid world has apparently been warned by the police in connection with the harassment of Mr Peppiatt.⁵⁶⁹⁵⁶⁹ pp40-43, lines 3-15, Richard Peppiatt, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf

¶11.6 A more conventional example of the attack by a newspaper of a critic is the Daily Mail's story about Mr Grant and his alleged 'mendacious smears', which is discussed in detail above.⁵⁷⁰⁵⁷⁰ Part F, Chapter 5 That article followed several others attacking and criticising Mr Grant, partly in relation to his role as spokesperson for Hacked Off. One prime example included an ad hominem attack par excellence: the article sought to undermine Mr Grant's arguments in favour of press regulation by attacking his character, describing him as an "oleaginous, womanising lounge- lizard" who was a "lonely, bitter man consumed with hatred of the media who helped make F him a star".⁵⁷¹⁵⁷¹ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056916/Hugh-Grant-baby-Hypocrisy-new-fathers-tawdry-self-love.html; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2013285/News-World-How-Hugh-Grant-Steve-Coogan-pose-moral-arbiters. html; Similar articles were written to discredit Mr Coogan's arguments in favour of press reform.⁵⁷²⁵⁷² http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013316/Steve-Coogan-phone-hacking-scandal-sickening-case-hypocrisy. html

¶11.7 The Sun's response to Mr Brown's allegation that the newspaper had unlawfully accessed his son's medical records was a further example of attack as defence.⁵⁷³⁵⁷³ Part F, Chapter 7

¶11.8 Witnesses who had pursued litigation against newspaper titles gave evidence that parts of the press sought retribution against those who brought claims against a newspaper title. Mr Thomson, said that a successful action invariably led to retribution. He explained:⁵⁷⁴⁵⁷⁴ pp61-63, lines 22-10, Mark Thomson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-24-November-2011.pdf

"I've acted for Naomi Campbell, Loreena McKennitt, Sienna Miller at the time she was complaining she was chastised for complaining, for whingeing about her privacy. Max Mosley was – every possible claimant, whether it's a footballer, they have all been chastised for complaining, for going to law to get remedies, and it's a sort of tactic to undermine their vindication by trashing the claimant. … Of course they can comment on the judicial process in the sense of, "Oh, well, I don't think that injunction should have been granted", but – this is my opinion, my suspicion is: well, if they go to law, we'll give them a good trashing and it will deter other people from doing the same. That's my view about the strategy behind it because it happens, as I said, almost invariably. Let's make it difficult for them, let's deter others, let's trash them and maybe other people will think long and hard about doing it in future."

706

¶11.9 Mr Shear gave similar evidence in relation to one of his clients who had sued for libel in respect of allegations of homosexual activity. Having succeeded in the libel action, the client became a target of interest for the newspaper and the victim of what Mr Shear described as "a revenge-fuelled fervour", and a determination to prove something that was damaging to his reputation or to his private life as part of "the quid pro quo of having the temerity to take on the national media in those circumstances."⁵⁷⁵⁵⁷⁵ pp67-68, lines 8-24; pp69-72, lines 21-12, Graham Shear, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf

¶11.10 Ms Rowling gave an example of what might be thought of as small-scale retribution by the press. In 2005, she had complained to the PCC in respect of the Daily Mirror publishing her address. A matter of five days after the complaint was made, the Mirror published a photograph of Ms Rowling's daughter as a baby, despite the fact it was well known that she was fiercely protective of her children's privacy and objected to the publication of their photographs. Her view was that the Daily Mirror's decision to publish the photograph was a deliberate act of spite in response to her complaint.⁵⁷⁶⁵⁷⁶ p68, lines 14-23, JK Rowling, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf

¶11.11 Mr Mosley provided a considerably larger scale example when describing the course of his privacy litigation against the NoTW. In response to Mr Mosley's application for an injunction to prevent (re)publication of the offending article and video, and while awaiting judgment, F the NoTW splashed another front page article concerning the events in question under the heading "MY NAZI ORGY WITH FI BOSS". Further, for reasons which to my mind could never do them credit (whatever other justification might be advanced), the NoTW sent a copy of the video to Formula 1 bosses, presumably in what transpired to be an unsuccessful attempt to get Mr Mosley dismissed from his position.⁵⁷⁷⁵⁷⁷ p5, para 15, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Max-Mosley. pdf

¶11.12 In the light of behaviour of this sort, it is not, perhaps, surprising that a number of witnesses gave evidence to the effect that they avoided litigation or complaints: it seems that many people in the public eye would rather endure breaches of privacy or small libels than conduct litigation, face the repetition of the offending story and endure the aggressive press response that comes from it.

