The introduction to the evidence of the Guardian Newspaper before the Leveson Committee last Wednesday was a balanced and thoughtful attempt to put the worst aspects for the British Press Media in perspective. The introduction was presented by Alan Rusbridger the Editor in Chief of the Guardian directly rather than through a Queens Counsel. I am not being unkind in say that he could have sat down after his first paragraph. He said:
“First we hope that its apparent to all that the events that led to the Inquiry were shocking and immensely damaging. Damaging because they impacted on the trust in all journalists. Shocking for what they revealed about one powerful and dominant company, about the responses of the police and the flawed nature of regulation, about the limitations of Parliament and the initial unwillingness of much of the press to write about what was going on in the News of the World. There was, in short, a failure of the normal checks and balances in society to hold power to account.”
As I indicated in the previous report it is evident that some are not shocked by what has been uncovered so far, Kelvin MacKensie, former editor of the Sun Newspaper for over a decade, opened his remarks by saying that the Inquiry was unnecessary. This may have been said tongue in cheek or a last moment attempt put a finger in the dam before it breaks but it sounded like intentional two finger arrogance on behalf of the until now untouchables.
Mr Rusbridger accepted as had been stated by the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists earlier, that journalism in general was under threat with Commercial newspapers losing circulation at the rate of 10% a year with the consequential loss of advertising revenue with the digital audiences growing and with as yet no digital revenue model working- “Until recently, a newspaper was something produced by a relatively small number of people in the know for a large number of people who weren‘t in the know. Now virtually everyone has the capacity to publish and inform themselves. The once a day deadline has been replaced by a 24 hour continuous news cycle, newspapers are moving from text to a combination of video, audio and data, as well as text, so there is a convergence of media which will have implications for readers and which may well have implications for regulation.”
In this respect I suggest that 24 hour TV news and digital Satellite and Cable has created more of a problem than the Internet with the ability, as I sometimes do, to switch back and forth between the BBC and Sky CNN and Fox and stations reporting on events in Europe, Russian and China as well as the Middle East and North Africa. An event of significance in any country in planet earth is quickly reported and then extensively covered, until the next event occurs although sometimes the collective media decide to remain focussed, whatever else then occurs. I accept that as News stations including the BBC and Sky ITV, Channels Four and Five carry their coverage also on the Internet computer and mobile phone the challenge to the newspaper industry has become greater. It understandable and defendable that owners protect their business and profit, this is not in issue but the methods adopted by staff and the creation of stories which appeal has to be within bounds and not just those of the law, but the moral decency of the present majority and a sense of what is right for the future.
Mr Rusbridger then made the point that everyone is also able to check facts and question is said in the printed media. This is true and which is why the printed press online, and broadcast programmes in general, have established comment and feedback. He made the positive observation that journalists now have to work in an environment where there can be an external reaction to what is said within minutes of being published. This is also true but still those who published and edit the printed paper or TV News continue to exercise significant control over who writes or speaks and in defining the limits of what they say.
In this sense the Internet remains more free and open for better or worse and there are those now seeking to control and restrain, again for good and bad reasons.
He then argued that issues of privacy had also become matters for everyone’s concern because of the development and I would say dramatic escalation in digital based surveillance. In past it was the rich and famous or the criminal who might find someone going through the rubbish they put out whereas some local authorities have put cameras/digital recorders inside the bin lid!
His third point I hope is true, that citizens are more conscious of the idea of a rights-based society with consequential responsibilities. I have hoped this would emerge from the growth in education to university level although we have still to catch up with many other countries. The problem I forecast was the increasing divide between the educated and the moron although this is not to imply that those who go to university cannot remain the morons they were on arrival or that everyone who does not, is. For many it seems to me the emphasis has been on rights rather than responsibilities and which goes to heart of the Inquiry because the freedom of speech, freedom of the press must be balance against the rights and interests of others.
Mr Rusbridger made the point that although the investigation of how the hacking went was the subject of part two of the inquiry he hoped it would be able to look at the rotten apple defence which occurred after the Guardian told the story in July 2009 until late January 2011.
