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 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
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
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
