{"id":93472,"date":"2012-01-10T13:06:12","date_gmt":"2012-01-10T13:06:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=7285"},"modified":"2019-09-16T13:28:20","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T12:28:20","slug":"lionel-barber-ft-leveson-inquiry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=93472","title":{"rendered":"FT editor Lionel Barber appears at Leveson inquiry"},"content":{"rendered":"

The editor of the Financial Times has upheld his paper\u2019s code of practice as a \u201cmodel for self-regulation\u201d at the Leveson Inquiry<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber told the Inquiry that the broadsheet\u2019s internal code of practice goes further than PCC code with its provisions for data protection and strict rules governing share ownership and trading among its staff.<\/p>\n

“FT journalists do not break the law”, Barber said.<\/p>\n

While upholding the Press Complaint\u2019s Commission\u2019s mediation function as timely, fair and thorough, he argued that the current PCC code needs enforcement before serious amendments were to be made. He said that, in the case of phone hacking, it had not been enforced enough, adding later that it was \u201cvery difficult\u201d for the body, as they had been lied to by News International over the extent of the practice.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf this isn’t a wake-up call I don’t know what is,\u201d he said of the closure of the News of the World.<\/p>\n

He spoke in favour of fines being levied for serious breaches, arguing for a new body with investigatory powers and stronger leadership. He called for prominent corrections, but conceded that editors “hate” making them.<\/p>\n

He also criticised the current PCC for being \u201cdominated by insiders\u201d for too long, giving the image of a “cosy stitch-up”. He said journalists should not fear being accountable, and that a new system must be\u00a0credible “not just credible to those who are part of system”.<\/p>\n

Responding to Barber\u2019s suggestions, Lord Justice Leveson said, \u201cit won’t be good enough to tinker around the edges”, arguing that a new, improved body must \u201cwork for public and the press.\u201d<\/p>\n

Barber, who has been editor of the paper since 2005, said that the title should \u201cbe the gold standard in journalism\u201d.<\/p>\n

He went on to say that multiple-source policy was \u201cingrained\u201d at the paper, noting that using two sources for a story was a “minimum”. He said relying on one source opened a reporter up to manipulation and being misled, arguing he would rather “be right than first.”<\/p>\n

He said using anonymous sources in financial journalism was “problematic”, adding that the FT has ban on the use of “it is understood that” and any loose use of the word “sources” (but not “sources close to”).<\/p>\n

He also called prior notification a \u201cdangerous path\u201d, arguing that \u201cyou\u00a0never want to get so close to a source that you’re offering prior notification or sharing everything.\u201d<\/p>\n

He alluded to the costly nature of libel claims in the UK, adding that they can have a “chilling effect” despite the robustness of a story.<\/p>\n

He concluded, “I strongly believe there is a public interest in freedom of expression itself,” citing Hungary and South Africa as disturbing examples of infringements made to media freedom.<\/p>\n

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

Marta Cooper:<\/strong> FT editor Lionel Barber appears at Leveson inquiry<\/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":[4867,7427,165,14150,7358,269,2469],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93472"}],"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=93472"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93472\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109280,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93472\/revisions\/109280"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}