¶11.13 Mr Grant said to the Inquiry: "to speak out and criticise is to invite a terrible press storm on your head".⁵⁷⁸⁵⁷⁸ p67, lines 22-24, Hugh Grant, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-21-November-2011.pdf As a consequence, his evidence was that he had avoided litigating or complaining about unethical press practices, except in the most serious cases. Mr Coogan gave similar evidence. He said:⁵⁷⁹⁵⁷⁹ p27, lines 5-21, Steve Coogan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf

"if you stick your head above the parapet or you criticise the papers or you make a point of taking action, then they'll come after you, you know. Insofar as my legal action is concerned, I was – I was advised by my publicists that – they actually said to me, "Do you –" When I was considering taking action against News International, my publicists said to me, "Do you really want to make enemies of these people?" By implication – well, the inference being that if – and when I asked them to elaborate, they said, "Well, in the future if they decide to run another story, we can use it as a bargaining chip. We can say that you could have taken legal action and you didn't, therefore why don't you drop the story?" But when they said "these people", they meant that – the inference was clear, that if you make life difficult for them, they will use their newspapers as a weapon against you."

707

¶11.14 Ms Church⁵⁸⁰⁵⁸⁰ pp45-46, lines 21-3, Charlotte Church, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf and Ms Gascoigne⁵⁸¹⁵⁸¹ pp66-67, lines 17-5, Sheryl Gascoigne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-November-20111.pdf had, for significant periods, adopted the same approach, avoiding litigation and avoiding complaint except in the most serious circumstances, in order to avoid the aggressive and unpleasant response with which a complaint would be met. Ms Church's evidence indicated that aggressive attacks have a corollary: preferential treatment for those who cooperate with newspapers. She recalled that when she was asked to sing at Rupert Murdoch's wedding in 1999, her manager was offered the choice between $100,000, or no fee but favourable treatment in the NI press. Her manager advised her to accept no fee.⁵⁸²⁵⁸² By letter received 18 October 2012, Charlotte Church's then manager wrote to the Inquiry challenging this account of the facts in order to restore his own 'unblemished professional reputation in the face of the continual aspersions cast upon it'. Said to have been prompted by an article on 5 October 2012, it is surprising that he did not do so after the evidence was first given (28 November 2011) when it may well have been appropriate to allow the matter to be ventilated further. As it is, Ms Church does not accept the account provided by Professor Shalit and I am not in a position to take the matter further. The Report consists of a review and an analysis of the evidence which was given, rather than that which was notShow full note

¶11.15 The evidence as a whole highlighted a point I made during the course of the Inquiry. The press are in a unique position as they carry a very large megaphone: if people cooperate, that megaphone can be used to enhance careers; for those who complain or challenge titles, the megaphone can be used to destroy them. Whereas complainants or litigants against individual titles have a limited forum to air their complaints, the press have a ready and captive audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions of readers who will read their response. As a former NoTW news editor noted in an unguarded moment, the megaphone can be used to "destroy people's lives".⁵⁸³⁵⁸³ Burden, P, Fake Sheikhs and Royal Trappings, front page

