On Wednesday 16th November 2011 a three pronged assault was made on the morality and integrity of a number of newspapers, Newspaper owners, Editors and individual and collective journalists. This attack was significantly wide in that the criticism applied to everyone who by their actions and inactions support those who “bully and blackmail” lie, distort, wilfully misrepresent and mislead, and rape the personal rights and privacy of other human beings and fellow citizen who lives genuinely create and contribute to their families and the wider community.
Separately I will cover the arguments against extending controls to the degree that Governments, Organisations and Individuals can hide even more effectively than they are able to do so presently behind the army of public relations manipulators which is now larger and significantly better paid than the number of journalists, together with lawyers and accountants willing to present their clients in the best possible light irrespective of what the information available to them discloses.
I was reminded of the Yes Prime Minister episode in which Sir Humphrey and the Prime Minister explained that the Times Newspaper is read by those who run the country, the Guardian by those who want to run the Country, the Financial Times by those who own the country, the Mail by the wives of those who run the country, the Morning Star by those who want another country to run the country and the Daily Telegraph by those who believe it already is, and then private secretary Bernard intervened to suggest that the Sun is read by those who want to see picture of big tits and who do not care who runs the country. I wonder what the same trio would have said about the Sun, the Mirror, The News of the World, The People, The Mail and the Express after listening to what the fifty one victims that Lord Leveson has agreed will present their story commencing on Monday 21st November 2011.
The conclusion I reached after listening to the three contributors on Wednesday together with the opening remarks of Lord Leveson and his subsequent remarks and the defence league of the proprietors of these newspapers together with those of Counsel to the Inquiry and that the neutral stance of the Metropolitan Police, is that British Society would be better if some of these papers cease to exist in their present form, even if this means putting a substantial number of journalist and paparazzi on the dole or creating yet more public relations officers and private investigation organisations.
I am also disappointed by the first reaction of the media to the opening statements made during the week particularly the over view of the evidence presented on behalf of the 51 victims. Only the Guardian provided an indication of the depth and breadth of the indictment on its front page and even the BBC failed until Friday to highlight the significance of what was about to be said in evidence. Hopefully they are waiting until the victims present their testimony and are then cross examine, although I hope Lord Leveson will ensure that the individuals are not revictimised by the experience and that action is immediately taken if they are hounded by the Paparazzi, are found to be put under surveillance, or subjected to further abuse in individual tabloids. It will also be a test of those of us who use the Internet to demonstrate the application of the highest standards of reporting and comment based on the evidence put before us.
Usually when the papers get something wrong and are forced to apologise it is disproportionately small compared to the hurt and harm that has been made and I fear the media will not give the case for the prosecution, so to speak, the due attention required because of the potential consequences.
The first contribution to be covered at length from the shortened first week commenced with a representative of the National Union of Journalists, then the Editor of the Guardian and then the barrister who put the overview for the victims, followed by aspects of the opening remarks of Counsel of the inquiry. I will separately address the case for the defence put by Barristers for the main newsgroups who wished to address the inquiry at the outset, and then the contribution of the neutrals: Lord Leveson, the Metropolitan Police and other aspects of the speech made by Counsel for the Inquiry.
I have listened to all the statements and then read the transcripts which I printed out in the format of four pages of text to a page which remains legible and which excludes the voluminous reference database which follows each session report.
Ms Michelle Stanistreet, an experienced Journalist addressed the Inquiry, as the elected General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists which has 38000 members with negotiating and representation rights in approximately half the printed news market. She is well equipped to speak for her membership having previously been the Deputy General Secretary for three years and the President and Vice President and serving on the National Executive Council for eight years. She worked for the Express Newspapers from 1999 until elected to the full time position of Deputy General Secretary.
She made the point that members of the Union operate across the whole spectrum of newsprint and attempted to balance the need to inform, educate and entertain with the need to serve the competing and sometimes conflicting demands of publishers and commercial interests. “It is a daily challenge and quite frequently a battle.”
She said the Union was attempting to find journalists able and willing to give evidence other than those who had retired, been made redundant or left the industry and who could give testimony “in confidence to afford them protection from retribution.”
“The fear is not necessarily just of immediate punishment but of finding that a few months after your Inquiry ends, a journalist who has spoken out may find herself on a list of redundancies.” The Union would discuss specific measures in relation to particular witnesses.
This suggests that there are those willing to speak now or when the Inquiry turns to the second part after the police investigations and any prosecutions have been completed, which given that the police are working through 300 million emails to ensure they have appropriate evidence and include all who need to be included makes it unlikely the second part of the Inquiry will be able to commence in a year to eighteen months time.
