11 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor on the Mail on Sunday today conceded that the paper used private investigator Steve Whittamore after he had been charged with illegally trading information.
Peter Wright, who has edited the paper since 1979, told the Leveson Inquiry that Whittamore was used in a “small number of cases” after he was charged in February 2004.
In the same month, Wright said he instructed staff not to use Whittamore “unless there was an extremely good reason and all other means had been exhausted”.
Wright said the Mail’s use of Whittamore “virtually stopped altogether” in September 2004. Whittamore was given a conditional discharge in 2005.
During a lengthy exchange with Robert Jay QC and Lord Justice Leveson, Wright said he discovered in August 2011 that Whittamore provided information illicitly to some reporters. “I was uncomfortable that it appeared he might be using methods of which we would not approve, without the knowledge of those who were commissioning him,” he said.
Operation Motorman, carried out in 2003, investigated the use of a private investigators by the media to obtain personal information. In the 2006 report published by the Information Commissioner’s Office disclosing the 22 newspapers that had regularly used Whittamore to access illegally-obtained information, the Daily Mail topped the list with 952 transactions. The Mail on Sunday came fourth, with 266 transactions.
Wright said Whittamore had been used for a story published in February 2003 to establish the ownership of a scooter used by union leader Bob Crow.
He said: “Whittamore didn’t supply stories. He was used primarily to find names and addresses of people we needed to speak to in the course of researching stories.” He added that Whittamore was paid a total of £20,000 to trace information.
He said that Associated Newspaper’s request to see the ICO’s report was turned down, although the company accepted its findings.
Wright also said he did not believe the paper’s staff had used phone hacking to obtain stories.
“I have absolutely no evidence that phone hacking ever did occur,” he said. “I would hope that if phone hacking had been going on that it would have been brought to my attention.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
10 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor of the Independent has told the Leveson Inquiry that the paper’s reputation has been “severely damaged” following revelations that one of its star columnists, Johann Hari, had plagiarised articles.
Chris Blackhurst denied there had been a cover-up at the paper, noting that no-one had ever had any “inklings” or made complaints about the reporter, who is currently undertaking ethics training at Columbia and New York University at his own cost.
Blackhurst stressed that the “scandal” caused “enormous” and “profound” shock to himself and his colleages. Hari was publicly suspended without pay for four months last year, having confessed to inserting quotes from other published work into exclusive interviews.
Blackhurst added that an absence of complaints meant Hari did not believe he had been doing anything wrong, but noted that there are “plenty of journalists who haven’t had training but recognise the difference between right and wrong”.
Blackhurst said if it had been within his remit to pass the Hari case to the Press Complaints Commission for judgment, he would have done so.
Blackhurst said he was “profoundly against state intervention or state control of the media”, but reiterated his support for a more “proactive” body, possibly with statutory backing. He added he would “certainly advocate” the fining of newspapers for breaches.
Lord Justice Leveson responded that a balance needed to be found, noting, “when you’re writing something you’re doing nothing more than exercising right to free speech.”
Praising the News of the World for exposing match-fixing in cricket, and the Daily Mail’s controversial coverage of then-suspects in the Stephen Lawrence murder case, Blackhurst said he would be “very worried if the outcome of this Inquiry was an ability of this industry to investigate to be curtailed.” Leveson agreed such a result must be avoided.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
9 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Th editor of the Sun has called for a “level playing field” between the press and the internet at the Leveson Inquiry today.
Dominic Mohan, who joined the paper in 1996 and has been its editor since 2009, said the combination of an over-regulated press with an unregulated internet was a “very, very worrying thought”.
Mohan said that at the moment, “it feels like every story has to be considered in terms of the Bribery Act, privacy, the PCC.” He added that statutory regulation filled him with “fear” and revealed that he had had discussions with a senior executive at the paper over appointing an ombudsman to deal with readers’ complaints. He said it could be “useful in terms of self-regulation”.
Mohan said the Inquiry itself may have made him more cautious about publishing certain stories. He reiterated that he had “seen mistakes made” at the tabloid and was keen to learn from them. He said his staff will be advised on language use regarding issues such as HIV/AIDS, gypsies and travellers later this year.
He added that, since the Press Complain Commission’s adjudication on a story by the Sun about singer Charlotte Church‘s pregnancy — published before Mohan became editor — he has “not run stories on females under 12 weeks pregnant”.
A new system on paying sources requiring four signatures from managers was instituted in September 2011, which Mohan called “sensible” and “good governance” following the closure of the News of the World after phone hacking revelations.
Earlier in the day, The Sun’s head of legal called prior notification “absolutely correct journalism”, adding that it can go some way in avoiding libel by informing “the other side” of a story before publication.
Justin Walford told the Leveson Inquiry he could not recall an occasion when it was in the public interest to not inform someone of a story involving them.
Ex-Formula One boss Max Mosley, who sued the News of the World for breach of privacy in 2008, has also championed the cause. Yet he lost his bid impose a legal duty of prior notification last May, with the European Court of Human Rights ruling that such a system would have a ”chilling effect” on the press.
Walford described his own role at the tabloid as “risk assessment”, noting that he would deal with legal issues in the following day’s paper, but that it was the editor who would make the ultimate decision of whether running a certain story would be worth the risk.
The hearing continues tomorrow, with evidence from editors of the FT, the Independent and the Telegraph.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
21 Dec 2011 | Leveson Inquiry
A journalist at the Daily Express who covered the disappearance of Madeleine McCann told the Leveson Inquiry that featuring the story on the front page became the editor’s “obsession”.
Nick Fagge said the tabloid’s then editor — Peter Hill — had decided the case of the toddler, who went missing in Portugal in May 2007, would “sell papers” and featured the story on the front page of the paper regardless of an article’s strength.
“The editor at the time decided it was the only story he was interested in,” Fagge said, adding that he himself was concerned over the direction the coverage was going in.
Kate and Gerry McCann accepted £550,000 in damages and an apology from Express Newspapers in March 2008 for what the publisher admitted were “entirely untrue” and “defamatory” articles. The damages were donated to the fund set up to find the toddler.
Another reporter on the case, David Pilditch, told the Inquiry that “getting to the truth” of the matter was “impossible” because of the laws in Portugal restricting police talking to the press about the case.
“There was no strategy, just confusion all round, when there should have been focus”.
Pilditch and Fagge’s colleague, Padraic Flanagan, told the Inquiry that they were sent to Portugal to “produce stories” and that it would take “quite a brave reporter to call the desk and say ‘I’m not really sure about this, I’m not going to send anything back today’.”
“The questions I asked myself,” he said, “were ‘what can I find today’, ‘what can I offer the newsdesk, how can I keep up with rivals?'”, Flanagan said.
Fagge said, ” I’d be thinking of verifying the story as best I could. I wouldn’t be thinking of a potential libel case.”
With the restrictions in place, Pilditch said his sources included Portuguese newspapers, the McCanns’ spokesman, local crime reporters who had been in contact with the police, and a police translator. He told the Inquiry he was able to develop dialogue with police through these third party sources.
“All I could do was present the information [to the newsdesk] and explain the sources where the information came from,” he said, adding that there was “no way round” the situation.
Counsel to the Inquiry Robert Jay QC ran Pilditch through a series of articles about the McCanns that had his byline. One reported “findings” of Madeleine’s DNA in the family’s hire car, which Jay said was “at best inconclusive”.
He pointed out that the toddler’s DNA was not uncovered in the car, to which Pilditch said, “we know that now, but we didn’t know that then”.
He added, “a problem with a lot of this stuff was the way information was leaking out”, noting it was as though the police were “thinking out loud”.
In an article that opened with “Kate and Gerry McCann are still regarded as the prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter”, Pilditch claimed it he “didn’t really write the story”, but the piece was bylined with Pilditch and Fagge’s names.
Later, Jay put it to Pilditch that he was “getting all sorts of tittle-tattle form different people when you knew the police couldn’t officially talk”.
He also asked Pilditch if “people like you” thought about the impact of their stories, which “imply that the child has not been abducted but something far more sinister has happened”.
Pilditch denied it was tittle-tattle, telling Jay that the information came from senior detectives on the case.
Lord Justice Leveson said: “it’s all fluff.”
The Inquiry will continue on 9 January.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
