An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 2012
Chapter 2: Good Practice 1. The value and virtues of the UK press Overview
Chapter 2: Good Practice 1. The value and virtues of the UK press Overview
¶1.1 This Chapter of the Report will examine what is far too easy to take for granted, namely that in so many important respects the press is a force for good in British society. This issue is capable of being analysed in a number of ways. The first two concern over-arching issues relating to society as a whole. Thus, the very existence of a free press is invaluable in the sense that societies without such a press are invariably totalitarian regimes which do not and cannot, countenance the type of scrutiny which only an untrammelled Fourth Estate is capable of applying. Second, as many Core Participants have pointed out, a free press is the lifeblood of a mature democracy: it is an invaluable medium for the representatives of the people to get their message across, and an equally invaluable means both of examining the political message and holding the messengers to account.1
¶1.2 The second type of analysis is more pragmatic but no less important; however many times it was repeated during the course of the Inquiry, it continues to require emphasis. Most of the work of the press represents good practice rather than bad. Broadly speaking, stories are accurate, informative, well-written and respectful of the rights and interests of others. F Further and additional to that point, it is equally important to underline that the press carries out a valuable role in entertaining its readers according to their tastes and interests: indeed, if it failed in this important respect, readers would desert to other newspapers or other forms of media, including the array of electronic media currently available and ever burgeoning, as their preferred means of obtaining information.
¶1.3 These features lead to a further point which it is relevant to make in this context (as well as in other places). However cheap and easy access to online aggregated material, blogs and tweets might be, it is to those whose business is the collection, collation, accurate presentation and analysis of news, related commentary, current affairs, sports, fashion and entertainment (to name but a few) that the public look for informed views. Those who are in that business are called journalists and whether they produce their content in print or online, it is vital that their work continues to be trusted and recognised for the good that, in the main, it does and for the very important contribution that it makes to our society.
¶Existence of a free press: its intrinsic value
¶1.4 The submissions of News International have reminded the Inquiry of an exchange in Sir Tom Stoppard's satire on the British news media, Night and Day, published in 1978. Milne says to Ruth: 'No matter how imperfect things are, if you've got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable'. Ruth replies: 'I'm with you on the free press. It's the newspapers I cannot stand'.
¶These concepts are discussed in greater detail in Part B Chapter 1 concerned with the importance of a free press and freedom of speech
452¶1.5 The point is rightly made that freedom of the press is essential to a free society, and one of the key hallmarks of societies which are not free is the absence of a free press.2 Arguably, the point can be taken even further: there is a close correlation between press freedom on the one hand and the extent to which a society may be seen as being open and free on the other. And this is not simply a matter of journalists, editors and proprietors not being held in the thrall of the Executive: press freedom requires the press to discharge their important responsibilities by being ever-questioning and ever-vigilant, if necessary noisy, iconoclastic, irreverent and unruly. It remains to be considered whether, as has been suggested, it is these same instincts which may from time to time cause the press to be led astray.
¶1.6 Accordingly, the existence of a free press is valuable in itself and not merely for all the benefits it carries with it. It is noteworthy that not one witness suggested anything to the contrary, and that virtually all the witnesses who had come to tell their personal stories of press misconduct were at pains to explain that they believed in the value of a free press in its own right. Being free, however, is not the same as insisting on a free for all without any accountability of any sort.
¶Preponderance of good practice over the bad
¶1.7 Although the point has already been made that the Inquiry is not in a position to quantify reliably the amount of bad practice perpetrated by the press over the years, and furthermore does not need to do so in order properly to reach conclusions about the culture, practices and ethics of the press, or a section of the press, the converse is not the case: in other words, F the Inquiry is able to state with confidence that the majority of press practice is good, if not very good. The evidential foundation for this conclusion is clear. First, there is the convergent evidence received from numerous witnesses over the course of the hearings. Second, there is the weight of evidence coming from the press Core Participants. Finally, the Inquiry has been able to make its own assessment of the overall quality of the work of the press over a number of decades: this is based upon its own reading, assisted in this context by the knowledge and experience of the Assessors. Given the quantity of newspaper print produced up and down the country day in and day out, no doubt running to thousands of pages, it should be obvious that, if the work of the press was not predominantly acceptable, the volume of complaints and litigation would be orders of magnitude greater than they have been both historically and more recently.
¶1.8 The Sun has provided the Inquiry with some hard data which supports this point.3 A large issue of The Sun may contain 104 pages and 300 individual items, or even more, adding up to nearly 100,000 items over the course of a year. Of this total, fewer than half a dozen a week will result in a complaint to the PCC. Even recognising that stories are not always based on issues that could give rise to complaint and that, even if they do, many of those who might have wished to complain do not do so (whether out of disenchantment with the PCC or a reluctance to take on a large and powerful newspaper group), these statistics provide some overall support for the proposition that most press practice is good.
¶1.9 This reference to 'good practice' is intended to cover the work of the press generally, not just the work of news desks producing 'hard' or serious news. For the avoidance of doubt, here
¶2 In the famous words of John Wilkes MP writing in the mid-C18th, 'The liberty of the press is the birthright of a Briton, and is justly esteemed the firmest bulwark of the liberties of this country' p13, para 5.1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Submission-from-The-Sun-in- response-to-Inquiry-questions.pdf the Inquiry has in mind the work of those writing and producing the comment, opinion and editorial sections of newspapers; the sports pages; the show business and entertainment pages; the features pages; the business and personal finance columns; the crossword and games pages etc. This list is not of course exhaustive, and will vary from print title to print title, but the general point needs to be reiterated and reinforced.
453¶1.10 Further, the term 'good practice' is also intended to cover a number of different facets of journalistic practice. First is the means by which the material for stories is obtained, investigated, researched and tested for its accuracy. Second, there is the intrinsic interest, variety, imagination and quality of the stories, varying according to the tastes and interests of the newspaper's readers. Perhaps the most compelling way of making this point is to record that the majority of newspaper content is stimulating and entertaining for its readers, recognising always that reader X may buy a particular paper for its sports coverage whereas reader Y may be more interested in its comment sections. Public taste is eclectic, but newspapers are extremely adept in attuning themselves to the viewpoints and various interests of the majority of their readers.
¶1.11 It is not inconsistent with the recognition that most of press practice is 'good' that journalists and editors will sometimes make mistakes, including errors of fact and of judgment. Sources, even multiple sources, may simply be wrong in a particular case, however right they might usually be; journalists might be misled by apparently reliable sources or websites putting out incorrect data and information; errors and slips may be made in the heat of the moment, in order to meet a particular deadline; editorial judgments may be incorrect in a specific instance notwithstanding that they may usually be entirely sound. Mistakes of this sort are made in every walk of life and are part and parcel of the human condition: depending on all F relevant factors, they may be entirely consistent with good press practice. But whether or not they exemplify good or bad practice at the end of the day will depend on matters such as systems for checking information and sources, and the press response when the error is pointed out, including press willingness to engage with the complainant and sort things out as quickly as possible.
¶1.12 There are two aspects of press practice which merit particular mention. First, Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, emphasised in his evidence that the reputation of his paper depended on getting the story right. In the context of financial reporting it may readily be understood that accuracy has a special premium, or rather that inaccuracy can be especially damaging, but the same general point may fairly be made in relation to the press as a whole.
¶Newspapers trade on their reputation; their commercial success ultimately must rest upon the reputation they build for honesty, reliability and accuracy. This goes beyond the discussion of serious issues of politics or current affairs. A reader passionately interested in football, for example, will think twice about paying the cover price if the paper of his choice consistently
¶'gets it wrong' in relation to stories of interest to him or her.4 Further, the reader will come to learn in due course whether stories are true or false. It flows from this that newspapers have every incentive to be as honest, reliable and accurate as they can.
¶1.13 Second, the Inquiry recognises that journalists often work under the pressure of deadlines, and in such circumstances simply do not have the luxury of triple-checking sources or satisfying themselves to the point that they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that a story is true. This is a factor which must be taken into account, although exactly how far the point goes is worthy of careful consideration. For example, however pressing the deadline, a piece which would be seriously defamatory if untrue would require careful checking indeed, and
¶The Inquiry is not in a position to say whether this proposition is equally as accurate for racing tips in the ordinary course prior notice to the subject, before being published. This is always a matter of fact and degree, involving the exercise of sound and sensitive judgment.
454¶Good journalism may also entertain
¶1.14 The Inquiry fully recognises and understands that not all journalism can or should be 'worthy' or high-minded. If this were some sort of requirement, or even a desirable objective, the outcome would be undemocratic and ultimately contrary to the public interest, because the readers of such a press would not be representative of the range of tastes, educational attainments and opinions which constitute modern British society.
¶1.15 An important section of the press, probably in truth the largest section, must be popular and must entertain. Even readers of more highbrow papers are not interested only in serious articles; light and entertaining pieces are all part of the overall package. The same naturally applies to an even greater extent in relation to the mid-market and tabloid press, and no one is remotely suggesting that this is an unworthy or inappropriate objective.
¶1.16 Thus, purely entertaining stories serve at least two functions: first, they have value in their own right, and accord pleasure to their readers on their own terms; second, they have a corollary function in attracting readers to the newsstand and in maintaining circulation; and the advantageous by-product of both these functions is that readers will participate more in the democratic process by being drawn to the news and comment pages of the paper which are often skilfully interwoven with the lighter sections and are usually written in a F clear, compelling, user friendly and pungent style.
¶1.17 Journalism which has no value other than the fact that it entertains does not require a public interest justification provided that its processes of research and preparation, as well as its subject matter, do not impinge on the rights of others. Submissions from a number of the press Core Participants appear to have come close to suggesting that the Inquiry's provisional view might be that a public interest justification is required for all stories: this is, as I hope has been made clear, to misunderstand the Inquiry's analysis of the issue. A public interest justification is required only if rights and interests such as the privacy of private individuals may be harmed. In all other cases, subject to issues such as accuracy and the like, the press is both entitled and entirely free to publish what it likes in the way that it likes.
¶1.18 What might or does amount to 'entertainment' will naturally vary from paper to paper, and no one could or should be remotely prescriptive about this. Here, the issue touches subjective matters of taste and opinion which, subject to not overstepping various bounds, must lie solely within the editorial judgment of the newspaper in question.
- Some case studies
¶2.1 At the directions hearing on 3 April 2012, I made the following statement:5
"on a number of occasions it has been suggested to me that I have not paid sufficient attention to the good work of the press. Perhaps that's an inevitable consequence of the terms of reference of the Inquiry, but in order that nobody can suggest that I have paid insufficient attention to that aspect, I will invite any title that wishes to submit what they perceive to be their top five public interest stories over the last few years, merely to reflect the other side of the coin."
¶pp1-2, lines 14-8, Lord Justice Leveson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ lev030412pm.pdf
455¶2.2 In this section of the report I will address a selection of the public interest stories drawn to my attention by a number of the press Core Participants pursuant to my invitation, and consider some specific pieces of evidence referred to in written submissions as illustrative of good practice. Not every title responded to my invitation, and in any event not every story will be expressly covered below: some of the campaigns which are relied on as evidence of 'public interest stories' are not without controversy, and some are ongoing. I will conclude this section with the Daily Telegraph's MPs' expenses stories, since much Inquiry time was devoted to it from a number of perspectives.
¶2.3 Inevitably, I will be drawing attention to the work of individual titles. I see no difficulty in doing this because reference to good practice does not engage in any way what I have been calling the mantra and the self-denying ordinance.
¶2.4 I am also drawing heavily on the content and wording of the submissions of the press Core Participants. I should accordingly make it clear that by making reference to any particular campaign, I should not be interpreted as passing judgment on the merits of that campaign or any underlying argument, although I fully recognise the right of the relevant title to campaign as it sees fit. Furthermore, it is extremely important that this aspect of the work of the press, namely holding public authorities and others to account in ways that an independent mind has perceived is in the public interest, is recognised and appreciated. When dealing with practices of sections of the press that I criticise, nothing should be taken to detract from the role of the press generally to expose wrongdoing, incompetence or inefficiency, and to challenge those who make decisions about the way they were reached or basis for them.
¶Associated Newspapers Limited F
¶2.5 The Daily Mail's written submission is that it is a newspaper which champions causes, fights injustice and raises millions from generous readers to help those facing real hardship. It has never been afraid, or frightened, to stand up against injustice, often in difficult or even dangerous circumstances.
¶2.6 The following are advanced as examples of public interest campaigns in recent years.