Ms Stanistreet explained that it was the fear of the consequences for them which “has been a significant factor inhibiting journalists from defending the principles of ethical journalism in the workplace and in media organisations hostile to the concept of trade unions, there’s a particular problem.”
She went on to remind about the context of an industry already in crisis with cutbacks, redundancies, casualisation and the entire closure of titles. She then explained that the problem arose because “Greedy employers have stripped profitable and once proud newspaper titles of their assets.” She added that they have slashed quality and content in the process. She accused the owners of playing fast and loose with the industry with the result of bad management experienced on a daily basis.
She said that investigative journalism and specialist correspondents had become an endangered species with the consequences that the ability of journalists to get out and about was being curtailed and more and more Agency copy was being topped and tailed and press releases churned out as news. The pressures led to shortcuts and the abandoning of fundamental principles.
In some newsrooms the pressure “is to write stories that are inaccurate or misleading.” The significance of this sentence is the reference to “some newsrooms.” It will be important if during the inquiry evidence is produced of which newsrooms in addition to the closed News of the World.
She went on to defend the journalists who had to work in such situations declaring that the stark expectation came from high to deliver the goods, get the job done, bring in the story whatever the means. “Well if you don’t the consequences are often simple and clinically brutal.”
She went on to say that “For anyone who’s worked in a newsroom, the concept of an editor who didn‘t know just what their troops was getting upto was laughable. Editors rule the roost.” They set the tone in the way the entire newsroom operates. She explained what she meant by this. “What’s accepted, what’s not, the tone of an editorial conference, whether bullying which is sadly all too commonplace, goes unchecked, the dispensing of praise or the nature of the roasting when the goods aren’t delivered.” She went on to say that the idea that hacking was the action of one rougue reporter was as daft as it was unbelievable.
This is an appropriate point to remind of my own experience which demonstrated that what she says applies to many a workplace and not just to the printed newspaper industry. It commenced with the philosophy of selling in the late 1950’s when I headed the list of the 50 sales personnel who had started the Olivetti one month sales training course and where many on the course were already experienced salesmen or worked in dealerships. We were told how to present our product in the best possible light and how to rubbish all the competitors and how to get to see the right people and then create a sale and to stand our ground even when threats of calling in the police were made as what happened when out with my supervisor.
About a decade later I was told by the head of a child care home under investagtion by the Home Office that if I helped to change his image he could fix a good job for me in the nationally governed reorganisation of social welfare services in local government then taking place. I continued to try and find the evidence against him insisting that he obeyed national and departmental laws and standards. His political friend over whom he held a major favour chaired the appointments panel in addition to being a political big wig and as I entered the interview I overheard him ridiculing my application. Needless to say it was necessary to move on. Similar situations were encountered subsequently.
Michelle Stanistreet then explained the difficulties confronting the union ingetting recognition and negotiating rights. She explained that several media moguls went to great lengths to block the NUJ for their ttitles. “Take Rupert Mudoch. He created and funded his own proxy union, the News International Staff Association which was later refused a certificate of recognition because of lack of independence from the employer. Staff at the News of the World has now found to their cost the price of not having robust and confident representation.”
She went on to argue the case for the Union to be able to represent and negotiate in all situations where they had members. In this respet I have to make the point that trade unions such as the NUJ have had to pay the price of those unions who insisted on the tyranny of the closed shop and defending the indefensible including the use of bullying and intimidation and where if you stood up there were those whose desire for retribution was also long term as I was also to personally to experience, and as I know others who assisted were similarly pursued.
Ms Stanistreet argued that the NUT believed there was a link between a strong trade union in the workplace and a strong ethical awareness. I have to dissent and say it depends on the Union and those who control and set the culture within the Union and which is no different from the newspaper owner and publisher and its editors.
She then told her story of how in 2001 together with two other Chapel reps at Express Newspapers she initiated a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission about her paper’s coverage of asylum seekers because of editorial interference from the proprietors. In 2004 they again complained because of the coverage of so called gypsies coming into the UK from the enlarged EU. In 2006 journalists from the Daily Star walked out demanding that a proposed spoof page on the Daily Fatwah was withdrawn and management backed down. The motive for the intervention of owners and executives was the need to increase sales.
She then drew attention that in such situations the Press Complaints Commission did absolutely nothing to help. The then chairman wrote a short reply saying he was satisfied that no journalists had been put under pressure to write inaccurate and unethical material. The editor of the paper sat with him on the PCC.