That he raised the issue and in way he went on to do begs the question of what can be raised in part one and what cannot. The position will become more clear on Monday when the first victims give their testimony. He wanted to know what accounts for the reluctance of the police to investigate phone hacking properly even in 2009. Why did it take four enquiries for them to take it seriously? Why did senior officers make untruthful statements about what happened? Were Members of Parliament intimidated or put under surveillance or threatened? Why did the Press Complaints Commission fail in its attempts to get to the truth, Why was there such a widespread reluctance among other journalists to touch the story. Why did it take an American paper to see the significance of an issue to which so many British Journalists appeared blind?
Why when in November 2009 a News of the World Journalist received a staggering sum of £800000 at a tribunal for bullying by Andy Coulson no British Editor considered it interesting? He asked if the power of the Murdoch’s and their companies over political and cultural life had become too dominant. How did its commercial, political, journalistic and criminal muscle operate? Turning to ways of increasing safeguards in newsroom practices he offered the experience of 15 years of running a truly independent column in the Guardian, something which I was not aware of and will investigate.
Mr Rusbridger then suggested the Inquiry should look at the approach and experience of others highlighting the view of the former director of the GCHQ that in relation to intrusion of privacy one should apply the harm test, the public good test, the proportionality test, the need for due authorization and the ban against fishing expeditions. He suggested that that the issue of regulation should be dovetailed with the thinking on defamation now before Parliament. He argued that the present laws are slow, costly and illiberal and are often used as a sledge hammer to crack a nut and which could be solved as part of a system of mediation within a system of regulation. He proposed that any new body should be called the Press Standards and Mediation Commission.
He was scathing about the so called press regulation system saying it was non existent and that before it is abolished it ought to be tried! In making reference to how it handled the phone hacking complaint and argued that the Commission had been lied to by News International but lacked the will or the powers to do anything about it.
He echoed the views of the national Union of Journalists against any statutory system which involved state control the licensing of journalists, but it was possible that statute could be used to ensure the effective running of self regulation as long as there was careful scrutiny of all concerns regarding press freedom. A new standards and mediation service could cover privacy as well as libel issues but here the issue was defining pubic interest. (I have suggested that it may the attention should be on the process within providers perhaps involving some independent evaluation as it is unlikely that any system could and should cover all case situations which have to be matters of judgement),
His last point concerned the need for plurality within the press media in the situation where there was increasing concentration because of the costs. If the case was made about the dominance that News International then the Inquiry should make recommendations on how such a situation could be avoided in the future.
Any new system had to command support from the entire market including regional editors and magazine tittles. Having spent such time looking inwards he recognised that the Inquiry had come about because of public response and therefore concluded that the position of the public had to be foremost in mind.
Lord Leveson thanked Mr Rusbridger as someone who had evidently spent much time reflecting on the issues which was coming to grips with and looked forward to hearing possible solutions. He was fully aware, (as his interventions and comments to the others who had made their presentations indicated) of the need to ensure protection of press freedom and that the overwhelming majority of journalists had the public interest in mind and at heart but added “But I think you’re right there is a distance to go which we cannot ignore and which we ignore at out peril.”
Lord Leveson raised a number of issues which he provided opportunity for Mr Rushbridger to immediately respond or do so later and he invited all core participants to also respond if they wished.
The first concerned the question of his accepting anonymous testimony from within the industry and which by its nature could not be tested though cross examination. He said the problem was how else to get to the bottom of a situation which people hinted at. How could help those who wished to come forward but were concerned about the implications for their livelihood. It is understood from his response to a question being raised about this at the end of Monday’s hearing that he is close to a protocol being ready on this subject. He mentioned that in relation to a victim witness being heard he court would be cleared except for legal officers and the transcript would only be issued after it had been reacted as appropriate. This seems to me to be the best way forward because it will be important that such individual will be able to speak freely and in detail referring to individual newspaper titles and individuals by post if not by name if relevant but this information should be restricted to the Inquiry and not be made available beyond the parties directly involved.
The second issue on press ethics appeared to stem from core participant complaints that the Inquiry lacked direct knowledge and experience in relation to its assessors of how the tabloids worked and the pressures in which they were under implying a significant difference between them and other journalists. Leveson made that there was no justification for a separate code of ethics for the tabloid journalist which was not applicable to all journalists.