¶2.7 The first story advanced by the Daily Mail is the Stephen Lawrence campaign. When the prime suspects were acquitted in 1997 of Stephen's murder in south east London in 1993, the Daily Mail took up the case. A front page proclaimed 'Murderers,' accused the suspects of the crime and printed their pictures. Under a headline: 'The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us', the paper effectively challenged the suspects to sue. They did not. After the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy and new DNA developments, earlier this year two of the suspects were found guilty of his murder. 2.8 Second, two years after the 1998 Omagh bombing atrocity, in despair that the killers were still at large, devastated families of the 29 people, including the mother of unborn twins who had been killed in the outrage, approached the Daily Mail in a final attempt to win justice for their loved ones. the Daily Mail, which accused British justice of a 'shameful betrayal', appealed to its readers and received support across the religious and political divide, raising £1.2 million to fund a landmark civil court action. In June 2009, the family finally succeeded when a historic Belfast court ruling awarded them more than £1.6 million in damages against the four Real IRA terrorists they accused of tearing their lives apart.
¶2.9 The third campaign identified by the Daily Mail concerns compensation for wounded servicemen. In 2007, the Daily Mail highlighted the paltry sums given to injured heroes by the Ministry of Defence and launched a campaign focusing on the case of paratrooper Ben Parkinson, 24, who lost both legs, the use of one arm, his speech and much of his memory in a mine blast in Afghanistan. After a year of campaigning, the Government announced it was doubling the maximum pay out to the worst injured; this was followed, in 2010, by the announcement that compensation for thousands of others badly wounded in the line of duty, would also be raised, backdated to 2005.
456¶2.10 Following the devastating tsunami on Boxing Day 2004, an appeal ('Flood Aid') by the Daily
¶Mail raised nearly £16 million from readers; this was a world record for newspapers. Much of the money was filtered through the Disaster Emergency Committee, which represents major UK-based charities, but the paper also oversaw the rebuilding of a large state school for children of the poor in Galle on Sri Lanka's southern coast and the reconstruction of a fishing village in Banda Aceh, together with new boats for fishermen.
¶2.11 The Daily Mail has also drawn attention to the many other successful campaigns the newspaper has run. Just a few of them are Dignity for the Elderly; Osteoporosis; Alzheimer's drugs; Prostate Cancer Awareness; The £6 million Kosovo Appeal; the £5.5 million Farm Aid appeal; The Battle of Britain memorial; Coming Home; and Money Mail's campaigns to help readers get compensation from the banks, from the tax man and from Building Societies.
¶2.12 It may readily be understood that Associated Newspapers Ltd's examples of 'public interest journalism' are examples of campaigns which it has pursued with enormous vigour over the years, in each case in the public interest and with ultimate vindication. They illustrate a different facet of the vital public importance of the press, no less important than paradigm illustrations of investigative reporting. Further, some might argue that the Stephen Lawrence campaign was not merely fraught with obvious risk, (legal risk being only one potential F concern) but it involved the difficult decision, raising serious public interest issues, as to whether to accuse those who had already faced a criminal trial for a crime as serious as murder (the private prosecutions brought by the Lawrence family having collapsed through lack of then available evidence). However, Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail back in
¶1997 as he is now, explained why he was prepared to support the Lawrence family in the face of injustice. It must be emphasised that his judgment has been entirely vindicated by subsequent events, namely the setting up of a public inquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir William MacPherson (along with its conclusions), the conviction of two men and the maintenance of public awareness of the case and its important ramifications.
¶The Guardian
¶2.13 Appendix A to the Guardian's submissions, filed on 23 July 2012, details five recent public interest investigations conducted by Guardian News and Media Ltd.6 I set out these in full.
¶2.14 The first concerns the death of the newspaper seller, Ian Tomlinson. In the days after the
¶Mr Tomlinson's death, during protests over the G20 summit in April 2009, dogged reporting by the Guardian's Paul Lewis raised questions about the police account of the sequence of events leading up to his collapse. The official account was unpicked when the Guardian obtained video footage showing Mr Tomlinson being struck by a police officer before his collapse. Mr Lewis's reporting led to the reversing of the original pathologist's findings that
¶Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes, an inquest returning a verdict of unlawful killing, and the prosecution (and subsequent acquittal) of a police officer for manslaughter.
¶pp25-26, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Closing-Submission-from-Guardian-News- and-Media-Ltd.pdf
457¶2.15 The second Guardian story concerns the tax gap. In a two week series of articles based on several months of investigation, a Guardian team in February 2009 revealed how leading companies including Barclays, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell were using a range of highly complex offshore devices to avoid paying millions in UK tax. The reports involved the Guardian in a legal battle with Barclays, which sought to prevent publication of documents outlining its tax avoidance schemes, and later led to the Government taking significant steps to crack down on tax avoidance.
¶2.16 The third story relates to the oil trading firm, Trafigura. In May 2009, The Guardian acquired a confidential document which suggested that the waste dumped from a tanker chartered by Trafigura in the Ivory Coast port of Abidjan was highly toxic. A large number of local residents became sick. Trafigura later attempted to gag the paper by seeking a super-injunction, preventing not just publication of the key document but even reporting of an MP's question about it. After a public campaign the super-injunction was lifted; Trafigura was later convicted by a Dutch court with regard to the delivery of the toxic waste to, and its export from, Amsterdam and fined 1 million Euros. The company is appealing the decision.
¶2.17 The Guardian also refers to its campaign in relation to rendition and torture of detainees. For more than five years and in scores of articles, The Guardian's Ian Cobain has painstakingly uncovered the extent of Britain's complicity in the torture and rendition of detainees in the face of countless official denials. Mr Cobain has linked Britain to the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Mr Cobain's reporting was one of the key factors leading to the Government's decision to order an inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture, now delayed until police investigation of two cases is complete.
¶F
¶2.18 Although the underlying disclosures by WikiLeaks remain potentially controversial, the Guardian's collaboration with whistleblowers' website WikiLeaks and four other international newspapers in 2010 and 2011 led to the publication of a string of major public interest stories touching almost every corner of the globe. They included the disclosure that Saudi Arabia was secretly putting pressure on the US to attack Iran, that US diplomats believed Russia was "a virtual Mafia state" and that a British oil company claimed to have "infiltrated" all of Nigeria's major ministries. The role played by the Guardian, however, is not controversial: it played a central part in ensuring that hundreds of thousands of documents which might have been dumped "raw" on the Internet were carefully analysed first and redacted to avoid exposure of vulnerable sources. More than 30 Guardian specialist reporters and foreign correspondents were involved in the huge effort to comb and authenticate the documents over several months.
¶2.19 The Guardian might also have drawn specific attention to the work of Nick Davies in investigating the phone hacking story over a number of years, culminating in the revelations of July 2011 which led directly to the setting up of this Inquiry. The criticisms made of that report are analysed in the case study dealing with the murder of Milly Dowler.
¶2.20 In my view, these are all excellent examples of public interest investigative journalism, properly so called: in other words, the unearthing of the often unpalatable truth by dogged hard work and persistence. This is different to the conduct of a campaign for or on behalf of causes which meet a newspaper's particular agenda. The latter may well discharge an important public interest function in the drawing of attention to worthwhile causes which would not otherwise have crossed the public's radar and may have no less importance, but the nature and quality of the journalism involved is somewhat different. Nor do I lose sight of the point that campaigning journalism might be much more controversial on the basis that it is capable of dividing public opinion; here, the newspaper is providing its own megaphone to amplify the volume in relation to causes its editors or proprietors happen to favour.
458¶Northern & Shell
¶2.21 The Daily Star, the Daily Star Sunday, the Daily Express and the Sunday Express have supplied the Inquiry with copies of a considerable number of articles which comprise examples of good journalistic practice, whether it be campaigning journalism, investigative journalism, or a combination of the two. I propose to set out a representative sample below.
¶2.22 Both the Daily Express and the Sunday Express have mounted a campaign for veterans of Bomber Command to be accorded greater recognition in view of their and their late colleagues' service and sacrifice during the Second World War. This campaign has included pressing for veterans to be issued with the Second World War Campaign Medal, and for a
¶Bomber Command Memorial to be inaugurated. On 28 June 2012, HM The Queen unveiled such a memorial in recognition of the 55,573 aircrew who lost their lives in the Second World
¶War and the Daily Express published a souvenir edition to mark this event.
¶2.23 The Inquiry's attention has also been drawn to a number of stories in the Sunday Express relating to a scandal uncovered by the newspaper whereby social workers were "sexing up" documents to give local authorities the power to take thousands of children from their families and put them up for adoption, so as to meet flawed Government targets. The paper is also responsible for an ongoing campaign to achieve a greater understanding and openness F in the discussion and treatment of mental illness.
¶2.24 A number of impressive public interest stories have been run by the Daily Star Sunday, but the following examples will suffice for present purposes. First, the newspaper ran several articles exposing the activities of the English Defence League (EDL) and contending that they could legitimately be described as dangerous thugs. When it appeared that the EDL was getting a groundswell of support among working class people, the newspaper continued running strongly worded editorials criticising the group and exposing the criminal records of several of their members. More recently, the newspaper's investigators spent months working on the scandal of PIP breast implants, speaking to victims and experts to ascertain the dangers the implants pose. Key successes include uncovering for the first time a detailed list of ingredients contained in the implants.
¶2.25 A third public interest inquiry was mounted which, on two occasions, revealed that the paper had found IT blunders by Government workers who placed restricted information in the public domain by failing adequately to redact them so that the restricted information was not revealed. These stories have led to a change in the way certain departments redact documents.
¶2.26 Fourth, the newspaper seeks to have an article each week covering the human side of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following complaints about the quality of equipment the servicemen were using, the Daily Star Sunday (along with other newspapers) wrote a series of articles calling for improvements to be made. These stories led to a marked improvement in equipment, including the decommissioning of so called Snatch Land Rovers. The fifth example is that the paper has been investigating unpublicised dangers surrounding Tamiflu for many months, after it found it had been linked to the deaths of 13 people. The newspaper exposed links between the licensing authority and the drug-maker, and has documented numerous complaints from patients affected by the drug.
459¶The Sun
¶2.27 The Sun's written submissions and evidence refer to a number of its campaigns,7 and I have borne these well in mind, recognising the arguable public interest in bringing these matters to the attention of their readers at the particular time. But, rather than setting these out specifically, I believe that it is more valuable at this stage to refer to some of the evidence given by its current editor, Dominic Mohan.
¶2.28 The first example of true public interest journalism concerns neither investigation nor campaigning. Rather, it is to explain extremely complex concepts of vital public importance. By way of example, Mr Mohan referred to an article published on 27 July 2011 in which The Sun gave a succinct description of the state of the Eurozone bailout crisis, saying that the majority of working people in the UK preferred to read "a really concise and well-executed spread ... which gives them very quick, digestible summary of very, very complex issues".8 He said that such reporting in The Sun was how "millions of people learn of serious issues on a daily basis".9 Nobody can pretend that the issues at stake are straightforward and there is no doubt that journalism of this type is of a very high order.
¶2.29 Mr Mohan also referred with pride to The Sun's science reporting. He mentioned his engagement of Professor Brian Cox as "The Sun's Professor". He writes for The Sun "on very complex issues like the Hadron Collider and digests them into very accessible chunks for the readers".10 He also referred to praise for The Sun's science coverage by the Science Media Centre:11 its director, Fiona Fox, said Professor Cox was "wonderful". She said that he and others who write on science for tabloids are "genius" and went on "every single day they communicate very complicated and very important science to a mass audience".12 F
¶2.30 The Sun has also provided good illustrations of public interest stories which may fairly be described as examples of investigative journalism.13 These can best be identified by reference to the headline and story: no further comment is necessary.
¶2.31 "We smash poison doc's prison plot to kill ex and baby" (14 May and 16 June 2012). The Sun revealed how a doctor, already jailed for six years for drugging his mistress to try and force a miscarriage, was planning a revenge plot to kill her and her baby. In an undercover investigation, reporters from The Sun asked another convict secretly to film the doctor, Edward Erin, explaining his plan. The evidence was handed to the police and as a direct result Erin was jailed for an additional two years.
¶2.32 "Court in the act – clerk brags of £500 bribes to wipe records of dangerous drivers" (4 August 2011 and 19 November 2011). After a tip-off that a Magistrates Court clerk was offering to wipe clean convicted drivers' licences, The Sun mounted an undercover operation to test the allegation. The Sun reporter sought and won approval from the editor and The Sun's legal advisers to offer the clerk £500 and film the transaction, even though this was in contravention of the Bribery Act 2010, which came into force the previous month.14 The evidence was handed to police and the clerk, Munir Patel, became the first person to be convicted under the Bribery Act 2010; he was subsequently imprisoned for six years.
460¶2.33 "Maddie fraudster nicked" (25 November 2009). Kevin Halligen was a private detective employed by Drs Gerry and Kate McCann to help find their missing daughter. He swindled their charitable fund of £300,000 and went on the run after being accused of a £2 million fraud for which he was wanted in the US. The Sun tracked him down, he was arrested and he has now lost his appeal against extradition.
¶2.34 "We're in jail, dude", (6 February 2007). The Sun revealed the secret cockpit tape from a US jet which attacked a British convoy and killed a British soldier, Lance Corporal Matty Hull, in a friendly fire incident during the Iraq war. The Ministry of Defence had failed to produce the video at the inquest into Lance Corporal Hull's death. But, as a result of The Sun's investigation, the Coroner was able to deliver a verdict of unlawful killing.
¶The Sunday Times
¶2.35 It is impossible not to mention the extremely well known exposure of the effect of the drug
¶Thalidomide in the 1970s and the campaign against Distillers (spearheaded by the then editor,
¶Sir Harold Evans) as one of the most outstanding examples of persistent and challenging journalism. It exemplifies both investigative and campaigning journalism and stands as an F example of the power and effectiveness of the press at its very best. The much more recent illustrations put in evidence by The Sunday Times15 are also good examples of investigative journalism which can have a campaigning effect. Once again, it is sufficient to illustrate them by reference to the headline and story.
¶2.36 "Tory treasurer charges £250,000 to meet PM" (Insight, 25 March 2012). The co-treasurer of the Conservative party, Peter Cruddas, was filmed by Sunday Times reporters selling secret meetings with the Prime Minister for donations of £250,000. He offered a lobbyist and undercover reporters, posing as overseas clients, direct access to the Prime Minister if they joined a "premier league" of party donors. Mr Cruddas resigned within hours of the story being published and Mr Cameron came under intense pressure to disclose the identities of all donors who had been entertained privately at Downing Street.
¶2.37 "Vet offers only hope for Syrian wounded" and "We live in fear of a massacre", (19 February
¶2012). The last despatch from Marie Colvin, the renowned Sunday Times war correspondent, revealed the scale and depth of suffering among the 28,000 civilians caught up in the Syrian army's shelling of the Babr Amr district of Homs. Ms Colvin was killed by a rocket on 22 February
¶2012, three days after her story was published, provoking international condemnation of
¶President Assad's regime and adding impetus to the efforts to secure Russian and Chinese backing for political transition in Damascus.
¶2.38 "Revealed: the full horror of Misrata", (10 April 2011). The Sunday Times foreign reporter
¶Hala Jaber boarded a gun runners' trawler to get to the Libyan port of Misrata after it was besieged and bombarded for weeks with no independent access for journalists. She found a city in desperate need of humanitarian and military help. Her front page report increased international pressure for aid shipments to trapped civilians and NATO airstrikes on Colonel Gadaffi's forces in the area.
461¶2.39 "World Cup votes for sale" (Insight, October 2010). The Sunday Times reporters exposed corruption in the FIFA voting process which decides who will host the football World Cup. During an investigation that lasted three months and involved travel to three continents, the undercover team discovered six senior FIFA officials, past and present, who offered to work as fixers and suggested paying huge bribes to FIFA executive members. One executive member asked for £500,000 for a personal project, another asked for £1.5 million for a sports academy. As a result, eight officials were suspended for between one and four years and, in future, every member country will have a vote on which country should host the World Cup rather than the decision being left to a secretive 24 man committee.
¶The Telegraph
¶2.40 In written submissions filed on 2 May 2012, Telegraph Media Group Ltd drew attention to a number of recent public interest stories.16 Pride of place goes to the MPs' expenses story which is covered under a separate heading below. Again, the stories speak for themselves.
¶2.41 'Baby Girls Aborted: No Questions Asked'.17 An undercover investigation by The Daily Telegraph disclosed that women were being offered illegal sex selection abortions. Doctors were secretly filmed offering to abort foetuses purely because they were either male or female, even though it is illegal to carry out a termination for that reason. One doctor, a consultant who works for both private clinics and NHS hospitals in Manchester, told a pregnant woman who said she wanted to abort a female foetus, "I don't ask questions. If you want a termination,
¶F you want a termination". She later telephoned a colleague to book the procedure, explaining that it was for "social reasons" and the woman "doesn't want questions asked". The Daily Telegraph's investigation also recorded several other doctors at clinics in other parts of the country offering similar terminations based on the unborn baby's gender. The consequence of this exposure is that there are now three separate and ongoing police investigations by the Metropolitan, Greater Manchester and West Midlands police forces. In addition, the matter is being pursued in separate professional investigations by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Finally, the Care Quality Commission has made unannounced inspections at more than 250 abortion clinics.
¶2.42 'Cheating the System: How Examiners Tip off Teachers'.18 An undercover investigation disclosed that teachers were paying to attend seminars with chief examiners where they were advised on examination questions. One examiner was recorded telling the teachers what examination questions to expect and admitted "we're cheating". The investigation exposed a system in which examination boards aggressively competed for "business" from schools. Evidence was uncovered that standards of examinations had been driven down to encourage schools to enter pupils for particular boards. The Chief Examiner of one examination board told one undercover reporter that "there is so little content we don't know how we got it through" and in an attempt to win new business told him "we don't have to teach a lot". This investigation had an impact on millions of children across the country and the teaching profession. The Secretary of State for Education, Rt Hon Michael Gove, welcomed The Telegraph's investigation and there is now a fundamental review of the examination system, and an inquiry being conducted by the Education Select Committee in the House of Commons.
462¶2.43 'Inquiry into Stem Cell Clinic that offers help to Sick and Disabled'.19 This was a Sunday
¶Telegraph undercover investigation at Europe's largest stem cell clinic, which was taking tens of thousands of pounds from the most vulnerable in society for unproven clinical treatments.
¶The XCell-Centre clinic, in Germany, became the centre of a scandal following the revelation that it was conducting stem cell transplants which are illegal in Britain and most of Europe.
¶Hundreds of British patients travel there each year. A Sunday Telegraph reporter was told that, if he underwent treatment at that clinic, there was a chance that he could be able walk again.
¶The paper also uncovered that an 18 month old baby died and another was seriously injured following transplant of stem cells into their brains. The Sunday Telegraph investigation led to the clinic being closed by the German authorities but the paper and its journalists persisted with a follow up inquiry. These further investigations (reported in the paper in spring 2012) reveal that the chief executive and founder of the German clinic had now established another clinic in Lebanon.
¶2.44 'Chronic Lack of Equipment Puts Soldiers' Lives at Risk'.20 In June 2007, the Daily Telegraph first disclosed worrying information about the lives of servicemen being at risk due to what it described as "woefully inadequate" resources. The paper highlighted serious supply problems and failures of equipment, such as the fact that only 70% of Chinook helicopters were available for use, only 50% of Apache helicopters were working and soldiers were buying their own binoculars as the Army supplied ones were inadequate. The Telegraph papers continue to report of worrying problems of this kind. Since the Coalition Government came into power, Telegraph revelations have included a private letter sent by the Defence
¶Secretary warning the Prime Minister that "draconian" cuts in the defence budget cannot be carried out without "grave consequences". There continues to be strong Parliamentary and F public interest in these issues.
¶The Times
¶2.45 The Times has provided its view of the top five public interests stories published by the paper in the recent past. They are listed in evidence21 and it is sufficient to select four examples.
¶Headline and story provide sufficient detail.
¶2.46 The tax avoiders (19–21 June 2012). An undercover investigation by Times reporters revealed that thousands of wealthy people in Britain pay as little as 1% income tax. The comedian
¶Jimmy Carr and members of the pop group Take That were named among those who used a
¶Jersey based tax scheme that shelters £168 million from Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
¶(HMRC). As a result of The Times articles, the Prime Minister condemned Mr Carr's conduct and Mr Carr promised to conduct his financial affairs "much more responsibly". HMRC also vowed to shut down the "K2 scheme" used by Mr Carr and more than 1,000 others.
¶2.47 "Fox in dock over links with "bogus aide"" (8–15 October 2011). Times reporters revealed that
¶Adam Werrity, a defence consultant and friend of Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary, was accompanying Dr Fox on trips around the world despite having no official role at the
¶Ministry of Defence. The disclosures led directly to the resignation of Dr Fox.
¶2.48 The Times' Adoption Campaign, (April 2011). This Times investigation exposed the ways in which the adoption system had become riddled with delay and inertia, and how that had affected children waiting for permanent new families. As well as stories, interviews, graphics and case studies, The Times commissioned Martin Narey, the former director-general of the Prison Service, to analyse the system and recommend reforms. The response was swift. First, in July 2011, the Government appointed Mr Narey as its first ministerial adviser on adoption with a remit to drive up the number of adoptions, especially at the worst performing local authorities. Then, in October 2011, the Prime Minister intervened to promise radical reform of the system. Finally, in December 2011, the Government announced it would scrap the bureaucratic assessment process for would-be adoptive parents and replace it with a more streamlined system.
463¶2.49 "Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells" (5 January 2009). The Times revealed that the Israeli Defence Force was using white phosphorus shells during an offensive over one of the most densely populated areas of the world. The shells, which can cause horrific burns, are banned under the Geneva Treaty of 1980 as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but not if they are used as a smokescreen. Human rights groups accused the Israelis of war crimes.
¶MPs' expenses
¶2.50 Over the years, there have been many examples of journalism at its best, resulting in ground breaking stories of national and international importance. The examples provided to the Inquiry by press Core Participants are no more than illustrative; and they are intended to underline that most journalists go about their work with legal and ethical principles very much in mind, and are willing to test the product of their work against what the public interest truly demands. It is not the intention of the Inquiry to identify what has been 'the F best' or 'the most important' story but, without putting any one above any other, it is worth examining one of the recent ground breaking stories in a little detail, if only to demonstrate good practice and the proper exercise of editorial discretion.
¶2.51 On 8 May 2009, the Daily Telegraph published the first of a number of articles that detailed the expenses and allowance claims made by MPs over a period of four years from 2004- 2008.22 These claims contained a significant number of what were said to be fraudulent claims that breached both Parliamentary rules on expenses and allowances and, in some cases, the criminal law. The Telegraph's exposé preceded the formal publication of data relating to MPs' expenses and allowances by Parliament by a number of months. The data that formed the basis of the Telegraph's stories was contained on one disk, supplied by an undisclosed source in exchange for payment of approximately £110,000. Representatives of the Daily Telegraph have told the Inquiry that, before deciding to buy the material, they satisfied themselves that the material was not, in fact, stolen and that its acquisition was not in breach of the criminal law.23
¶2.52 The disclosure by the Telegraph of MPs' expenses claims was the subject of intense and extended media coverage and, indeed, public debate. The scale of wrong doing was quickly recognised by the then leaders of the major political parties. Such was the public outrage at the steady disclosure of expenses claims that MPs appeared to have tried to keep out of the public domain that, almost immediately, senior politicians offered an unreserved apology to the public. On 11 May 2009, the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, apologised
464¶"on behalf of all politicians" for the expenses claims that had been made. Later that day, the
¶Leader of the Conservative Party, Rt Hon David Cameron, said that all MPs should apologise for the expenses scandal. He told the BBC that the system of expenses "was wrong and we're sorry about it".24 On 12 May, Mr Cameron went further in his criticism of the claims made by some MPs and said that these were also "unethical and wrong."25 In a statement made to the House of Commons, the then Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, said that "serious change" was required in the future and that MPs should not just work within the rules, but rather in "the spirit of what is right".26
¶2.53 The impact of the revelations was significant. There was an immediate loss of confidence in the political system generally and in the established mainstream political parties in particular.
¶This was most clearly manifest in an unprecedented spike in support for minority political parties. It was also reflected in the observations of leading commentators and thinkers.
¶The editor of The Times, James Harding, called the unfolding scandal Parliament's "darkest hour".27 On 23 May 2009, in a speech on the potential impact of the revelations on political life, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, warned that:28
"the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy."
¶Writing the same day in The Times, the columnist and former Conservative MP, Matthew
¶Parris, suggested that:29
¶"extravagance, genuine mistake, sly acquisitiveness and outright criminal fraud are F now jumbled together in the national mind as though there were no moral differences".