¶11.16 Evidence of aggressive attacks on press critics, and self-censorship by potential critics, extended beyond the celebrity world and into the judicial and political field as well. In response to the Max Mosley judgment, a number of tabloid newspapers launched an aggressive and personal campaign against the judge in the case, Mr Justice Eady.⁵⁸⁴⁵⁸⁴ pp27-28, para 133-138, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of- Max-Mosley.pdf In his speech to the Society of Editors, Mr Dacre described his judgments as "arrogant and amoral" and criticised his "subjective and highly relativist moral sense".⁵⁸⁵⁵⁸⁵ http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/42394 Although Mr Dacre stated that he had attacked the judgments and not the man,⁵⁸⁶⁵⁸⁶ p12, lines 19-21, Paul Dacre, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-6-February-20121.pdf some might be forgiven for reading the speech differently, particularly when reading it alongside Daily Mail articles such as, 'As cold as a frozen haddock, Mr Justice Eady hands down his views shorn of moral balance...'.⁵⁸⁷⁵⁸⁷ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038478/QUENTIN-LETTS-As-cold-frozen-haddock-Mr-Justice-Eady-hands- views-shorn-moral-balance-.html The key point, it seems to me, is that if Mr Dacre and others had a strong objection to the development of protection of a right to privacy in UK law, they were perfectly entitled to express that objection in forceful terms. But by directing the rhetorical fire at an individual judge who was seeking to apply the principles set down by higher courts and whose judgments were capable of challenge on appeal, that objection takes on the appearance of being aggressive and intimidating. Furthermore, it was an attack to which, by judicial convention, Mr Justice Eady was unable to respond.

708

¶11.17 Similarly intimidating and aggressive attacks have been directed at politicians who have criticised aspects of the press. Rather than engaging with the arguments made by the critics, parts of the press have engaged in ad hominem attacks. A prime example is the treatment of critics of Page 3 who have been labelled variously as "fat", "ugly" "harridan", "battleaxe" and "jealous of beautiful women". Their arguments have been described as "potty", "senseless" and "furious rants".⁵⁸⁸⁵⁸⁸ See above at para 8.20

¶11.18 However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that overt intimidation of politicians by the press is rare. What is far more widespread is a self-restraint by politicians fearful of criticising the press. The evidence received from a number of politician witnesses indicated that fear of press attack was a significant factor in the failure of successive Governments to tackle the issue of press behaviour, notwithstanding a recognition that better regulation was required. This is discussed in greater detail elsewhere, but for the purposes of this chapter it worth noting Lord Mandelson's view that the Blair and Brown Governments were 'cowed' by the power of the press and the threat of a hostile response to any attempts to address press F regulation.⁵⁸⁹⁵⁸⁹ p9, para 11, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Lord- Mandelson.pdf. Lord Mandelson slightly pushed back from this in oral evidence. The Rt Hon Ed Miliband agreed that fear played a significant part in the failure to address press regulation during the Blair and Brown years.⁵⁹⁰⁵⁹⁰ p28, lines 12-24, Ed Miliband, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf When Mr Blair attempted to articulate his concerns about some aspects of the culture of the press in a speech delivered prior to his departure from office,⁵⁹¹⁵⁹¹ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6744581.stm the almost universally critical press response, including a number of personally directed attacks, appeared to confirm those fears.⁵⁹²⁵⁹² http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461603/The-magnificent-self-delusion-Mr-Blair.html; http://www. telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3640592/Blairs-last-enemy-freedom-of-speech.html; http://www.guardian. co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/13/media.pressandpublishing; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_ says/236972/Vital-freedom.html As Mr Paxman noted in his MacTaggart lecture in the same year:⁵⁹³⁵⁹³ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561287/In-full-Jeremy-Paxmans-MacTaggart-Lecture.html;

"…I thought the way we responded to Tony Blair's speech was pretty pathetic. Again, let's be frank. These two trades, politics and media have a great deal in common. Both deal in words and images, both involve a contract with the public based upon fairly explicit promises… By and large, the response to Blair's attack just pressed the F12 key. Yah booh. You're a politician. We're media yahoos. Get over it."

709

¶11.19 Assessed as a whole, it is appropriate to conclude from the evidence that a practice has existed within parts of the press, at certain times and in certain circumstances, of seeking to intimidate or seek retribution against complainants and critics. While that approach may not have been widespread, it has been sufficiently prevalent to create a generalised fear amongst those in the public eye of criticising or challenging the press owing to concerns about personal attack and vilification. I repeat that the press is entitled to hold whatever opinions it wishes and, subject to defamation, is equally entitled to express them: it cannot complain, however, if the inference is drawn that this practice is a form of special pleading and that the attack follows a challenge to the way in which they go about their business.