She went on to explain how the Union matched it robust defence of the public interest and the need of journalists to take what some regarded as inappropriate means to establish the facts and bring wrongdoers to public attention and those of the appropriate authorities, with a code which prevented intrusion or private grief and distress (but adding unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest).
This qualification leads into the minefield of interpretation and where journalists will argue the public interest defence if they get it wrong. As the victims will show it was necessary for criminal action with Contempt of Court and Civil actions to get some papers to withdraw allegations and offending articles although the damage was done and lasted a lifetime. Determining the line between what is in the public interest and what interests the public is a task which cannot be legislated or determined by prescription. What is needed are protocols and appropriate processes within media organisations but where there is dispute within an organisation there is immediate reference and decision by an accepted third party, and also where the subject of a proposed article can also seek quick independent arbitration before any publication if they can reach a compromise directly with the newspaper.
Ms Stainstreet remidned that the Union had recommended and obtained the support of the Commons Select Committee for the introduction of a conscience clause.
“A journalist has the right to refuse assignments or be identified as the creator of editorial which would break the letter of the spirit of the NUJ code. No journalist should be disciplined or suffer detrimant to their careers for asserting his/her rights to act according to the code.” The PCC rejected the proposal.
She went on to say that the Union would oppose any move to licence journalists or which would dilute press freedom. She then reminded that for years the so called regulatory body only represented the owners and editors excluding the producers and the consumers. The gentleman’s club did not even represent the interests of all newspapers which had led to the Northern and Shell Company leaving the club.
The group has gained core participant status at the Inquiry.
Ms Stanistreet mentioned that the Press Council of Ireland established in 2007 included civic society nominees and journalists with the Irish Secretary of the NUJ sitting on the council’s code committee and that the same newspaper groups who wont sit in the same room as NUJ do so in Ireland.
She then condemned the way in which national titles were being traded to the highest bidder which meant that a media owner could “have our police and our politicians in a stranglehold for fear that their personal pecadillos being splashed over the front pages of newspapers.”
Having stated the concerns about journalists coming forward from existing newsrooms she closed by mentioning that they would present witnesses “who can shed real light the culture within the News of the World, on cases of bullying at senior level, all the key factors we believe led to the scale of hacking within the newspaper.”
His Lordship then asked why after the Guardian had raised the matter it had taken 18 months before anybody took up the matter, if as she said everyone knew about it.
A very good question indeed which goes to the crux of the inquiry. Her explanation only partially satisfied when saying that they were not recognised by Associated Newspapers or News International or Mirror National titles. She mentioned that 95% of the Guardian workforce are members of the NUJ. The Guardian Editor then spoke.
Separately I will cover the arguments against extending controls to the degree that Governments, Organisations and Individuals can hide even more effectively than they are able to do so presently behind the army of public relations manipulators which is now larger and significantly better paid than the number of journalists, together with lawyers and accountants willing to present their clients in the best possible light irrespective of what the information available to them discloses.
I was reminded of the Yes Prime Minister episode in which Sir Humphrey and the Prime Minister explained that the Times Newspaper is read by those who run the country, the Guardian by those who want to run the Country, the Financial Times by those who own the country, the Mail by the wives of those who run the country, the Morning Star by those who want another country to run the country and the Daily Telegraph by those who believe it already is, and then private secretary Bernard intervened to suggest that the Sun is read by those who want to see picture of big tits and who do not care who runs the country. I wonder what the same trio would have said about the Sun, the Mirror, The News of the World, The People, The Mail and the Express after listening to what the fifty one victims that Lord Leveson has agreed will present their story commencing on Monday 21st November 2011.
The conclusion I reached after listening to the three contributors on Wednesday together with the opening remarks of Lord Leveson and his subsequent remarks and the defence league of the proprietors of these newspapers together with those of Counsel to the Inquiry and that the neutral stance of the Metropolitan Police, is that British Society would be better if some of these papers cease to exist in their present form, even if this means putting a substantial number of journalist and paparazzi on the dole or creating yet more public relations officers and private investigation organisations.
I am also disappointed by the first reaction of the media to the opening statements made during the week particularly the over view of the evidence presented on behalf of the 51 victims. Only the Guardian provided an indication of the depth and breadth of the indictment on its front page and even the BBC failed until Friday to highlight the significance of what was about to be said in evidence. Hopefully they are waiting until the victims present their testimony and are then cross examine, although I hope Lord Leveson will ensure that the individuals are not revictimised by the experience and that action is immediately taken if they are hounded by the Paparazzi, are found to be put under surveillance, or subjected to further abuse in individual tabloids. It will also be a test of those of us who use the Internet to demonstrate the application of the highest standards of reporting and comment based on the evidence put before us.