¶Background
¶2.54 The publication of the details of expenses claims was neither the beginning nor the end of journalistic interest in the subject. Journalists had sought to uncover the detail of claims made by MPs through the use of powers granted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which had come into force in October 2004. The first requests for publication of MPs' receipts date back to January 2005. Then, journalists Ben Leapman of The Sunday Telegraph, Jon Ungoed-
¶Thomas of The Sunday Times, and the freedom of information campaigner and journalist,
¶Heather Brooke, submitted Freedom of Information requests relating to the expenses of 14
¶MPs, including the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the then Conservative front bencher,
¶George Osborne.30 These requests were twice rejected by the House of Commons authorities before they were appealed to the Information Commissioner, by Mr Leapman, Mr Ungoed-
¶Thomas and Ms Brooke, in the spring of 2005.31
¶2.55 The then Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, considered the three separate requests jointly for two years before, on 13 June 2007, deciding that the requested information should be disclosed.32 He ruled that the disclosure should be in abridged and aggregated form and without the publication of the relevant receipts underpinning those claims. However, the Information Commissioner's decision was appealed by the House of Commons authorities later that month.33 They argued that the disclosure would be "unlawfully intrusive".34 The case was passed to the Information Tribunal to decide. The journalists who had submitted the original requests also appealed the decision.
465¶2.56 Two months previously, in May 2007, a majority of MPs had voted for the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Conservative MP, David MacClean, which proposed to exempt MPs from the terms of the 2000 Act. The Bill was withdrawn shortly before its second reading in the House of Lord's as peers were not willing to sponsor the bill.35 Although unsuccessful, this was the first of three attempts by Parliamentarians to restrict the application of the Freedom of Information Act to Parliament ahead of the formal publication of MPs' expenses claims. In July 2008, amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2004 were passed by Parliament. These exempted the addresses of Members of Parliament from the terms of the Act. Lastly, in January 2009, Harriet Harman QC MP, then the Leader of the House of Commons, tabled a motion intended to exempt expenses claims from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Although Government MPs were placed under a three line whip, opposition Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs opposed the motion. On 21 January 2009, the proposals were formally dropped by the Government.
¶2.57 In February 2008, the Information Tribunal published its decision on MPs' expenses, rejecting the defence put forward by the House of Commons authorities.36 Further, it ordered the release of information on 14 MPs.37 The hearings that led to the decision were not without further controversy: in particular, there were revelations around the content of the so called John Lewis list which set out the amounts that could be claimed for particular items without F question or justification. The items on the list were benchmarked against the purchase price for such items at the John Lewis department store chain.
¶2.58 The decision of the Information Tribunal to order the publication of expenses was the subject of an immediate appeal to the High Court by a small number of senior MPs representing each of the main political parties. On 16 May 2008, the court ruled that the requested details of MPs expenses should be released.38 Moreover, the High Court also ruled that further details not included in the original order made by the Information Commissioner should be disclosed, including addresses. Following the High Court ruling, no further appeal was lodged and, on 23 May 2008, the expense claims of 14 MPs, including the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, were made public.
¶2.59 The ruling of the High Court and the subsequent disclosure of the expenses of the 14 MPs named in the test case, did not lead directly to or necessarily expedite the publication of the expenses claims of all MPs scheduled by the House of Commons authorities. It had been intended that publication would take place in November 2008 but the date of the release of the information was pushed back until the summer of 2009, ostensibly to allow for the proper collation of the data.39 In April 2009, the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed "sensitive" removed, would take place in July 2009.40
466¶2.60 On 18 June 2009, more than one month after the first disclosures in the Daily Telegraph, the details of all MPs' expenses and allowance claims approved by the House of Commons authorities during the period from 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website. However, a number of details, including personal data such as addresses, were redacted. The published data also excluded claims made by Parliamentarians that had not been approved for payment by the House of Commons authorities, as well as related correspondence between MPs and the Parliamentary fees office. These omissions resulted in further allegations in the press of unnecessary secrecy, and also served to confirm an increasingly widespread suspicion that the most serious abuses of the expenses system would not have come to light had the redacted documentation been the only information available. Details of voluntary repayments by MPs amounting to almost £500,000 were also published by the House of Commons authorities.41
¶2.61 It is noteworthy that shortly after the publication of the first of the disclosures in the Daily
¶F
¶Disclosure by the Daily Telegraph: the story
¶2.62 On 30 April 2009, the Daily Telegraph obtained access to a full copy of all expenses claims made by MPs between 2004 and 2008. This data had been purchased from a middleman,
¶Major John Wick, for the sum of approximately £110,000. The material had also been offered to other newspapers including The Times and The Sun. Mr Harding confirmed in evidence that his newspaper decided against purchasing the information because of concerns that it may have been stolen.43 The Daily Telegraph began publishing in instalments, from 8 May
¶2009, the details of expenses claimed by certain MPs.
¶2.63 Mr Lewis has given evidence at length to the Inquiry about the process which led to the purchase of the material by the Daily Telegraph. He said that the decision to purchase and publish the material was iterative: senior management at the newspaper were consulted throughout and fully aware of the need to establish the provenance and legality of the material, as well as the need to make most effective use of the limited ten day's worth of access to the data that the Daily Telegraph had purchased in the first instance.44 Mr Lewis also made clear that conditions based on fairness and impartiality were attached to the sale of the material by the seller.45 Mr Lewis has said that he was mindful that the need to meet those conditions determined the scope and sequencing of the eventual publication of the material from 8 May.46
467¶2.64 Mr Lewis told the Inquiry that the purchase and publication of data was a "story laced with risk".47 He said that those risks existed on a number of levels. First, senior management at the Daily Telegraph were worried that the material may have been fabricated as part of an elaborate hoax. He suggested that the memory of The Sunday Times' publication of 'the Hitler diaries' in the early 1980s48 had cast a long shadow over many of those who were in some way involved with that story.49 Mr Lewis said that the legality of the data was also a serious consideration. However, Mr Lewis' position was that there was an overriding public interest in ensuring that the data entered the public domain, and in exposing what he described as "profound wrong-doing at the heart of the House of Commons",50 as well as to ensure that readers were informed about how the "MPs were fleecing the taxpayer".51 Further, Mr Lewis told the Inquiry that the decision to publish was justified because the official disclosure of these expenses claims by the House of Commons authorities would have omitted key information, particularly around the re-designation of second-home nominations. Mr Lewis confirmed that the public interest in publishing data, rather than any commercial value or advantage to the newspaper, was the determining factor in the decision to purchase and publish the data.52
¶2.65 Aside from the advice on the criminal law which the Daily Telegraph received, Mr Lewis explained that there were further legal considerations that the newspaper had to overcome ahead of publication of the material. Specifically, these were around the conditions set down by the source of the data, and focused on payment for the data, the legal protection of the source and the fair and balanced treatment of the material.53 F
¶2.66 For Mr Lewis, the greatest challenge faced by the newspaper was in the analysis of the data itself within the initial ten day time-frame permitted under the terms of the sale.54 This, Mr Lewis said, was undertaken by a dedicated MPs' expenses team working solely and secretly on the data.55 The team examined more than 1 million documents on the disk, representing about half of the total data set.56 There followed serious consideration with colleagues at the paper as to how best to ensure that the revelation of the data was fair and balanced. In addition, the newspaper wrote to the MPs concerned in order to seek confirmation from them of the veracity of the claims. It was only when the then Justice Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, responded to the paper confirming the detail of his claims and providing an explanation for them that Mr Lewis felt sufficiently confident to proceed with publication of the story.57
468¶2.67 The Daily Telegraph revealed details of these expenses sequentially.58 The first revelations concerned the expenses of the then governing Labour Party,59 beginning with the claims made by members of the Cabinet.60 Details of claims made by junior ministers and Labour backbenchers followed. A further tranche of expenses claims made by Labour MPs was published on 14 May.61 In order to provide the fairness and balance imposed as a condition of purchase, the coverage did not focus exclusively on claims which had been made by the then Government. On 11 and 12 May, the Daily Telegraph revealed details of the expenses claimed by members of the Front Bench of the Conservative Party,62 followed by the claims of backbench Conservative MPs. The expenses claims made by Liberal Democrat MPs were revealed last of the three main parties.63
¶Areas of abuse
¶2.68 In addition to the exposition and publication of specific allegations of incorrect claims, including claims for the cost of mortgages already repaid in full, the Daily Telegraph also set out alleged abuses of the Parliamentary "Green Book" rules on expenses and allowances. These, the newspaper rightly contended, provided considerable scope for a number of different abuses.
¶In particular, the abuses set out by the Daily Telegraph related to costs of maintaining two residences, one in the constituency and one in London. Other alleged abuses brought to the public attention by the Daily Telegraph included (but were not limited to):
-
¶
- nominating second homes: the Green Book states that "the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact". MPs and peers were able to ensure that their second
¶F home was the one which enabled them to claim more expenses;
-
¶
- redesignating second homes: MPs were able to switch the designation of their second home, enabling them to claim for purchasing, renovating and furnishing more than one property. This practice has become known as "flipping";
- subsidising property development: the Green Book rule that MPs could not claim for repairs "beyond making good dilapidations" was not enforced, and consequently MPs were able to add significantly to the value of a property. By implication some "second homes" were effectively businesses not homes since they were renovated on expenses and then rapidly sold;
- claiming expenses while living in "grace and favour" homes: Ministers with "grace and favour" homes in Westminster were also able to claim for a "second home" as well as their existing primary residence;
- overclaiming for food: MPs were permitted to claim up to £400 for food each month without receipts, even when Parliament was not sitting; and
- overspending at the end of the financial year: MPs were able to submit claims just before the end of the financial year, so as to use up allowances, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.
¶Parliamentary reaction
¶2.69 The expenses claims disclosed by the Daily Telegraph and subsequent public anger at the behaviour of MPs led to substantial changes to the manner in which Parliamentary expenses and allowances were administered. On 20 May 2009, Ms Harman, announced the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to manage Parliamentarians' expenses independently of any interference from Parliament.64 Further, an independent Panel chaired by Sir Thomas Legg was established to examine all claims relating to the second home allowance between 2004 and 2008. The panel published its findings on 12 October 2009 as MPs returned to Parliament following the summer recess.65 Many claims that had previously been regarded as legitimate were now considered to have breached the rules.
¶Consequences
¶2.70 As a direct result of the Daily Telegraph's exposé:
¶(a) four MPs and two peers have been imprisoned; some peers have been excluded from
the Lords' Chamber until repayment of their claims; and one former MP has been found unfit to stand trial, although in a trial of issue the jury found that she had committed false accounting and used false instruments;
¶(b) several other MPs remain subject to police investigation; (c) there was the biggest shift in the composition of Parliament for a generation, with more than 100 MPs announcing their intention to retire or leave the House of Commons; (d) six ministers resigned or were reshuffled amid controversy over their expense claims; F (e) the first resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in generations occurred; (f) more than £1 million in taxpayers' money has been returned to Parliamentary authorities by MPs; (g) a new transparent system with an independent regulator was established. In its first
year, the new system led to a reduction in the cost of the MPs' expenses scheme of £15 million; and
¶(h) in addition, the investigation led to wide areas of Government expenditure being
opened up to public scrutiny and the acceptance that, as the Prime Minister put it: 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'.
¶2.71 The Daily Telegraph's detractors might say that the story brought the paper a huge publicity coup and the inevitable increases in circulation and sales: all the ingredients of a modern succès du scandale. Rupert Murdoch expressed his 'disappointment' that The Times had not felt able to buy up the story from the middleman when he was touting it around the market place. Overall, however, the Daily Telegraph earned whatever commercial advantages it secured from its substantial financial investment. Although it might be stretching language somewhat to call this a case of investigative journalism in the exact sense of the term (the material was effectively handed to the Daily Telegraph on a metaphorical plate and did not need to be rooted out in the manner of a Thalidomide investigation) the obvious public interest in the story and the fact that it was undeniably 'laced with risk' deserve full recognition. The data might have been bogus; there was certainly an issue as to whether some breach of the criminal law had occurred (or, at the very least, ethical concerns surrounding the manner in which the data had been extracted and supplied); and a vast amount of work had to be undertaken to analyse and review the raw material not least to ensure accuracy. The legal and ethical issues were properly and responsibly addressed, and the Inquiry is fully satisfied that no corners were cut. This, as I am pleased to repeat, is an example of journalism at its best.
470 471¶Chapter 3
¶Complaints of an Unethical Press 1. Overview
¶1.1 As a prelude to the more detailed assessment and treatment of the evidence set out below,1 this Part of the Report will summarise, with little weighing or assessment, the complaints voiced during Module One of the Inquiry of an unethical press. As cannot be over-emphasised, the criticisms are not of every title or every journalist, or even anything like every title or every journalist. The great majority of both perform their work admirably, ethically and with scrupulous attention to detail. The purpose of the Inquiry, however, was to address the practices of those who do not and any culture that is based on the latter rather than the former. Accordingly, references to unethical or unlawful practices of "the press" must be read as referring to such practices within "parts of the press". It should be noted, however, that although some stories in the regional press have been the subject of criticism, the generic concerns are not directed to the regional press.