12. Complaints handling

¶12.1 An issue related to the way in which the press treats critics is the manner in which it deals with those who make complaints in relation to specific stories. The Inquiry heard a great deal of evidence of good practice on this issue, in particular in relation to the use of readers' editors at a number of titles. But there was also substantial evidence of poor practice, showing first, that the complaints process can be (sometimes, it was thought, deliberately) protracted, complicated and expensive; second that there is a strong reluctance in parts of the press to apologise even when it is not in dispute that a story was incorrect; and third, that apologies, retractions and corrections are frequently given substantially less prominence than the offending article and therefore fail to satisfy those who are aggrieved. Although evidence was heard on these issues from many witnesses, I focus only on three examples which I treat as case studies: the identity of the titles concerned is not to the point.

¶12.2 The first example was the response of a number of newspapers to complaints made by the McCanns in light of defamatory reporting of the circumstances of their daughter's disappearance.⁵⁹⁴⁵⁹⁴ pp9-13, para 53-80, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerry- McCann.pdf Although some of the narrative has already been described,⁵⁹⁵⁵⁹⁵ Part F, Chapter 5 it bears brief repetition here. In September 2007, the McCanns' solicitor Angus McBride met with all the editors of the national newspapers to convey the McCanns' concerns about the defamatory reporting of Madeleine's disappearance and the harmful impact this reporting was having on the search for her. That first meeting appeared to have no effect and, after continuing libellous reporting by a number of daily newspapers, further meetings were arranged between Mr McBride, Clarence Mitchell and the editors responsible. Those further meetings also appeared to have no effect and the defamatory reporting continued. On 26 September 2007, a solicitors' letter threatening libel proceedings was sent to those newspapers which appeared to be the worst offenders. That letter, and a further letter sent on 10 October 2007, appeared to have no impact on the continuing libellous reporting.⁵⁹⁶⁵⁹⁶ pp9-13, para 53-60, ibid

¶12.3 In January 2008, the McCanns' representatives sent a formal letter before action in advance of a libel claim to both the Daily Express and the Daily Star newspapers. Notwithstanding the fact that the newspapers were aware they had no clear factual basis for any of the libellous stories published,⁵⁹⁷⁵⁹⁷ Section 6 the Express Group wrote that they were not willing to publish an apology for the libels, but were willing to offer the McCanns a "platform" to tell their side of the story, and offered them an exclusive interview and photo-shoot with OK! Magazine. Unsurprisingly, the McCanns rejected the (astonishingly misjudged) offer. As Dr Gerry McCann wrote:⁵⁹⁸⁵⁹⁸ p11, para 68, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald- Patrick-McCann.pdf

710

"I found it simply breathtaking that they would think it appropriate to offer us interviews or other coverage in their own newspapers that they would subsequently make money from, as an appropriate remedy for the distress and hurt they had caused."

¶12.4 Although the Express Group subsequently published what they described as an "unprecedented" front page apology to the McCanns, that was not matched by their apology to the friends of the McCanns who had also been falsely accused (on the front page) of covering up the truth about Madeleine's disappearance: their apology in the Daily Express was found on page five.

¶12.5 The McCanns also brought proceedings against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), on the basis of defamatory coverage in the Evening Standard and Daily Mail. The claim was settled with a substantial payment to the Find Madeleine fund, and an apology in the Evening Standard. The Daily Mail offered the McCanns free advertising for the Find Madeleine fund, but refused to apologise essentially on the basis that the defamatory stories published by the title had been balanced with a number of favourable reports about the McCanns. Unsurprisingly, the McCanns were disappointed by the newspaper's stance, but chose not to continue a protracted dispute.⁵⁹⁹⁵⁹⁹ p13, para 80, ibid

¶12.6 The second example of poor practice in responding to complaints is Neil Morrissey's experience of a complaint against the Daily Mail.⁶⁰⁰⁶⁰⁰ pp4-10, para 10-40, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Submission-on-behalf-of-Neil- Morrissey.pdf On 19 March 2011, the Daily Mail had published an article alleging that Mr Morrissey had been banned from a pub in France for F drunken and rowdy behaviour. The story was untrue, the Daily Mail had been told in advance of publication that it was untrue, and the Daily Mail eventually accepted it was untrue and apologised. But the process leading to that apology was unnecessarily protracted.