Usually when the papers get something wrong and are forced to apologise it is disproportionately small compared to the hurt and harm that has been made and I fear the media will not give the case for the prosecution, so to speak, the due attention required because of the potential consequences.
The first contribution to be covered at length from the shortened first week commenced with a representative of the National Union of Journalists, then the Editor of the Guardian and then the barrister who put the overview for the victims, followed by aspects of the opening remarks of Counsel of the inquiry. I will separately address the case for the defence put by Barristers for the main newsgroups who wished to address the inquiry at the outset, and then the contribution of the neutrals: Lord Leveson, the Metropolitan Police and other aspects of the speech made by Counsel for the Inquiry.
I have listened to all the statements and then read the transcripts which I printed out in the format of four pages of text to a page which remains legible and which excludes the voluminous reference database which follows each session report.
Ms Michelle Stanistreet, an experienced Journalist addressed the Inquiry, as the elected General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists which has 38000 members with negotiating and representation rights in approximately half the printed news market. She is well equipped to speak for her membership having previously been the Deputy General Secretary for three years and the President and Vice President and serving on the National Executive Council for eight years. She worked for the Express Newspapers from 1999 until elected to the full time position of Deputy General Secretary.
She made the point that members of the Union operate across the whole spectrum of newsprint and attempted to balance the need to inform, educate and entertain with the need to serve the competing and sometimes conflicting demands of publishers and commercial interests. “It is a daily challenge and quite frequently a battle.”
She said the Union was attempting to find journalists able and willing to give evidence other than those who had retired, been made redundant or left the industry and who could give testimony “in confidence to afford them protection from retribution.”
“The fear is not necessarily just of immediate punishment but of finding that a few months after your Inquiry ends, a journalist who has spoken out may find herself on a list of redundancies.” The Union would discuss specific measures in relation to particular witnesses.
This suggests that there are those willing to speak now or when the Inquiry turns to the second part after the police investigations and any prosecutions have been completed, which given that the police are working through 300 million emails to ensure they have appropriate evidence and include all who need to be included makes it unlikely the second part of the Inquiry will be able to commence in a year to eighteen months time.
Ms Stanistreet explained that it was the fear of the consequences for them which “has been a significant factor inhibiting journalists from defending the principles of ethical journalism in the workplace and in media organisations hostile to the concept of trade unions, there’s a particular problem.”
She went on to remind about the context of an industry already in crisis with cutbacks, redundancies, casualisation and the entire closure of titles. She then explained that the problem arose because “Greedy employers have stripped profitable and once proud newspaper titles of their assets.” She added that they have slashed quality and content in the process. She accused the owners of playing fast and loose with the industry with the result of bad management experienced on a daily basis.
She said that investigative journalism and specialist correspondents had become an endangered species with the consequences that the ability of journalists to get out and about was being curtailed and more and more Agency copy was being topped and tailed and press releases churned out as news. The pressures led to shortcuts and the abandoning of fundamental principles.
In some newsrooms the pressure “is to write stories that are inaccurate or misleading.” The significance of this sentence is the reference to “some newsrooms.” It will be important if during the inquiry evidence is produced of which newsrooms in addition to the closed News of the World.
She went on to defend the journalists who had to work in such situations declaring that the stark expectation came from high to deliver the goods, get the job done, bring in the story whatever the means. “Well if you don’t the consequences are often simple and clinically brutal.”
She went on to say that “For anyone who’s worked in a newsroom, the concept of an editor who didn‘t know just what their troops was getting upto was laughable. Editors rule the roost.” They set the tone in the way the entire newsroom operates. She explained what she meant by this. “What’s accepted, what’s not, the tone of an editorial conference, whether bullying which is sadly all too commonplace, goes unchecked, the dispensing of praise or the nature of the roasting when the goods aren’t delivered.” She went on to say that the idea that hacking was the action of one rougue reporter was as daft as it was unbelievable.
This is an appropriate point to remind of my own experience which demonstrated that what she says applies to many a workplace and not just to the printed newspaper industry. It commenced with the philosophy of selling in the late 1950’s when I headed the list of the 50 sales personnel who had started the Olivetti one month sales training course and where many on the course were already experienced salesmen or worked in dealerships. We were told how to present our product in the best possible light and how to rubbish all the competitors and how to get to see the right people and then create a sale and to stand our ground even when threats of calling in the police were made as what happened when out with my supervisor.