¶1.2 The initial wave of evidence received by the Inquiry from its first 21 witnesses, over five working days between 21 November and 28 November 2011, undoubtedly made an immediate and powerful impact within the Inquiry room and beyond. All those who spoke volunteered to do so; more have complained and some of the further statements have been put into the record of the Inquiry. Access to this evidence by the vast majority of the public has been through the Inquiry's website which remains available to anyone who wishes to view or review this F testimony: everyone therefore has the opportunity to test the Inquiry's assessments and conclusions against this evidence base if so minded.
¶1.3 This Chapter summarises the thematic trends which emerged in the evidence given by the victims of unethical press practices in the first 5 days of the inquiry. But before beginning to examine these trends, it is possible to take a wider perspective. Complaints of an unethical press are of considerable lineage and are not confined to the United Kingdom. Of perhaps even greater relevance for present purposes is not so much the bare fact that such complaints have been made but rather the contemporary chord they often strike. For example, the great
¶American jurists, Warren and Brandeis, writing in the Harvard Law Review in 1890 said this:
"The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers. To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle..."
¶1.4 The reference to the need to satisfy a prurient taste hints at the commercial pressures operating on the press as long ago as 1890. More recently, Sir John Major writing at the very end of the twentieth century put the point somewhat differently:2
"Across Fleet Street, sensational and exclusive stories sold extra copies – straight reporting did not. Accuracy suffered, squandered for something, anything, 'new'. Quotes were reconstructed, leaks and splashes abounded, confidentiality was not respected and reputations sacrificed for a few days' hysterical splash."
¶1 Major, Sir J, The Autobiography, p359
472¶1.5 At a perhaps higher level of generality, in mitigating his client's case on his behalf at the sentencing hearing which took place on 26 January 2007, defence counsel for Clive Goodman said this:3
"Mr Goodman has lived his life in a world where, and I say this with some trepidation, ethical lines are not always clearly defined, or at least observed..."
¶1.6 Defence counsel was no doubt speaking on instructions when he made this submission.
¶Regardless of the trepidation apparently evinced, the point counsel was making was not intended to be revelatory; rather, he was seeking to remind the judge that his client was operating within a wider press culture which did not always encourage best practice. It is unlikely that 'the world' he was referring to was confined to the microcosm of the News of the World (NoTW): it was intended as a wider metaphor comprising the press as a whole, or at the very least a section of it.
¶1.7 In his closing arguments on behalf of Northern & Shell, James Dingemans QC submitted, in the context of his succinct analysis of the culture, practices and ethics of the press, that:4
"... [f]ourthly, the evidence shows that they have a tendency to see news as divorced from the individuals involved. Fifthly, in some areas, there has been shown a stunning lack of judgment to the extent that it might engage the criminal law, and I say no more about that; about where lines can properly be drawn between the public interest in acquiring news and privacy"
¶F 1.8 In his closing remarks, Rhodri Davies QC on behalf of News International arguably went slightly further:5
"Going on to the evidence heard in Module 1, there is no doubt that that made out the case that all has not been well with the press..."
¶1.9 Finally, when asked for his assessment of the evidence the Inquiry received during Module
¶One, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Secretary of State for Education recognised that the evidence disclosed a problem which was capable of being regarded as 'serious',6 although he proceeded to observe that the cure might be worse than the disease. This, of course, raises a separate matter which will be relevant when discussing what 'the cure' might be. For present purposes it is sufficient to record that a wide range of witnesses, commentators, observers and interested parties have stated or opined that not all is well in the state of the culture, practices and ethics of the press: the complaints cannot be dismissed, as parts of the press have sought to do, as the whining of a few disgruntled celebrities.
¶1.10 The ground having being set, a thumb-nail sketch of the complaints of unacceptable press practice will now be set out under thematic sub-headings, recognising always a considerable element of overlap between many of these.
473- The complaints
¶Failing to respect individual privacy and dignity
¶2.1 An overarching complaint which encompasses many of the individual cases set out below is that the press has failed always to treat individuals with common decency, and has failed always to respect individual privacy. This encompasses many of the unethical techniques complained of, including phone hacking, surveillance, blagging and harassment. It is also exemplified by complaints relating to the publication of private and/or sensitive material without any public interest justification, and the intrusion into grief or shock. Three of the
¶'case studies' examined below7 are prime examples of this tendency: the way in which parts of the press treated the Dowlers, the McCanns, and Christopher Jefferies indicates a press indifferent to individual privacy and casual in its approach to truth, even when the stories were potentially extremely damaging for the individuals involved.
¶2.2 Further evidence relevant to this complaint included Sienna Miller's complaints of harassment, and the intrusion into the private grief of Anne Diamond and Baroness Hollins. Further evidence suggesting that parts of the press have failed to respect individual dignity and privacy were the examples seen by the Inquiry of the access and publication of sensitive personal information, including medical information, without any or any adequate consideration of the rights of, and effects on, the person in question and his or her family. Examples included the publication of confidential medical information relating to one of Gordon Brown MP's children in 2006, and the publication of extracts of the Kate McCann diaries in the NoTW in
¶2008: these are both the subject of detailed analysis below. F
¶2.3 The key issues to be considered under this heading are whether practices existed within the press consistent with an unethical culture of seeing individuals (and celebrities in particular) as objects, that is to say, simply as material for a story; whether there was an unethical cultural indifference to the consequences of exposing private lives; and, whether there was an unethical cultural indifference to the public interest in exposing private lives, exemplified by failures to put in place adequate procedures to ensure that potentially relevant public interest considerations were addressed and recorded.
¶Unlawful or unethical acquisition of private information
¶Phone hacking
¶2.4 A number of witnesses have alleged that they were the victims of phone hacking, in all but one case at the hands of a private investigator engaged, and perhaps journalists employed, by the NoTW.8 Much of the supporting evidence is derived from the notebooks of the private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, currently the subject of detailed review by the officers involved in Operation Weeting. Additionally, reliance may safely be placed for present purposes on the admissions and settlements made by News Group Newspapers in the civil proceedings and the acknowledgements that such actions were unacceptable and wrong made by representatives of that company, News International, and News Corporation before the Culture, Media and
¶Sport Select Committee and the Inquiry itself.
474¶2.5 Notwithstanding the number of arrests which have been made to date,9 it is still not clear just how widespread the practice of phone hacking was, or the extent to which it may have extended beyond one title; and, in the light of the limitations which necessarily impact on this aspect of the Inquiry because of the ongoing investigation and impending prosecutions, it is simply not possible to be definitive. The evidence of Paul McMullan, Sharon Marshall and
¶James Hipwell points to phone hacking being a common and known practice at the NoTW and elsewhere. In relation to other titles, the degree of knowledge, acquiescence and turning of the metaphorical blind eye may be difficult to assess quantitatively on the basis of the evidence the Inquiry has received (although a fuller analysis of this issue will be conducted below);10 in qualitative terms, however, valuable evidence was obtained from witnesses such as Piers Morgan, Heather Mills, Jeremy Paxman and Dominic Mohan.
¶2.6 Although the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) contains no defence of acting in the public interest, the Inquiry has examined the extent to which it could be argued that the hacking of voicemails was carried out in pursuit of stories which could properly and fairly be characterised as being in the public interest. There is no evidence that this is so: to such extent as the evidence has been ventilated, the hacking of voicemails was systematically deployed to garner pieces of gossip and tittle-tattle about the lives of celebrities and those otherwise in the public eye whether as victims of crime, politicians or potential sources for stories; in other words, to intrude into their privacy without any conceivable justification that could truly be argued to be in the public interest. Whereas in other contexts it has been argued by the press, or sections of the press, that there is a public interest in freedom of speech itself, and that an editor should be permitted to decide where the ethical balance falls, no such argument has been aired in this particular context. F
¶2.7 Put at its very lowest, the Inquiry will need to consider whether, at least until 2006, there existed a culture within the press of indifference to the unlawfulness of the practice of phone hacking (or a lack of understanding of its unlawfulness, which itself is difficult to justify) and to its unethical nature. It will also be necessary to consider whether the evidence received is sufficient to reach conclusions in respect of the use of phone hacking at titles other than the
¶NoTW.
¶Blagging
¶2.8 Aside from the evidence generated by Operation Motorman,11 a number of witnesses told the Inquiry how their privacy had been breached in contravention of the Editors' Code and also potentially section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998, through the technique known as blagging. A flavour of this evidence may be given by furnishing a number of examples. In her witness statement12 JK Rowling stated that, during the course of 1998, she received a telephone call purportedly from the Post Office. The caller explained that they had a package that the Post Office wanted to deliver but that they did not have Ms Rowling's address. On the face of it, this was a remarkable claim and, on being pressed to justify it by Ms Rowling, the caller swiftly hung up. It is difficult to avoid the inference that this was a journalist seeking personal information. Ms Rowling's husband-to-be appears to have received similar treatment by the press in 2000.13 He was telephoned by a person claiming to be from the tax office seeking information regarding his address and earnings, and this was duly disclosed.
475¶The following day this information was published by a Scottish newspaper and the paparazzi duly descended on Ms Rowling's future husband's home. The inference that the caller was a journalist is here even stronger.
¶2.9 HJK14 gave a similar account of being the likely victim of this technique.15 Again, there was a telephone call from someone claiming to be from the Royal Mail, but, on this occasion, the assertion was made that the address on a package had been ripped off and all that was left was the intended recipient's mobile phone number. HJK provided his/her address and later that month received an unwelcome visit from a journalist determined to find out whether he/she was in a relationship with X. The journalist was adamant as to the reliability of his sources, and subsequently proposed that HJK should come to 'an arrangement' with him regarding the disclosure of information. HJK refused to do so.
¶2.10 Overall, and in a similar manner to phone hacking, the Inquiry will need to consider whether there was a culture of indifference within the press as to the lawfulness of blagging (or a lack of understanding as to its unlawfulness), and to its unethical nature.
¶Email hacking
¶2.11 The present state of affairs in relation to Operation Tuleta is set out elsewhere.16 Given its current status it is difficult to reach any conclusions of a generic nature in relation to email hacking, save to observe that it remains possible that a considerable quantity of criminality will be exposed in due course.
¶F Bribery and corruption
¶2.12 Again, the present state of affairs in relation to Operation Elveden is set out elsewhere.17 As of 31 October 2012 (Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers' fourth witness statement) a total of 52 individuals had been arrested by officers working on Operation Elveden; of these,27 p104, lines 6-12, Professor Christopher Megone, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf were current and former journalists (including journalists from The Sun; the Daily Mirror and its sister paper, the Sunday Mirror; and the Daily Star Sunday).18 In an important piece of evidence, DAC Akers pointed out that offences of this nature were suspected to have been committed in at least three separate newspaper groups right up to early 2012.19
¶2.13 The fact that these arrests have occurred does not of course prove that an unlawful and unethical practice existed within the press of inducing, or seeking to induce, public officials to disclose confidential information about individuals or organisations; given the test required to justify arrest in the first place, it merely raises reasonable grounds to suspect that various offences may have been committed. Further, the ongoing criminal investigation hampers the ability of the Inquiry to explore the available evidence. Recognising these constraining factors, these developments cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.
476¶Surveillance, subterfuge and similar intrusive methods
¶2.14 A number of witnesses, as well as those contributing submissions on the Inquiry website, have described the use of covert surveillance or intrusive subterfuge by journalists or their independent contractors as a means of uncovering stories. This testimony covers a range of different techniques: by way of example, the deployment of private detectives to carry out what might be described as traditional surveillance of subjects; the recording of telephone conversations with subjects, sometimes coupled with the giving of assurances which are not kept; and the use of long-lens photography. At the very least, the issue arises of whether journalists give any, or any adequate, consideration to such surveillance being likely to generate relevant information in the public interest.
¶2.15 The evidence of journalists Sharon Marshall and Paul McMullan, which appeared to confirm the widespread use of such techniques by parts of the press, must be treated with a degree of caution. But it must also be considered in light of other evidence heard by the Inquiry. That evidence included the logbooks of private investigators Derek Webb20 and Matt Sprake21 which showed newspaper titles having commissioned covert and sometimes extended surveillance on hundreds of individuals, most of them so called celebrities, over a number of years. Mr
¶Sprake's evidence that ethical questions were for the newspapers which commissioned his work rather than for him emphasised the importance of newspaper oversight of third parties.
¶2.16 Evidence from 'targets' of intrusive press techniques also supported the evidence of Ms
¶Marshall and Mr McMullan. The inquiry heard of the gross intrusions into the privacy of lawyers Charlotte Harris and Mark Lewis by News International. It also heard of the paranoia caused by the surveillance on, and/or threats received by, politicians Tom Watson MP and F Chris Bryant MP. Other witnesses, including Steve Coogan, gave evidence of the use by the press of duplicity and subterfuge to acquire stories that could not possibly be justified by the public interest.
¶2.17 The Report will need to consider the extent to which these practices and others were sporadic and limited or widespread and/or cultural within parts of the press.
¶Unlawful or unethical treatment of individuals
¶Harassment
¶2.18 A number of witnesses testified to a range of practices, including the use of intrusive photography, pursuit by photographers whether on foot or in vehicles, 'door-stepping' and
¶'staking out'. Here again the Inquiry will need to consider whether a culture existed within the press, or a section of the press, which encouraged or condoned these practices; or, insofar as these practices were perpetrated by independent contractors, which failed to ensure that sufficient steps were taken to ascertain whether information, photographs and data were acquired in a context in which an individual was subject to harassment.
¶2.19 Amongst the most cogent evidence of harassment of this nature was that given by the actress Sienna Miller. She gave a powerful account of acts of dangerous driving, and of being harassed, verbally abused and spat at by freelance photographers, until, that is, a court order protected her from such conduct in the future:22
477"I would often find myself – I was 21 – at midnight running down a dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the fact that they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal, but if you take away the cameras, what have you got? You've got a pack of men chasing a woman and obviously that's a very intimidating situation to be in."
¶2.20 Ms Marshall in Tabloid Girl has written about the efforts that both she and her colleagues went to secure a story; common practices included the aggressive door-stepping of individuals. In one notable instance she described her efforts to door-step the broadcast journalist, Jeremy Paxman, by putting the same question to him 14 times,23 in an attempt to report on rumours of an extramarital affair.24 She described other occasions in which, whilst in pursuit of a story, she harried individuals at their home and refused to comply with requests to desist in her attempts to obtain a quote or break a story.25
¶2.21 Ms Marshall's memoirs (which she sought to dilute in her evidence by talking about the use of 'top-spin') record a pattern of behaviour which is also described by a number of witnesses. Ms Miller, Sheryl Gascoigne and the McCanns gave consistent evidence of high-speed car chases by journalists and press photographers. Ms Gascoigne explained how, following her marriage to the footballer Paul Gascoigne, she was subjected to intense press scrutiny that sought to depict her as a money grabber and the cause of her husband's issues with addiction and mental illness. This scrutiny went beyond coverage of her public appearances and extended to the sustained harassment of her in and around her home. At times it took extraordinary forms. One journalist followed Ms Gascoigne and her children from their home in Hertfordshire to the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.26
¶2.22 In very different contexts, Christopher Jefferies and Kate and Gerry McCann described their F experiences of sustained scrutiny and intrusion following the well-publicised events which attracted press interest. All three witnesses described how journalists and press photographers camped outside their homes, sometimes for days on end, making it impossible for them to go about their daily lives or indeed live comfortably or securely in the family home.27
¶2.23 In his witness statement Dr McCann told the Inquiry how at times his car was mobbed by journalists and photographers as he, or his wife, tried to drive with their family from their home. He recalled that journalists and press photographers banged on the car windows and shouted at the family even though their young children were not only visible but were also clearly distressed by such behaviour.28
¶Intrusion into grief or shock
¶2.24 A number of witnesses told the Inquiry of occasions when journalists and press photographers intruded into moments of grief, shock and similar personal difficulty, in the face of clause 5 of the Editors' Code and the wish of the witnesses to be left in peace. For example, Anne Diamond, the broadcast journalist and presenter, described how following the loss of her infant son through cot death, she wrote to all the editors of the national newspapers asking them to stay away from the funeral. However, she told the Inquiry that she saw a photographer in the vicinity of the church, and that a photograph of her and her husband was then published on the front page of The Sun above a bogus story entitled 'Anne's plea'. The editor of The
478¶Sun rejected Ms Diamond's husband's request not to publish the photograph29 and, following what she described as 'emotional blackmail', the family subsequently succumbed to pressure placed on them by the paper to join forces with The Sun to raise funds in aid of cot death research, rival papers carrying 'spoiler stories' shortly thereafter.30 Thus, what should have been an intensely private moment of personal anguish was rendered all the more difficult and distressing.
¶2.25 Ms Diamond's evidence on this topic related to events which occurred nearly 20 years ago, but not dissimilar evidence was given by Professor Baroness Sheila Hollins whose daughter
¶Abigail was the victim of a brutal knife attack in April 2005. She told the Inquiry how a journalist tricked her way into the home of Baroness Hollins' terminally ill mother and refused to leave until she was given a photograph of Abigail; eventually the police had to be called to secure her departure.31 Similar acts of press intrusion and insensitivity included attempts to photograph Abigail at her grandmother's funeral,32 the taking and publishing of photographs of the whole family during a trip to Lourdes,33 and surveillance of the entrance to Abigail's home for a number of weeks. When one of the journalists in question was approached, he is alleged to have said that he was doing nothing wrong.34
¶Discrimination and the treatment of women and minorities F 2.26 The evidence bearing on this topic is addressed in Section 3 below when discussing the nature of the harm caused to public discourse by unacceptable press practices. The issue for consideration below35 is whether an unethical culture, and concomitant practices, have existed within the press in relation to the discrimination and the treatment of women and minorities, in particular by demonstrating and fostering prejudice, unfairness and lack of respect and dignity, and failing to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals' race, colour, religion, transgender, gender, sexual orientation or disability.
¶Inaccuracy and inaccessibility
¶2.27 Many witnesses have complained of stories about them being inaccurate or misleading (see, for the most egregious examples, the evidence of Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns);
¶some have gone further to allege that evidence and quotations are deliberately fabricated in order to substantiate a story, add colour to it, or to pursue a particular line. Furthermore, organisations such as Full Fact have drawn to the Inquiry's attention many examples of allegedly knowingly inaccurate or misleading reporting in areas such as asylum, immigration and climate change.
479¶2.28 The point has already been made above36 that it is in the nature of journalism that mistakes will be made: indeed, that is an unavoidable aspect of human nature itself. Deliberate falsification (or reckless reporting) of material and evidence is, of course, another matter altogether. The Inquiry will need to determine whether culture and practices exist within the press which fall short of the standards of accuracy which can reasonably be expected to be in the public interest. As part and parcel of this overall assessment, consideration will need to be given to whether, in particular, insufficient standards of care have been applied to avoiding the publication of inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures; and of whether misleading or inaccurate headlines have been deployed, knowingly or otherwise, with a view to attracting purchases.
¶2.29 Justice cannot be done to all the multifarious complaints of inaccuracy which the Inquiry received. Instead, for present purposes the focus will be on the evidence of a number of journalists. Both Richard Peppiatt and Sharon Marshall pointed to a propensity in some parts of the press towards a form of lazy journalism where quotes were made up to back a particular line in a story,37 or where entire stories were built around fabricated quotations.38 Both were also clear that in the newsrooms in which they worked this practice was neither limited to a small number of journalists nor deprecated. Rather, the practice was widespread, managers were aware of it and even offered cash incentives to staff.39 It should be noted that this evidence has been strenuously denied by the papers concerned and that its quality wholly depends on the assessment the Inquiry makes as to their credibility and reliability as witnesses.
¶2.30 Similar evidence was provided to the Inquiry by Chris Atkins, the director of Starsuckers, a documentary on the willingness of tabloid newspapers to run stories supplied by third parties F with little or no basis in truth. Mr Atkins described supplying one newspaper with a fabricated story about a particular celebrity's hair catching on fire at a party. In addition to running the story without making due efforts to check its authenticity, the paper further embellished the story by inventing a pithy conclusion: the paper wrote that another person at the party had put the fire out by punching the woman in her 'barnet'.40
¶2.31 Evidence of falsification and inaccuracy presented to the Inquiry goes beyond the fabrication of single or even small numbers of facts associated with a story or with a witness. Hugh Grant gave evidence about the publication in the Sunday Express of an entire article supposedly written by him; in fact, he had had nothing to do with it.41
¶2.32 In a revealing exchange with Robert Jay QC, Dawn Neesom, the editor of the Daily Star, said this:42
480Q. There might be a kernel of truth in the story, but in order to make it more appetising and entertaining to its readers, which obviously you are plugged into – A. Yes, of course.
Q. you spin, embroider and weave around the edges of the story. Does that happen? A. It's – I wouldn't quite put it in those words, but as I say, it's written in a style that we know works for our readers.
¶'dramatic' and 'eye-catching' to characterise the inaccurate headline used. She also accepted in this context, and perhaps in others, that newspapers do on occasion 'cross lines'.44
¶2.34 As with all these complaints of unethical conduct, an assessment will need to be made below45 as to whether this particular problem is sporadic on the one hand or illustrative of a cultural strand within press practice on the other.
¶2.35 Aside from these complaints of inaccuracy, the Inquiry has also received a body of evidence which, on analysis, may be characterised as amounting to a generic complaint of it being difficult, if not impossible, for readers to assess for themselves the evidential basis for what is apparently being put forward as fact. This evidence may be categorised as follows: that there has been an insufficiently clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact, as required by clause 1 of the Editors' Code; that insufficient information has been provided in relation to the sources of material published, on occasion giving rise to the suspicion if not the inference that the source did not exist; and, that insufficient care has been taken in relation to the special public interest in the understanding of material relating to public F health, medical and other scientific matters.
¶2.36 It is fully understood that each of these three categories gives rise to its own set of problems.
¶Newspapers are, of course, entitled to speculate and to offer their own opinions, and the definition of what is 'fact' is capable of being controversial, depending on the context.
¶Furthermore, as a number of Core Participants have pointed out, with reference to legal authority, the distinction between fact and opinion in the specific context of the law of defamation is itself one of judgment: each does not require a separate, self-contained article or section of the newspaper, provided that it is reasonably clear to the reader from the tone and language used which is which. However, the complaint that has frequently been made is that, even with this element of latitude, fact and opinion are often so co-mingled that the reader is misled. Clause 1 of the Editors' Code correctly recognises the importance of this distinction, particularly in circumstances where the reader is placing trust in the newspaper as a reliable purveyor of news as fact. Many have complained that clause 1 is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and the validity and strength of this complaint will therefore need to be assessed.
¶2.37 The issue of journalistic sources is more controversial, not least because clause 10 of the
¶Editors' Code places a moral obligation on journalists to protect their confidential sources.
¶If this obligation were to be interpreted as being absolute, in the sense of being incapable of yielding to countervailing public interest considerations, then clause 10 itself would be exceptionable as going further than the protections accorded to journalists under Article 10 of the ECHR and the law of contempt. In any event, there is a wider concern here, namely that journalists may not always act ethically when invoking what protections they should properly enjoy. The evidence heard from Richard Peppiatt, Alastair Campbell, Hugh Grant and Magnus
481¶Boyd raised the strong suspicion, even if it did not provide conclusive evidence, that some journalists habitually refer to 'sources' even where the latter do not exist or where they have never said that which is attributed to them. But readers will never know where the truth lies, and will never acquire the means of finding out, because abuses of the system are extremely difficult to prove. The anonymous source (and one who truly requires anonymity as the price for giving up the story) can of course be an extremely valuable tool in the hands of the ethical and scrupulous journalist, but the possibilities for abuse are legion. An assessment will need to be made as to the extent to which the important principle of the anonymous source is abused, even if there is no obvious solution to that abuse.
¶2.38 The third category of complaint under this rubric is one articulated by a number of special interest groups in relation to scientific, medical and public health reporting: not simply is the concern one of inaccuracy, it also covers a failure to provide sufficient information to facilitate public understanding of what can often be complex and multi-faceted issues, where there may be no 'right' answer. The complaint has been variously expressed: as one of imbalance; or one of unreliability; and, in clear-cut instances, as one of frank inaccuracy. Again, it is appreciated that complex issues have to be set out in a manner comprehensible to readers, and that newspapers often succeed in distilling and presenting these in an admirably user-friendly fashion. The issue which arises, though, is whether there exists a strand of unacceptable practice within the press which needs to be recognised and addressed.
¶Treatment of critics and complainants General discouragement of public criticism
¶2.39 Numerous individuals in public life have complained in evidence to the Inquiry that they F have been afraid or unwilling to confront the power of the press, or – putting the matter another way, failings in the culture, practices and ethics of the press – owing to concerns about personal attack and vilification. The issue for consideration is not whether these fears are honestly held (given the weight of convergent evidence, this could not seriously be disputed) but rather whether the press has by its conduct caused, fostered or permitted such an 'atmosphere' to exist and be perpetuated whereby such fears have naturally spread.
¶2.40 The corpus of evidence relevant to this issue is vast, but for present purposes it can be considered in three parts. First, the Inquiry heard evidence of overt intimidation of those who had criticised the press. For example, after writing critical articles about the Daily Star in particular, and the tabloid press in general, Richard Peppiatt received threatening phone calls and text messages saying that he was "a marked man until the day you die". Similarly, while Hugh Grant was criticising tabloid press ethics while appearing on Question Time, the mother of his child was called and told to "Tell Hugh Grant to shut the fuck up". 2.41 Second, a significant number of the witnesses who testified during the first two weeks of Module One gave evidence of their fears of, or actual retaliation, by the press in response to complaints. JK Rowling made the point very compellingly in these terms:46
482"I would like to emphasise that what I'm about to say does not apply to the whole of the British press, but it is my experience with certain sectors of the British press. If you lock horns with them in this way, if you protest or you make a complaint, then you can expect some form of retribution fairly quickly, and I thought the fact that in this case a picture of my child was put into the papers, so very quickly after I'd asked them not to print my address, I thought that was spiteful, actually. Just spiteful."
¶2.42 Her experience was consistent with a body of evidence received by the Inquiry suggesting that a practice has existed within the press of obtaining or publishing material about individuals or organisations with whom they have been in dispute or disagreement, in circumstances where it is legitimate to conclude that the aim was to 'pay back' or 'punish' for the disagreement by causing distress, embarrassment or discomfort, rather than because the article had a public interest for the readership.
¶2.43 Two possible examples of this practice may be provided at this stage although each will be discussed in greater detail below.47 The first concerns what may be described as 'real-time' evidence generated by or during the course of the Inquiry: the Daily Mail accused Hugh Grant of 'a mendacious smear' after he had given evidence to the Inquiry when he speculated that his voicemail had been hacked by or on the instructions of Daily Mail journalists.48 Second, a very similar sort of allegation was made by The Sun against Gordon Brown MP in relation to his claims of how the paper had obtained details of his son's medical condition.49 The terminology used by the paper was that Mr Brown's allegation had been 'false and a smear'.50
¶The very obvious parallels between the two stories are notable, and an assessment is made below51 of the extent to which the press response in those examples was fair and/or to what extent it reflected a wider culture of aggressive defence.
¶2.44 Third, examples were provided of aggressive press attacks on decision makers who brought proposals, or made decisions, perceived to be adverse to parts of the press. Vitriolic attacks by The Sun on female critics of Page 3 were prime examples. A further example was the press response (and not just the NoTW) to Max Mosley's victory in his privacy action before Mr
¶Justice Eady, which often appeared high in critical volume but low on reasoned and measured F analysis. Some editors resorted to ad hominem attack, characterising the judge as being
¶'arrogant' and 'immoral'.52 Adverse comment about judges, and in relation to judicial decisions, can be entirely legitimate and represent the proper exercise of the right to challenge: I am not, for one moment, seeking to suggest otherwise. In this case, however, as was pointed out in the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report on Press Standards, Privacy and Libel,53 the criticism of the ruling was too often based on a frank misunderstanding of the judicial role in applying the well-established principles set out in Article 8 of the ECHR as explained by the Strasbourg court. In any event, it is worth pointing out that if, Mr Justice
¶Eady had erred in this regard, it was open to News International to appeal his decision to the
¶Court of Appeal: it did not do so. Had there been good grounds of appeal, it is implausible that News International would not have sought to exercise its rights.
¶2.45 The point goes further: quite apart from the extent to which titles do, in fact, write critically about those who have challenged them (all in the name of the exercise of free speech), the climate is such that that there is an undeniable perception that this is precisely what will happen. Witnesses were reluctant to give evidence because of the fear of press retribution; some overcame that expression of fear but others did not. I do not make any finding or reach any conclusion based upon what is not part of the evidence but the same inference may be drawn from the unwillingness of journalists to speak out (which resulted in the necessity to hear evidence anonymously through the National Union of Journalists). The fear of journalists was not merely that the relevant title would not employ them: it was that a consequence of speaking out would be that they would no longer be able to obtain any employment in the national press. This feature alone raises real concerns about the culture and practices of the press, in closing ranks and refusing to accept and recognise that legitimate debate about its own role and methods of working is not to be shut down but encouraged.
483¶Failure to take reasonable steps to pre-notify
¶2.46 Article 8 of the ECHR does not place an obligation on newspapers to pre-notify the subjects of intended stories as a matter of course54 and it is easily understood why some stories cannot be the subject of pre-notification. However, concerns have been expressed during the course of the Inquiry that, in some of those cases where pre-notification did not occur, culture and practices have existed within a section of the press of deliberate decisions not to take reasonable steps to pre-notify the subjects of news articles in advance, without there being a good reason not to do so. The principal aim of this was to unfairly deny the subject of the article the possibility of verifying or challenging it, or to ensure that the story is not lost to a competitor. A number of journalists and editors testified to a reluctance to pre-notify in certain situations; the evidence relating to Max Mosley's privacy action and the publication of the Kate McCann diaries provides a powerful insight into the key drivers of press conduct in this type of situation. Each of these cases is considered as an individual example below,55 F but the absence of pre-notification is not examined as a problem to be addressed generally. All the evidence suggested that a failure to pre-notify was the very rare exception rather than a recurring practice or culture within the press.
¶Failures to take reasonable steps to remedy
¶2.47 Numerous witnesses gave evidence to the Inquiry of the difficulties they have faced in seeking an opportunity to reply to inaccuracies in stories (notwithstanding clause 2 of the Editors' Code) and in securing corrections or apologies, either at all or published with suitable prominence. Given the weight of evidence bearing on this issue (which is considered in detail below),56 it may well be difficult for anyone to deny the existence of a problem;57 it will, however, be necessary to examine whether its manifestation may fairly be characterised as illustrative of a cultural failing in the press or a section of the press.
- The harm
¶3.1 Overall, it is possible to group these complaints of unethical practices by the press under two general headings. First, there are a series of complaints which, however formulated, amount in essence to an allegation that the press have failed to respect the rights and personal autonomy of individuals in circumstances where there is no, or no sufficient, public interest justification for that failure. Second, there are complaints of inaccuracy in press reporting, either in relation to what individuals have or have not done, or in relation to what might be described as matters of general public interest.
484¶3.2 All the ramifications of unethical conduct by the press need fully to be understood. Some of these may be obvious: defamatory reporting in relation to individuals is capable of destroying reputations although an action in libel goes some way to restore the position. Breaches of privacy may also do the same, and the fact that a story happens to be true (although it should never have been published) may lead to damage which cannot be repaired. This consequence is not inevitable because a breach of privacy which does not result in publication of any story may have only very limited (if any) adverse consequences: the private information may only be shared between a handful of journalists who themselves decide to keep it private.
¶However, this prospect aside, some of the consequences of unethical conduct by the press are less obvious and therefore require exposition. Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to the broader, and perhaps deeper, consequences for a mature democracy respectful of the rights and freedoms of individuals of inaccurate and unjustifiably intrusive press reporting.
¶This section of the Report will begin to examine these issues.
¶Consequences of intrusive reporting
¶Phone hacking
¶3.3 While phone hacking itself is a 'silent crime' inasmuch as the victim will usually be unaware of, or not even suspect, the covert assault on his or her privacy, its consequences – both direct and indirect – have often been serious and wide-ranging, as the evidence submitted to the Inquiry and separately generated by the phone hacking litigation has demonstrated.
¶F 3.4 The Inquiry has heard how the details of private lives, known only to the witnesses testifying
¶(in other words, the targets of voicemail hacking) and their most trusted confidants and friends, became the subject of articles in the press.58 Further, evidence was also received that, as a consequence of voicemail hacking, journalists and press photographers were able to record moments that were intensely private, such as relationship breakdown,59 or family grief, without either the knowledge or input of the individuals concerned. Sienna Miller explained how she was the subject of many articles either speculating on or reporting the state of her relationship with the actor Jude Law. In many cases, the information that had formed the basis of these articles had been known only to Ms Miller, Mr Law and a very small number of confidants who had not shared the information further.60 Ms Miller gave a graphic description of the fall-out from the voicemail hacking which News International has, of course, admitted took place. This included the corrosive loss of trust in aspects of family life, in relationships and in friendships, Ms Miller assuming, understandably, that her inner circle was the source of stories in the press.61 She described herself as "torn between feeling completely paranoid that either someone close to [her] [a trusted family member or friend] was selling this information to the media or that someone was somehow hacking [her] telephone." On one occasion she sat down with close family members and friends in one room and accused them of leaking stories to the press. Ms Miller explained that she felt that every area of her life was under constant surveillance; she felt violated, paranoid and anxious.
¶3.5 Other witnesses have told the Inquiry how they have lost friends and confidants as a consequence of the paranoia and mistrust engendered by phone-hacking. For example, Mary-Ellen Field described the damage done to her reputation and livelihood as the consequence of what she believed to be the hacking of Elle Macpherson's voicemail. Given the publication of a number of articles about Ms MacPherson which set out in detail confidential information concerning her personal and private life, of which Ms Field had direct knowledge, Ms MacPherson assumed that Ms Field must have been the source of those stories. Ms Field's refusal to acknowledge responsibility led to accusations of illness and then alcoholism for which she subsequently underwent treatment. Finally it was decided that Ms Field was incapable of carrying out her employment to the required standard and she was dismissed from her position. This led to financial difficulties and the loss of friendship.62 Ms Field has also made clear how difficult it has been to restore her reputation once such damage had been done.63
485¶Other intrusive conduct
¶3.6 The Inquiry has heard how the disclosure in the press of embarrassing or personal details not only impacts on the self-esteem and reputation of the person involved, but also affects others around them as well. For example, the spouses and children of witnesses have been subjected to bullying and abuse as a consequence of stories written about them. Garry Flitcroft described the abuse directed at his children at school following the publication of stories in the press about him.64 He detailed how abuse by rival fans was so hurtful and offensive that his father could no longer watch him play football; he also believes that this ultimately contributed to his father's suicide.65
¶3.7 Witnesses have also spoken about the distress caused to spouses and partners by the aggressive pursuit of 'kiss and tell' stories and the knock-on effects of disclosures of infidelity. In a number of cases the disclosure of marital infidelity is believed to have led or contributed to a suicide attempt, or had a deleterious impact on the health of vulnerable members of the F family.
¶3.8 Charlotte Church said that her mother found articles published by the News of the World about her father's infidelity, without forewarning, so distressing that it led to an attempt take her own life.66 The Inquiry has heard similar testimony from Max Mosley, who has expressed the belief that the constant, unflattering and unpleasant coverage of him was a contributing factor in the suicide of his son.67
¶Consequences of inaccurate reporting
¶3.9 The potential damage done by inaccurate reporting can extend well beyond the intrinsic harm attendant on the distortion of fact. Witnesses have explained that it can cause much greater distress, anguish and pain. Taking perhaps the most extreme and unsettling example, Margaret Watson has set out her belief that inaccurate and partial reporting of the murder of her daughter, Diane, contributed significantly to the suicide of her son, Alan, who was unable to cope with the unsubstantiated allegations levelled at his dead sister.68 This evidence chimes with a number of submissions and witness statements received by the Inquiry from ordinary members of the public who have reported their experiences of inaccurate reporting, and subsequent refusal by the press to engage with attempts to correct those inaccuracies. In a number of cases, that coverage has concerned the suicide of a family member.
486¶3.10 Evidence of factual misreporting does not merely relate to suicide but also to the reporting on cases of murder. For example, the Director of Support After Murder and Manslaughter in Northern Ireland (SAMM NI), Pam Surphlis, described the routine inaccurate reporting by newspapers of murders committed in the Province. These inaccuracies related to the family details, age and background of the victims, and overall sensationalising of the murders, with damaging consequences for the families of the victims.69 In her oral evidence Mrs Surphlis referred to the newspaper coverage of the murder of a 15 year old boy in which the victim was described as a heroin addict, when in fact he was diabetic.70 She noted that "once it goes in, whether right or wrong, it becomes fact".71 Mrs Surphlis also described the press coverage following the murder of her father and sister in 1993. Her father, who was a faith healer, was described as a 'witchcraft clergyman'.72 Further, she gave the example of her sister, who in coverage of her death was always represented in a picture of her wedding dress even though she had endured years of marital abuse, notwithstanding that Mrs Surphlis had provided a different photograph.73
¶3.11 It goes without saying that reporting of this nature is particularly distressing to the family and friends of the deceased.
¶3.12 The cases of the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies are especially egregious examples of defamatory and sensationalised reporting causing, in their different ways, personal anguish and distress. These examples are treated in more detail below.74 F
¶Impact on public discourse
¶3.13 The Inquiry has received submissions and evidence from various campaign organisations or pressure groups, think tanks, community representative groups, professional practitioners, trade bodies and academic institutions complaining of the impact of inaccurate and at times discriminatory and inflammatory reporting on public discourse. This is not a criticism of the right of the press to be partial: it is a complaint specifically directed to inaccuracy. This problem is aggravated by the unwillingness of the PCC to accept complaints from interest groups unless there is an identified 'victim' of the reporting willing to complain.
¶3.14 For example, evidence was received from ENGAGE, an organisation set up to promote improved awareness and standards of reporting in the British media of Muslims, as well as to encourage greater political participation and civic engagement of Muslims living in Britain.75
¶ENGAGE provided examples of what it described as "inaccurate, unfair or discriminatory" reporting in some parts of the British press.76 In particular, ENGAGE expressed concern at what it suggested was a tendency to present reporting of fringe and extremist elements as representative of the viewpoints of British Muslims as a whole.77 Examples of headlines which tended to reinforce that impression, but were without basis in fact, included "Poppies banned in terror hotspots" and "Muslim only public loos". Reference was also made to a front page headline ("Muslim plot to kill the Pope"), published in the Daily Express in September 2010, which was later admitted to have no basis in fact.78 Although the paper published an apology and correction after a complaint had been made by ENGAGE, Mr Bungawala on behalf of that organisation pointed out that it was "a single sentence buried under a news item on page nine".79 Tellingly, he explained that the size and placing of the correction does not mitigate the damage to community relations caused by a front page article of this nature.80
487¶3.15 Similar concerns at the damage capable of being caused to community relations and potentially vulnerable individuals have been raised by other organisations, in particular those representing migrant and refugee communities. Such organisations include The Runnymede Trust, the Refugee Council and the Migrant and Refugee Community Forum.
¶3.16 In written evidence submitted to the Inquiry, both the Refugee Council and Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum suggest that some parts of the press seek deliberately (or, at least, recklessly) to conflate statistics for asylum and immigration to imply a growing "wave" of asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite evidence that the number of asylum seekers has fallen significantly since 2002.81 82 This view is also shared by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which contends that the motive may be a political one.83 The Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum draws attention to a report by the Cardiff University School of Journalism, 'What's The Story' (2003), which noted that asylum debates tended to focus heavily on statistics and figures which were un-sourced.84
¶3.17 In his book, Democracy under Attack, Malcolm Dean of Sheffield University suggested that F certain strands of press reporting on asylum and immigration (and often the strand which may have been only loosely based in fact) have played a role in influencing Government policy on these issues.85
¶3.18 The submissions received in this area went a little further than simply criticising inaccuracies in reporting; they also claimed that there was a tendency in parts of the press to discriminate against certain minorities and to inflame tensions or exacerbate difference. The Refugee Council suggested that some titles were less active than others86 in engaging with organisations who work with the relevant communities when seeking comments for articles on asylum and immigration: consequently, negative content is less likely to be balanced with positive stories.87 ENGAGE drew attention to a report by the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies which concluded that, between 2000 – 2008, references in the press to radical Muslims outnumbered references to moderate Muslims by 17 to one.88
488¶3.19 The Runnymede Trust emphasised its concerns in relation to the impact of inflammatory reporting by reference to an article published in the NoTW in 2003, which purported to describe the cost of moving a refugee family. It ran under the headline: "Asylum Seekers' Free
¶£220 Taxi" with a sub heading, "and guess what… YOU'RE paying the fare." Concerns with this article include the publication of a photograph of the family in question in which the faces of the children were clearly visible (in breach of the Editors' Code of Practice), the failure adequately to disguise the location of the family's new property (it was identifiable by door numbering and signage), the tone of the article, which included leading questions, "WHAT
¶DO YOU THINK? Does it make you angry…?" in capital letters, and the failure of the article to make clear that train tickets for the family were more costly than the fare for the taxi.
¶3.20 Concerns at the accuracy (as well as tone and content) of reporting in some parts of the press in relation to minority groups have also been raised elsewhere.89 In her evidence to the Inquiry,
¶Helen Belcher on behalf of Trans Media Watch described what she regards as the frequently pejorative nature of reporting in some parts of the British press on transgender issues.90 The use of 'before' names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk.91 Ms Belcher also claimed that the tone of much reporting was derogatory and intended to cause ridicule.92 She referred specifically to one article in The Sun which ran under the headline: "Sex swap mechanic goes nuts at medics".93
¶Apart from the inherently offensive nature of such language, Ms Belcher's complaint was that it contributed to the shaping of public attitudes towards trans people.
¶3.21 Responding to this evidence from Trans Media Watch,94 Dominic Mohan, the editor of The
¶Sun, accepted that some reporting on these issues had been a "bit insensitive", but claimed F that it had improved.95 The title had worked hard with the Mermaid Trust, an organisation that supports transgender people, to improve the quality of its reporting and, indeed, had received praise from some quarters.96 Shortly after Helen Belcher had given evidence to the
¶Inquiry, The Sun ran two further stories on transgender issues: one concerned coverage of a transsexual man who had given birth; the second to a five year old who had been born male but identified as a girl.97 In a further written submission to the Inquiry, Trans Media Watch suggested that both stories were sensationalised and lacked wider context, and that real privacy concerns around the identification of vulnerable people were ignored.98
¶3.22 Concerns at the damage that can be done by sensationalised reporting were also raised by
¶Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA), an organisation that represents the professionals who work in child care and social services. In its submission to the Inquiry, PACA set out its belief that sensationalised and sometimes inaccurate reporting of failings in social services were putting at risk the lives of vulnerable young people.99 PACA suggests that sensationalist reporting is damaging the profession through the popular vilification of individuals, and is impacting on retention and recruitment across the children's care sector.100 The PACA submission refers to work undertaken by the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS), which notes the rise of child protection vacancies; and, following a survey of users, found that a third of respondents believed the effectiveness of advice being offered by health professionals has been adversely affected.101 A submission received from the Royal College of Psychiatrists also reflects similar concerns about the impact of press reporting on the profession and on recruitment and retention.102
489¶3.23 In its submission the Royal College of Psychiatrists also expressed concern at the impact that the sensationalising of crime can have both on the victims but also on the rehabilitation of the perpetrators and, in particular, young offenders.103 Likewise, the Youth Media Agency has suggested that the sensationalised reporting of youth crime and, specifically, the use of what it describes as an "overwhelmingly negative vernacular" in reporting of issues relating to young people risks harming their aspirations and opportunities.104 Citing the coverage of the August 2011 riots by some newspapers as an example of the sensationalising of the role of young people in topical events, this organisation noted that just 26% of rioters were identified as aged 10-17, a statistic which was by no means clear from the coverage in some papers.105
¶3.24 The role of the press in shaping public attitudes to rape and violence against women has been criticised in evidence submitted by End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAWC) and EAVES Housing. The latter's submission cites research that it had conducted on the press reporting and statistical realities of rape.106 It argues that in the British press there is a F disproportionate coverage of the comparatively rare "stranger rape" stories and instances of falsely reported rapes, but reporting on the most common form of rape, which is committed by a person known to the victim, is infrequent.107 It suggests that the imbalance discourages victims to speak up and report their experiences, believing they do not fall within the "real rape" template.108
¶3.25 Similarly, the EVAWC submission suggests that much press reporting on rape serves to perpetuate a number of societal myths around rape that are damaging both to victims and the criminal justice system as a whole. EVAWC notes reporting on a 2009 study which found that promiscuous men were more likely to commit rape.109 However, press coverage of that study, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, suggested that the research claimed that provocatively dressed women were more likely to be sexually assaulted.110 Although the headline was removed from the Telegraph website following complaints from EVAWC and other women's groups, EVAWC are concerned that the damage had been done.
490¶3.26 These complaints of the trivialisation of violence towards women in some sections of the press are echoed in evidence received by the Inquiry from OBJECT. It argues that the frequent juxtaposition in the tabloid press of images and text that depict women as sex objects with stories of violence towards women trivialises that subject matter.111 In support of this proposition, OBJECT has submitted a number of articles published in The Sun, The Daily Star and The Sport in which this juxtaposition is evident. By way of example, OBJECT has drawn the attention of the Inquiry to a front page headline in The Sun which read: "Death threats to Harry girl". That article was illustrated with a photograph of the young woman in question in her underwear.
¶3.27 The Inquiry has also received a submission from Beat, a campaign group which provides support for those tackling eating disorders. In its submission Beat expresses concern at what it alleges is the use of inappropriate images of severely emaciated women and men in some parts of the press to illustrate stories on anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders.112
¶Beat contends that such images can cause harm to people either suffering or recovering from eating disorders,113 as well as damage to the public awareness of such disorders by creating a false image of sufferers. That said, Beat also acknowledged recent and substantial improvements in the accuracy and tone of press reporting on these.114
¶3.28 It is worth repeating that both freedom of speech and freedom of the press permit wide F latitude to editors and journalists to publish the stories they consider appropriate in the way that they wish.115 The Editors' Code of Practice, however, requires care to be taken not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information (Clause 1(i)) and also requires the press to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability (Clause 17(i)). That is the standard that the press has set for itself. The evidence touched on here, and addressed further below,116 includes reporting which falls at different points along a spectrum: some may be contentious, opinionated and partial, while still complying with the standard set;
¶others may be inaccurate, prejudicial and discriminatory, and fall clearly on the wrong side of that standard. What is clear is that a critical mass of articles which breach the standard can have seriously deleterious effects on public discourse and community relations.
¶Medical and scientific research
¶3.29 The Inquiry has also received a number of submissions from organisations working in medical and scientific research setting out concerns at what they perceive as the detrimental impact of the quality and accuracy of some reporting on issues relating to science and health policy.
¶The Science Media Centre, through its director Fiona Fox, gave oral evidence to the Inquiry, and written submissions have been received from organisations such as the Wellcome Trust,
¶Sense about Science, and the Cardiff University Brain Imaging Centre. Perhaps unsurprisingly, all these organisations cite press reporting on the MMR vaccination following the publication of a case study in The Lancet in 1998 as an example of how journalism that they allege was both inaccurate and unbalanced led to a media generated health scare.117 Both the Wellcome Trust and Sense About Science have explained that in the immediate aftermath of the most intense period of coverage there was an estimated fall in vaccination rates of 61% in some areas of London,118 as well as a much lower take-up of the vaccination overall.119 This reduction is reported to have had a real impact on the risk that incidence of the diseases will increase with potentially serious consequences to those affected.
491¶3.30 Similar, but more controversial, concerns have been raised by organisations in relation to the reporting of issues as diverse as climate change and drug addiction.120 It is unnecessary to do more than touch on these: the relevant submissions are available on the Inquiry website for public scrutiny. It goes without saying that the Inquiry has not undertaken the task of forming its own expert scientific judgment on this material and, in any event, it is unnecessary that it should do so.
¶3.31 This body of evidence emphasises the need for balanced and responsible reporting on matters of public interest and, in particular, reporting that reflects the balance of scientific and/or medical opinion on any specific issue. This need arises because the press is regarded as a reliable and responsible source of information; if it was not so regarded (and the press itself would hardly want it so), this issue would not arise. If, for example, the overwhelming preponderance of informed medical opinion is to the effect that a vaccine is safe, any reporting of suggestive evidence to the contrary effect should recognise and fairly characterise the nature and quality of that evidence, and accord proper recognition to where the clear consensus of opinion lies. This is not to accord undue weight to the views of the scientific and
¶F medical establishment; rather, it is to accord due recognition to the strength of the available evidence to ensure that the position is not misrepresented. As the MMR story made clear, the failure to do so can have a widespread and harmful impact.
¶Inaccuracy and harm: a wider perspective
¶3.32 Overall, there is a broader point which flows from the status and role of the press in a mature democracy as a reliable, authoritative and accurate purveyor of news and information. The press is trusted by its readers to adhere to high standards in terms of getting things right. The importance of differentiating between fact and opinion is that the public must be in a position to understand what is fact (and therefore to be relied on as such) and what is opinion (and therefore to be understood as precisely that). The public interest in facts being accurate is that readers may well be misled if they are not, their knowledge about the world may well be faulty as a result, and their judgments based on that knowledge may well be imperfect. The wider harm to the public interest of inaccurate journalism should be seen in that light.
¶3.33 There is, of course, no bright line for the way that accurate facts are described, or for the choice of accurate facts that are reported and it is recognised that journalists do not have the same standards of impartiality that affect broadcasters. The challenge, in reality, is to the extent to which the Editors' Code (or any agreed code) is followed 'not only in the letter but in the full spirit' (see the Preamble to the Code) and the unwillingness of the press to be prepared to address legitimate complaints in that regard.
492 493