¶12.7 On 23 March 2011, immediately after publication, Mr Morrissey's lawyers wrote to ANL stating that if an immediate apology and retraction were published, no claim for damages would be issued. That letter and a subsequent one went unanswered for a month. ANL eventually replied on 21 April 2011 refusing to publish an apology or retraction even though it appears that they did not claim in terms that the story was true, insisting instead that the story presented Mr Morrissey "in a sympathetic light".

¶12.8 Mr Morrissey issued a libel claim on 21 June 2011. A further six weeks passed before, on 5 August 2011, the Daily Mail accepted that the story was untrue and made an offer of amends. Although ANL claim that it was only then that it became clear that the story was untrue,⁶⁰¹⁶⁰¹ p2, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Submission-from-RPC-regarding-Shaw- Morrissey-and-Mouse.pdf it is difficult to understand why it took almost five months to reach this conclusion.

¶12.9 Once the Daily Mail accepted its error, the parties entered negotiations to agree the format and placement of an apology. The original article was published on page 19, took up a full page of the Daily Mail, was around 600 words long and included four large photographs. Mr Morrissey originally requested a 160 word apology under its own headline, but entered into negotiations with the Daily Mail over wording.⁶⁰²⁶⁰² p2, para 8, ibid After six weeks of negotiations, the Daily Mail published a 67 word unilateral apology on its "corrections and clarifications" column on page 2.⁶⁰³⁶⁰³ Appendix 2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Submission-on-behalf-of-Neil- Morrissey.pdf Mr Morrissey complained that this apology did not have anything approaching the same prominence as the offending article.

711

¶12.10 The Inquiry heard evidence from a number of witnesses with regard to correction and clarification columns and their benefits and disadvantages. Although I accept that there are significant benefits, a legitimate criticism that needs to be addressed is how to distinguish an apology for defamation or breach of privacy from simple factual corrections or clarifications. The apology to Mr Morrissey was published alongside a correction of the price paid by the NHS per loaf of gluten-free bread, and it seems reasonable in that context for Mr Morrissey to complain that the placement of the apology devalued it. In my view, an apology should at least be headlined with "apology" or "sorry" or something to clearly mark it out as something distinct from a simple factual correction. In the absence of such a clear marker, it is unsurprising that some witnesses inferred that newspapers seek to bury their apologies.

¶12.11 The third example was provided by the organisation Carbon Brief, and evidences an inadequate response to complaints of inaccuracies that harm the public interest.⁶⁰⁴⁶⁰⁴ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Submission-by-Carbon-Brief.pdf Carbon Brief noted a series of articles in the Daily Mail which suggested that there was an average £200 "green tax" on household energy bills, which accounted for 20% of total household energy costs. The claim was inaccurate (the best accurate figure was around £80 or 8%), but was being used to justify a number of opinion pieces critical of the government's green agenda. Carbon Brief was concerned that the error fed into the Mail's "editorial line on the matter, which can be summarised as a campaigning stance against green policies to encourage renewable power or energy efficiency".⁶⁰⁵⁶⁰⁵ p1, ibid

¶12.12 Immediately after publication, Carbon Brief wrote to the Daily Mail to identify the error, but F received no response. A subsequent complaint to the PCC was defended by the Daily Mail by reference to a 2008 report by the think-tank Civitas. However, that report did not in fact support the Daily Mail's £200 or 20% claim. Accordingly, the Daily Mail published a correction some three months after the claim had first appeared, and after it had been repeated many times in other titles.⁶⁰⁶⁶⁰⁶ pp2-4, ibid

¶12.13 That was not the end of the matter. Less than two weeks after the correction had been published, the 20% claim was repeated in the Mail on Sunday. Carbon Brief wrote to the Mail on Sunday to identify the error but, once again, received no response. Carbon Brief therefore made a second complaint to the PCC. Pending the resolution of that complaint, and despite the fact the Mail on Sunday was aware of both the PCC complaint and the previous correction in the Daily Mail, it published a further article making the same claim, saying that "the country is overrun with wind farms and energy costs are skyrocketing, with green stealth taxes adding 15 to 20 per cent to the average domestic power bill." The Mail on Sunday subsequently published a correction, but then, two months later, once again repeated the claim.⁶⁰⁷⁶⁰⁷ pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Submission-by-Carbon-Brief.pdf

¶12.14 Carbon Brief summarised its complaint in the following bullet points:⁶⁰⁸⁶⁰⁸ p5, p9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Submission-by-Full-Fact.pdf

¶
• "This has been a time consuming and involved process, over a fairly straightforward factual inaccuracy.

712

¶
• The MoS repeated a figure that had already been corrected twice while there was a PCC complaint about the figure with the paper.
• Despite two successful PCC complaints about a specific statistic and published corrections in both the Mail and the Mail on Sunday, the Mail group are still repeating the figure.
• Either the Mail group's internal processes for noting complaints are inadequate, or they do not take PCC negotiated corrections seriously."

¶12.15 To those bullet points might be added a fifth point, namely that complaints to the PCC would never have been required had the titles replied to the original letters sent by Carbon Brief direct to the newspapers. Accordingly, the example raises concerns about the ability, or willingness, of some newspaper titles to respond to complaints made direct to the newspaper by readers. Sensibly, most complaints should be resolved at that level without the need to refer a complaint to the regulatory body. But the Carbon Brief example suggests that, in some cases, some newspapers ignore complaints entirely, or delay in responding for significant periods, until the regulator, or the courts, are involved.

¶12.16 The three examples above provide evidence of each of the three specific concerns raised by witnesses in relation to inadequate complaint handling by parts of the press: i) the delay and expense of bringing a complaint, ii) the reluctance of parts of the press to apologise or correct errors, and iii) the failure to give due prominence to apologies and corrections.

¶F Unnecessary delay and over-complication of the complaints process

¶12.17 Full Fact provided the Inquiry with evidence of all three issues. In relation to the delay occasioned by parts of the press when dealing with complaints, Full Fact suggested that some newspapers deliberately complicate and draw out the complaints process as a tactic to avoid making apologies and corrections. They wrote that "little effort is made on the part of newspapers to avoid making the process extremely awkward and time consuming for complainants".⁶⁰⁹⁶⁰⁹ p9, ibid⁶¹⁰⁶¹⁰ Mr Moy overstates the position in suggesting that this is standard practice within newspapers. The Inquiry has received much evidence to contrary effect: see, for example, the decision of the Court of Appeal in KC v MGN Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1382 and the earlier decision of Eady J in Bowman v NGN [2010] EWHC 858 (QB) Will Moy spoke of their regular experience as follows:⁶¹¹⁶¹¹ p63, lines 5-18, William Moy, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-8-February-2012.pdf

"Where the first offer you get is, "We'll amend the headline online only". Then you get the offer of "We'll print a letter from Full Fact disagreeing with our article but we won't change the article or admit there was anything wrong with it". Then you get page 12, then you get page 6, then you get page 4, then you get page 2. All of this, rounds and rounds of correspondence, weeks between them, takes forever, deeply tiring. And all of this, of course, after the actual inaccuracy has been accepted."

¶12.18 A specific example of apparently deliberate awkwardness was Full Fact's evidence that on three occasions, after a long process of negotiating agreed corrections, and after having reached agreement, the Daily Mail had contacted the PCC to seek changes to the agreement on the night before publication. The organisation noted:⁶¹²⁶¹² p9, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Submission-by-Full-Fact.pdf

713

"This means unilaterally reopening the complaints process on an evening before publication, when complainants may not be in a position to respond immediately. Indeed, this means demanding a response time from the complainant that we never receive from newspapers themselves. That this has been done on three separate occasions over four complaints to our knowledge, all by the same newspaper and not just to Full Fact, gives such moves the impression of a considered tactic to disrupt the process."

¶12.19 Although it is not necessary to reach a conclusion as to whether the Daily Mail's approach on the three occasions cited was part of a deliberate tactic, the simple fact is that it is part of a general tendency within parts of the press to delay and complicate what ought to be a reasonably simple process of prompt correction and apology. Mr Snow gave evidence of what he considered was unnecessary argument with ANL over the precise format of an apology to be published after he had been defamed. He said:⁶¹³⁶¹³ pp26-28, lines 4-5, Jon Snow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-25-June-2012.pdf

"The confession was that it was completely untrue and they accepted it was untrue and they retracted it and apologised. The apology was 1.5 inches by a column and then the wrestling was over whether there should be a photograph of me above it. They didn't want the photograph because that would draw attention to the apology. Actually, in the end, we got the photograph, but I mean, this is pathetic. Wrestling over 1.5 inches when you have had five pages of something which the paper itself deems untrue? That is not the way forward… That is the process we have at the moment. That is justice; that is the way any reader who – or any person offended by a paper who has something wrong gets redress." F

¶Reluctance to publish corrections and/or apologies, even where error is clear

¶12.20 In relation to a reluctance within some titles to publish apologies and/or corrections, Full Fact's 'churnalism' project was instructive.⁶¹⁴⁶¹⁴ http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Fifth-Submission-by-Full-Fact.pdf Along with Mr Atkins, Full Fact published a number of fictional press releases that were adopted and published by newspapers without sufficient checking. One, published in the Metro, told of a fictional stammerer who had decided to undergo unorthodox speech therapy to cure his stammer in time for Valentine's Day. Another, published by the Daily Mail on the basis of a Facebook page, reported claims that the Prime Minister's new cat was actually stolen from a council estate in South London. Full Fact informed the newspapers that they had published hoax stories but both refused to publish corrections or clarifications, despite extensive correspondence. Full Fact noted:⁶¹⁵⁶¹⁵ p8, ibid

"… it once again raises the question of why newspapers are so adversarial on the issue of acknowledging errors at all. It is extremely rare for us to submit a complaint about a significant factual inaccuracy that is not initially dismissed by the paper. Even in cases where papers have been indisputably wrong (such as over a basic error leading to stories reporting life expectancy on a Merthyr Tydfil estate was lower than in Haiti) several rounds of correspondence over several weeks have been required to get a worthwhile correction printed.

714

One of the problems at the heart the issue is not that papers get their facts wrong or indeed borrow heavily from press releases, but an unwillingness to acknowledge and act on the problems that may arise as a consequence. Given the time and resource pressures in the media it is inevitable that mistakes get made, so why not be more willing to acknowledge and correct them when they are pointed out? Perhaps it would make the embarrassment from these kind of hoaxes a little easier to swallow."

¶Lack of due prominence

¶12.21 The identification of a reluctance to publish apologies and/or corrections feeds into the third issue identified: lack of due prominence when an apology or correction is made. Full Fact⁶¹⁶⁶¹⁶ pp8 -12, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Submission-by-Full-Fact.pdf and the Media Standards Trust⁶¹⁷⁶¹⁷ pp22-23, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Submission-by-Media- Standards-Trust.pdf gave evidence on this point. Considered together their evidence suggests that it is extremely difficult to find any adjudications, apologies or corrections that are given equal prominence as the offending article. It is of course correct that "equal prominence" is not what is required by the Editors' Code, but it is also clear that what parts of the press consider to be "due prominence" is not the same as what victims of inaccuracies, defamations and breaches of privacy consider it to be.

¶12.22 Ms Mills,⁶¹⁸⁶¹⁸ pp91-92, lines 7 –15, Heather Mills, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-February-2012.pdf Ms Gascoigne,⁶¹⁹⁶¹⁹ pp80-81, lines 4 –6, Sheryl Gascoigne, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Morning-Hearing-23-November-20111.pdf Ms Miller,⁶²⁰⁶²⁰ p32 lines 15 –24, Sienna Miller, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-24-November-2011.pdf Mr Coogan,⁶²¹⁶²¹ pp34-38, lines 2 –4; pp48-51, lines 13-7, Steve Coogan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf Mr Snow⁶²²⁶²² pp24-28, lines 11 –5, Jon Snow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-25-June-2012.pdf and Ms Diamond⁶²³⁶²³ pp57-59, lines 17-25, Anne Diamond, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-28-November-20111.pdf; para 13-18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Anne-Diamond1.pdf all spoke of the insufficient prominence with which apologies were published after complaints of breach of privacy or libel. They were consistent in complaining that corrections or apologies were nowhere near as prominent as offending articles and noted that the damage F to reputation or privacy caused by a front page splash, or full page article, could not be remedied by the publication of a two inch apology within a corrections and clarifications column, or elsewhere in the newspaper.

¶12.23 Exemplifying this problem was The Sun's editor's evidence (supplemented by a further letter to the Inquiry on behalf of the Sun)⁶²⁴⁶²⁴ p57, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Witness-Statement-of-Alan-Walls.pdf in relation to a PCC adjudication relating to The Sun's article entitled "Boy, 12, turns into girl". The article was held by the PCC to be inaccurate and a breach of the girl's privacy. The original article had appeared on the front page of the newspaper, with a further full page on page 5. The adjudication was published on page 6, at the request of The Sun and agreed by the PCC, in a narrow column on the right of the page, adjacent to an eye catching article headlined "£1m Baby P Bungle". That the adjudication was published further back in the newspaper than the article was directly contradictory to Mr Mohan's written evidence, where he had written: "Corrections are never placed further back in the newspaper than the original article, except for those connected with page one stories where the correction is published on page two".⁶²⁵⁶²⁵ p4, para 18, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic- Mohan.pdf Nonetheless, Mr Mohan appeared to defend the prominence claiming that it was one of the longest adjudications ever published.⁶²⁶⁶²⁶ pp59-61, lines 16-23, Dominic Mohan, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf That may be so, but if Mr Mohan was claiming the publication of this particular adjudication as an example of due prominence, that causes significant concern.

715

¶12.24 Mr Blair's evidence indicated the potential importance of due prominence in correcting errors in political reporting. He recalled the front page vehemence with which parts of the press had attacked Lord Mandelson's alleged lies in relation to the Hinduja passport scandal and compared that vehemence to the relative lack of publicity given to the subsequent official report which cleared Lord Mandelson of any wrongdoing.⁶²⁷⁶²⁷ pp14-15, lines 1-18, Tony Blair, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-28-May-2012.pdf

¶12.25 Although some editors and journalists resisted the suggestion that apologies and corrections were "buried" within newspapers, a number accepted that there was at least a perception that this was the case. Rebekah Brooks noted that, in her experience, "correcting inaccuracies does not cost a great deal for the press, but it is given low priority and minimal projection" and she accepted that the NI newspapers were as much at fault for this as others.⁶²⁸⁶²⁸ p17, para 99, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Second-Witness-Statement-of- Rebekah-Brooks.pdf She said:⁶²⁹⁶²⁹ p59 lines 10-16, Rebekah Brooks, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-11-May-2012.pdf

"one of the biggest complaints I used to get, not necessarily about my own newspaper but about the press in general, was the prominence of apologies when an inaccuracy had taken place… The page 37, one paragraph type thing."

¶12.26 In light of Mrs Brooks' evidence, it was somewhat ironic that James Murdoch complained of a lack of prominence of apologies in articles concerning NI. He said:⁶³⁰⁶³⁰ pp65-66, lines 13-2, James Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript- of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf

"Look, I think it's – you know, I have personal opinions about this, and actually, as the subject of a lot of press coverage over the last year myself, to be honest, I've had cause for reflection, and I have been concerned with things like the ability to make a case, the ability to reply. I have been concerned with things like prominence of corrections. The Guardian alone I think has had to correct stories about News Corporation over 40 times in the last ten months or so, none of which seemed to have the same prominence as the original story, and that worries me. I think clearly it shows that somewhere in that code strengthening needs to occur with respect to accuracy and creating accountability there, but you know, I think this is going to be a matter for this Inquiry and for the industry."

¶12.27 Former PCC Chairman Sir Christopher Meyer acknowledged that during his tenure between 2003-2007 there was a problem ensuring that corrections and apologies were given due prominence; his view was that the problem remained today. In large part, he accepted that the problem lay with the fact that the PCC had no power to direct where corrections and apologies should appear, and no power to direct their size and prominence.⁶³¹⁶³¹ pp56-59, lines 15-5, Sir Christopher Meyer, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-31-January-2012.pdf

716

¶Conclusion

¶12.28 Looking at the evidence in the round, it appears that parts of the press have adopted an adversarial approach to complaints, whereby even when clear errors have been identified, there has been a failure to provide swift and complete remedies to complainants. Plainly, there are common themes here with the section of the Report addressed to the treatment of critics [see section 11 above]. Parts of the press have, at times, sought to avoid corrections and apologies and have sought to minimise the prominence of those corrections and apologies. I agree with Sir Christopher Meyer that any new regulator must address this issue and must have the power to order editors where, when, and how they should publish apologies, retractions, corrections and/or adjudications.

717