About a decade later I was told by the head of a child care home under investagtion by the Home Office that if I helped to change his image he could fix a good job for me in the nationally governed reorganisation of social welfare services in local government then taking place. I continued to try and find the evidence against him insisting that he obeyed national and departmental laws and standards. His political friend over whom he held a major favour chaired the appointments panel in addition to being a political big wig and as I entered the interview I overheard him ridiculing my application. Needless to say it was necessary to move on. Similar situations were encountered subsequently.
Michelle Stanistreet then explained the difficulties confronting the union ingetting recognition and negotiating rights. She explained that several media moguls went to great lengths to block the NUJ for their ttitles. “Take Rupert Mudoch. He created and funded his own proxy union, the News International Staff Association which was later refused a certificate of recognition because of lack of independence from the employer. Staff at the News of the World has now found to their cost the price of not having robust and confident representation.”
She went on to argue the case for the Union to be able to represent and negotiate in all situations where they had members. In this respet I have to make the point that trade unions such as the NUJ have had to pay the price of those unions who insisted on the tyranny of the closed shop and defending the indefensible including the use of bullying and intimidation and where if you stood up there were those whose desire for retribution was also long term as I was also to personally to experience, and as I know others who assisted were similarly pursued.
Ms Stanistreet argued that the NUT believed there was a link between a strong trade union in the workplace and a strong ethical awareness. I have to dissent and say it depends on the Union and those who control and set the culture within the Union and which is no different from the newspaper owner and publisher and its editors.
She then told her story of how in 2001 together with two other Chapel reps at Express Newspapers she initiated a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission about her paper’s coverage of asylum seekers because of editorial interference from the proprietors. In 2004 they again complained because of the coverage of so called gypsies coming into the UK from the enlarged EU. In 2006 journalists from the Daily Star walked out demanding that a proposed spoof page on the Daily Fatwah was withdrawn and management backed down. The motive for the intervention of owners and executives was the need to increase sales.
She then drew attention that in such situations the Press Complaints Commission did absolutely nothing to help. The then chairman wrote a short reply saying he was satisfied that no journalists had been put under pressure to write inaccurate and unethical material. The editor of the paper sat with him on the PCC.
She went on to explain how the Union matched it robust defence of the public interest and the need of journalists to take what some regarded as inappropriate means to establish the facts and bring wrongdoers to public attention and those of the appropriate authorities, with a code which prevented intrusion or private grief and distress (but adding unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest).
This qualification leads into the minefield of interpretation and where journalists will argue the public interest defence if they get it wrong. As the victims will show it was necessary for criminal action with Contempt of Court and Civil actions to get some papers to withdraw allegations and offending articles although the damage was done and lasted a lifetime. Determining the line between what is in the public interest and what interests the public is a task which cannot be legislated or determined by prescription. What is needed are protocols and appropriate processes within media organisations but where there is dispute within an organisation there is immediate reference and decision by an accepted third party, and also where the subject of a proposed article can also seek quick independent arbitration before any publication if they can reach a compromise directly with the newspaper.
Ms Stainstreet remidned that the Union had recommended and obtained the support of the Commons Select Committee for the introduction of a conscience clause.
“A journalist has the right to refuse assignments or be identified as the creator of editorial which would break the letter of the spirit of the NUJ code. No journalist should be disciplined or suffer detrimant to their careers for asserting his/her rights to act according to the code.” The PCC rejected the proposal.
She went on to say that the Union would oppose any move to licence journalists or which would dilute press freedom. She then reminded that for years the so called regulatory body only represented the owners and editors excluding the producers and the consumers. The gentleman’s club did not even represent the interests of all newspapers which had led to the Northern and Shell Company leaving the club.
The group has gained core participant status at the Inquiry.
Ms Stanistreet mentioned that the Press Council of Ireland established in 2007 included civic society nominees and journalists with the Irish Secretary of the NUJ sitting on the council’s code committee and that the same newspaper groups who wont sit in the same room as NUJ do so in Ireland.
She then condemned the way in which national titles were being traded to the highest bidder which meant that a media owner could “have our police and our politicians in a stranglehold for fear that their personal pecadillos being splashed over the front pages of newspapers.”
Having stated the concerns about journalists coming forward from existing newsrooms she closed by mentioning that they would present witnesses “who can shed real light the culture within the News of the World, on cases of bullying at senior level, all the key factors we believe led to the scale of hacking within the newspaper.”
His Lordship then asked why after the Guardian had raised the matter it had taken 18 months before anybody took up the matter, if as she said everyone knew about it.
A very good question indeed which goes to the crux of the inquiry. Her explanation only partially satisfied when saying that they were not recognised by Associated Newspapers or News International or Mirror National titles. She mentioned that 95% of the Guardian workforce are members of the NUJ. The Guardian Editor then spoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment