10 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor of the Financial Times has upheld his paper’s code of practice as a “model for self-regulation” at the Leveson Inquiry.
Lionel Barber told the Inquiry that the broadsheet’s 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.
“FT journalists do not break the law”, Barber said.
While upholding the Press Complaint’s Commission’s 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 “very difficult” for the body, as they had been lied to by News International over the extent of the practice.
“If this isn’t a wake-up call I don’t know what is,” he said of the closure of the News of the World.
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.
He also criticised the current PCC for being “dominated by insiders” 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 credible “not just credible to those who are part of system”.
Responding to Barber’s suggestions, Lord Justice Leveson said, “it won’t be good enough to tinker around the edges”, arguing that a new, improved body must “work for public and the press.”
Barber, who has been editor of the paper since 2005, said that the title should “be the gold standard in journalism”.
He went on to say that multiple-source policy was “ingrained” 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.”
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”).
He also called prior notification a “dangerous path”, arguing that “you never want to get so close to a source that you’re offering prior notification or sharing everything.”
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.
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.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
09 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
Former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie told the Leveson Inquiry that the paper would have come “very, very very close to being shut down” had it “got the Milly Dowler story wrong”.
MacKenzie, who edited the UK’s most popular daily paper from 1981-1994, was referring to reports in the Guardian that the News of the World had deleted voicemails on the abducted teenager’s phone, giving her family false hope that she was alive.
The Guardian reported last month that, while the News of the World had hacked into Dowler’s phone, it was unlikely that it was responsible for the deletion of messages that led to a false hope moment.
Leveson LJ said MacKenzie’s view that the broadsheet got the story “completely wrong” was “interesting”.
MacKenzie accused the newspaper world of “snobbery” and claimed ethics depended on the paper in which an offending story was published. “If you publish in the Sun you get six months’ jail, if you publish in the Guardian you get a Pulitzer.”
MacKenzie added that the culture of the Sun had changed after his departure, noting that subsequent editors Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan were more “cautious”.
He admitted to adopting a “bullish” approach to journalism during his editorship particularly in the 1980s, adding later that the paper’s editor’s office was a “massive hour-by-hour sprawl of phone calls and general rioting”.
Pressed on fact checking by Leveson LJ, MacKenzie said there was “no absolute truth in any newspaper”, adding that journalists attempting to get to the truth while being told lies was a “massively difficult problem”.
He also spoke in favour of newspapers being subject to heavy fines for lying to the Press Complaints Commission.
Mackenzie admitted he did “not really” have much regard for privacy while editor.
Meanwhile, current editor of the paper’s Bizarre showbiz column, Gordon Smart, said ethics were a balancing act between public interest and individual’s right to privacy. “There is a grey area there and we walk that line every day,” Smart said, adding that he believed he and his team “get it right more than we get it wrong”.
He said that the onset of Twitter meant showbiz reporters were more accountable than ever before, adding that social media added to the pressure to meet deadlines.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
12 Dec 11 | Leveson Inquiry
Undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood has told the Leveson Inquiry said public interest was the “overriding” factor for his 500-plus stories exposing criminality or wrongdoing.
“Exposing criminality gave me great satisfaction,” Mahmood said of his work. “I’m proud to have jailed paedophiles, arms dealers and drug dealers.”
In his 30-year career, 20 of which were spent as an undercover reporter at the now-defunct News of the World, Mahmood says he did at times cross the lines into illegality. He admitted once purchasing child pornography, but added that his actions led to the conviction of an offender and that the ends justified the means.
Mahmood claimed those holding public office should be open to scrutiny. “I don’t think I’d vote for my MP if i knew he was having an affair,” he said. When Lord Justice Leveson asked him if this view extended to celebrities, Mahmood said those “cashing in” on happy family life while engaged in extra marital affairs deserved to be exposed for their “hypocrisy”.
Mahmood repeated that there was a “hypocrisy justification” for exposing those who portray themselves publicly as “wholesome characters”, citing a story he wrote exposing two models working as prostitutes and selling drugs.
Mahmood repeatedly denied using methods of entrapment to expose crime, calling the “myth” about the use of such methods “annoying”. He said his subjects were already “predisposed to committing a crime”, and that he and his team provide the environment for the target to do so.
“I don’t want to go into our modus operandi,” he said, “but our methods have been tested time and time again in the courts.”
He added that he never commissioned private detectives to work for him.
Mahmood denied any knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World, saying he was only made aware after the arrest of the paper’s Royal reporter Clive Goodman in 2006. “Rumours were about,” he said, “but there was no firm evidence.” He added that “all fingers were pointing to the newsdesk.”
Mahmood, known as the “Fake Sheikh” for the disguise he has worn when exposing criminals, said that his work has led to 261 criminal prosecutions.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
08 Dec 11 | Leveson Inquiry
A group of academics told the Leveson Inquiry today that there is no lack of ethics training for students on journalism programmes, and that the issue to address is newsroom culture.
Professor Steven Barnett, of the University of Westminster, said ethics were like a “stick of rock” running through modules taught. Brian Cathcart of Kingston University (and Index on Censorship blogger) added that, in offering ethics training, he and his colleagues sought to produce “not just journalists but reflective journalists who think about what they’re doing.”
Cathcart, also founder of the Hacked Off campaign, added that we’ve “come a long way”, noting he received no ethical training at the start of his career.
Head of journalism at City University, Professor George Brock, added that the key issue was the newsroom culture, which he said determined behaviour. Barnett added that it is impossible to teach someone how to deal with ethical problems on national tabloids. “It is a matter of individual moral courage,” he said.
Angela Phillips, of Goldsmith’s College, noted that many young graduates want to work for more ethical papers but get “trapped” due to higher salaries offered by redtops.
Lord Justice Leveson was keen to reiterate he was “not on a witch-hunt”, adding that he was “anxious to find out what has gone wrong in an industry in which there is an enormous amount that goes absolutely right.” Brunel University’s Julian Petley (also an Index on Censorship contributor), while noting that the term tabloid should not be a “dirty word”, was eager to differentiate between the redtops and broadsheets. He suggested it was time that “editors of ethical papers stop making common cause with editors of papers that have brought this Inquiry into being”, adding later that the Daily Mail “bullies” the government. Cardiff University’s Ian Hargreaves replied, “nice liberal broadsheets can be bullies as well.”
Both Petley and Phillips argued journalistic standards could be improved by a statutory right of reply and for offending newspapers to print adjudications.
Brock spoke in favour of rewriting privacy legislation, arguing that balancing Article 8 and Article 10 of the Human Rights Act had “not worked well”. He advocated legislation that protects private life while not chilling solid journalism, and called for a greater focus on public interest defences.
There was a consensus that the Press Complaints Commission needed reform, with Hargreaves arguing that robust regulation does “not come in the thickness of the armour, but in the cunningness of design.” Petley advocated a new regulatory process with a “limited” statutory backdrop and more investigatory powers, while Barnett suggested those who choose not to sign up to a new, independent self-regulatory system should pay VAT.
Petley added later that “journalism rarely recognises its own power”, while Cathcart and Barnett argued that the press had not been “caught up in the move towards greater accountability.”
“Public trust in journalism has been damaged,” Cathcart said, adding that any remedy “must be seen to be radical.”
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
