11 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The picture editor of the Daily Mail faced a tough grilling over the paper’s policy of photographing celebrities and their families at the Leveson Inquiry.
Pressed on the the paper’s seeking a photo Hugh Grant and the mother of his child soon after the baby’s birth, Paul Silva said there was no suggestion from the press release at the time that there was a privacy issue.
“It was a major showbiz story of great interest to our readers,” Silva said, adding that the paper sought a posed photo of the new family, as it had done with David Cameron after the birth of his daughter.
When asked by Robert Jay QC whether or not he should have sought Grant’s permission beforehand, Silva defended his paper’s policy. “A story breaks, we then go to their home, we ask them to pose up, if they say no we’ll move on and go away.”
Silva agreed with a celebrity asking for privacy for their children, and that he “would go along with whatever they ask”. He said it was the paper’s policy that images of children would be pixellated, and when asked by Lord Justice Leveson whether it was questionable that photographers should be taking such pictures in the first place, he responded, “possibly, yes.”
Asked why he used unblurred pictures of the McCanns’ children, Silva responded that there was no objection at the time. “It was the most intense story I’ve ever worked on,” he said, adding that in hindsight he “possibly” should not have used the pictures.
Gerry and Kate McCann, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in May 2007, gave their testimony of alleged press intrusion to the Inquiry in November, detailing how journalists had camped outside their Leicestershire home upon their return to the UK.
Silva also clarified that he only deals with pictures for the newspaper, not for its website, Mail Online. Asked about photos on the website of actress Sandra Bullock trying to shield her child from photographers, he conceded, “if that was a British celebrity taken in a British park we’d be asking a lot of questions.”
He added that the Mail’s picture desk receives 300-400 photographs daily of the Duchess of Cambridge’s sister Pippa Middleton, but there was “no justification” in using them.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
10 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph told the Leveson Inquiry he felt it was his duty, not a choice, to publish the paper’s revelations about MPs’ expenses in 2009.
Will Lewis said it was his “ethical obligation to bring this profound wrongdoing at heart of House of Commons into public domain.”
Lewis said it was a topic that was “laced with risk all round”. Having worked for the Sunday Times when it printed the fake Hitler diaries in 1983, Lewis also said he was concerned the expenses story was a hoax.
He described the steps leading to publication, an initial £10,000 for a sample disc was paid to an intermediary, with a further £140,000 once it was verified that the leaked documents were genuine. Lewis said it was only when Jack Straw had confirmed the details of his expenses that he gave the green light to publish.
Lewis described the role of an editor as risk mitigation. “At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, ‘does it feel right?'” he said, adding that mistakes he had made in his career came about because he had not followed his instincts.
He urged for a greater focus on a more transparent newsroom culture, noting that “sunlight is a fantastic disinfectant.”
The paper’s current editor, Tony Gallagher, also testified today, arguing that the best outcome of the Inquiry would be an arbitration system for resolving legal disputes and complaints. “The chilling effect of libel on small media organisations has to be seen to be believed,” he said.
Earlier in the day Lord Justice Leveson also spoke in favour of a low-cost libel mediation system. He cautioned against government involvement, telling Telegraph Media Group CEO chief executive Murdoch MacLennan, “I would be surprised if government regulation ever even entered my mind.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from Associated Newspapers.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
10 Jan 2012 | 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
9 Jan 2012 | 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
