{"id":93425,"date":"2011-12-02T15:30:11","date_gmt":"2011-12-02T15:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=6830"},"modified":"2019-09-16T13:28:37","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T12:28:37","slug":"marta-cooper-leveson-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=93425","title":{"rendered":"Leveson testimony goes from comic to tragic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the past ten days, Lord Justice Leveson has been overseeing an Inquiry that resembles more a daytime chat show<\/a>\u00a0than the first public examination into the standards and ethics of the British press in thirty years.<\/p>\n

There have been some memorable moments: ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley<\/a> claiming Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was “completely naive about sex”; we learned\u00a0Hugh Grant<\/a>‘s middle name is Mungo; and on two occasions — to the \u00a0horror of the the press gallery —Leveson admitted he had not read the morning papers.<\/p>\n

But the comedy gold of the Inquiry surely came from\u00a0Paul McMullan<\/a>. Those watching sat agog as the News of the World deputy features editor ran through his life as a tabloid hack. He told us stories of pretending to be “Brad the rent boy” to expose a priest — “there’s two of us, in our underpants, running\u00a0through a nunnery at midnight after getting the priest…it was such fun” — he admitted he “loved giving chase” to celebrities (“fun” before Princess Diana died, he said); he had tried and failed to hack David Beckham’s phone; he claimed “circulation defines the public interest”; and, in a quote he’ll now forever be associated with, affirmed that “privacy is for paedos.”<\/p>\n

Then there was his solemn regret for having discovered actor Denholm Elliott\u2019s homeless and drug-addicted daughter begging outside Chalk Farm tube station, took her to his flat, photographed her topless and turned it into a News of the World splash. She later killed herself.<\/p>\n

Blend these two and you get an Inquiry that has been a cocktail of surreal, intense, sometimes hilarious, and at other times haunting.<\/p>\n

In the first week of evidence, it was at times impossible not to feel a sense of guilt for being a journalist, as witnesses\u00a0gave example after damning example of press intrusion, harassment and, in some cases, indefensible and vile exploitation. In a raw, 30-minute account, the Dowlers recounted<\/a>\u00a0the moment they managed to get through to their missing daughter Milly’s voicemail, leading them to believe she was alive. It was only nine years later, this year, that they were told the reason they had managed to was because Milly’s voicemail messages had been hacked and deleted to make room for new messages to come through. She was almost certainly dead at the time.<\/p>\n

How bizarre it was to have that chilling testimony juxtaposed with Hugh Grant’s lengthy afternoon account<\/a> of press intrusion, sprinkled with his wit and movie-star charm.<\/p>\n

As the first week drew to a close, paparazzi emerged as the villains. Sienna Miller described<\/a> being chased down her street by 10 photographers —- “take away the cameras,” she said, “and you’ve got a pack of men chasing a woman”. Sheryl Gascoigne recalled<\/a> driving to a police station to chase off a paparazzo who was following her, only to be told nothing could be done. JK Rowling had more than one tale<\/a>\u00a0of being long-lensed while out with her family, with her daughter, then aged eight, being snapped in her swimsuit. These photos were later printed in OK! magazine. An image, she said, “can spread around the world like a virus”.<\/p>\n

It was hard not to sympathise with the witnesses as they doled out story after story of questionable press standards, reminding us of the worst of the trade to which we belong and have cultivated, seemingly limitless in its desire to get just one shot.<\/p>\n

This reminder turned into guilt with the stories of ordinary people. The\u00a0pain of the McCanns<\/a> was almost palpable: a couple, desperate in the search for their missing daughter, being accused in the papers more than once of killing her and freezing her body. The wrongly arrested Bristol landlord Chris Jefferies described<\/a> how, in a matter of days, the British media’s distorted coverage had “vilified” him and left him “effectively under house arrest.” And there was the haunting revelation by the Watsons<\/a>, whose remaining son had killed himself and was found clutching copies of the articles that had, they said, defamed their murdered daughter<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That the Dowlers in particular remained balanced, conceding that the press had been helpful in spreading information about their missing daughter, made the tabloid pill an even more bitter one to swallow.<\/p>\n

As journalists took to the witness box, we were been doled out sizeable home truths about the British press, elements of which Alastair Campbell deemed “putrid”<\/a>. He slammed the Daily Mail for \u00a0a “culture of negativity”, where speed and ideology reign supreme. Former tabloid hack Richard Peppiatt portrayed a tabloid culture of bullying, fabrication and agenda-setting more intent on delivering impact than seeking truth. And then there was McMullan, who revealed his editors did indeed know about phone hacking and were “scum” for denying it.<\/p>\n

The PCC was criticised throughout the Inquiry, notably for its failure to investigate phone hacking in 2009 or mitigate in the coverage doled out to the McCanns. JK Rowling called the regulator “a wrist-slapping exercise at best”. Libel was also repeatedly highlighted as something for the “rich”.<\/p>\n

Various solutions that were offered included a public interest advisory body to help guide reporters; a regulator with the power to issue fines and impose sanctions; and a league table of newspapers to see which ones adhered to a code of conduct. A cheaper and more accessible system<\/a> in which it would be possible for libel or privacy cases to heard in county courts, not just the high court, was also suggested.\u00a0Unsurprisingly, Max Mosley championed a policy of prior notification<\/a> to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives.<\/p>\n

The past ten days of revelations, criticisms and potential solutions hammered home the quandary Leveson has on his hands: how to avoid infringing free speech — “the cornerstone of democracy”, to quote Hugh Grant — while finding ways to restrain further bad behaviour in the British press. Listening to Nick Davies’ account<\/a> alone, recounting a history of rigorous and meticulous reporting, we were reminded that it was an act of brilliant journalism that exposed an act of putrid journalism; and it\u00a0is of credit to this Inquiry that it is giving those on the receiving end a rare platform to criticise the redtops<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But there is far more to come. Before Christmas we will hear from the former information commissioner, a solicitor for phone hacking victims, and News International. In the new year editors and proprietors will take to the witness box to face the accusations of unethical behaviour they have received.<\/p>\n

McMullan may have set the entertainment bar high, but what will go on in court 73 is set to be no less intense than ten days just passed.<\/p>\n

Follow Index on Censorship\u2019s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter \u2013\u00a0@IndexLeveson.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Marta Cooper:<\/strong> Leveson testimony goes from comic to tragic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[3815],"tags":[7427,4317,7358,2930,727],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93425"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/57"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=93425"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93425\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109303,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93425\/revisions\/109303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}