He mentioned he conscience clause raised by Ms Stanistreet and asked if it was appropriate for him to require that. He admitted his natural hesitancy over the law prescribing things. Was there a place for some objective test of the public interest? What would be the circumstances in which to insist upon the pre publication notification? Was there value in trying to find some mechanism that allows for the resolution of disputes short of going to court given the expense involved? How was he going to persuade those who were presently subscribing to the Press Complaints Counsel to join any new system? How was it possible to ensure plurality?
Mr Rushbridger He said that the issue of anonymity was a problem because the way the Guardian, Panorama, the New York Time and Dispatches had managed to bring the matter to public attention is because they spoke to journalists off the record but as soon as they are identified the police get involved and then the journalists are under caution and unable to communicate further. He said that there was those trying to get public evidence and did not get it and those who went off the record and did. However Lord Leveson pointed out that presentation had to also include the possibility were not seeking to get to the truth.
Rusbridger accepted the point made by Ms Stanistreet of the feat factor, of retribution on those who spoke out. A point which he made also made by a witnesses subsequently on Monday that when the tabloids are taken to counter they rarely put up the public interest defence. His Lordship understood that newspapers had different audience and therefore when it cam to challenges the basis was different with privacy the issue for tabloids an libel for the broadsheets. While accepting that some papers had a different commercial model than others if one did not have universal standards and guidelines you end up with the News of the World. The discussion of the issues confronting anyone creating a new system of regulation was further discussed before session ended and which I will leave as they are more appropriate for consideration after the evidence has been heard on the scale and depth of the problem which commences on Monday 21st November 21st.
My hope of addressing the case of the tabloids and the neutrals will have to wait given the decision to write about Satyagrapha and what happened when the Inquiry heard the first victim witnesses on Monday.
“First we hope that its apparent to all that the events that led to the Inquiry were shocking and immensely damaging. Damaging because they impacted on the trust in all journalists. Shocking for what they revealed about one powerful and dominant company, about the responses of the police and the flawed nature of regulation, about the limitations of Parliament and the initial unwillingness of much of the press to write about what was going on in the News of the World. There was, in short, a failure of the normal checks and balances in society to hold power to account.”
As I indicated in the previous report it is evident that some are not shocked by what has been uncovered so far, Kelvin MacKensie, former editor of the Sun Newspaper for over a decade, opened his remarks by saying that the Inquiry was unnecessary. This may have been said tongue in cheek or a last moment attempt put a finger in the dam before it breaks but it sounded like intentional two finger arrogance on behalf of the until now untouchables.
Mr Rusbridger accepted as had been stated by the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists earlier, that journalism in general was under threat with Commercial newspapers losing circulation at the rate of 10% a year with the consequential loss of advertising revenue with the digital audiences growing and with as yet no digital revenue model working- “Until recently, a newspaper was something produced by a relatively small number of people in the know for a large number of people who weren‘t in the know. Now virtually everyone has the capacity to publish and inform themselves. The once a day deadline has been replaced by a 24 hour continuous news cycle, newspapers are moving from text to a combination of video, audio and data, as well as text, so there is a convergence of media which will have implications for readers and which may well have implications for regulation.”
In this respect I suggest that 24 hour TV news and digital Satellite and Cable has created more of a problem than the Internet with the ability, as I sometimes do, to switch back and forth between the BBC and Sky CNN and Fox and stations reporting on events in Europe, Russian and China as well as the Middle East and North Africa. An event of significance in any country in planet earth is quickly reported and then extensively covered, until the next event occurs although sometimes the collective media decide to remain focussed, whatever else then occurs. I accept that as News stations including the BBC and Sky ITV, Channels Four and Five carry their coverage also on the Internet computer and mobile phone the challenge to the newspaper industry has become greater. It understandable and defendable that owners protect their business and profit, this is not in issue but the methods adopted by staff and the creation of stories which appeal has to be within bounds and not just those of the law, but the moral decency of the present majority and a sense of what is right for the future.
Mr Rusbridger then made the point that everyone is also able to check facts and question is said in the printed media. This is true and which is why the printed press online, and broadcast programmes in general, have established comment and feedback. He made the positive observation that journalists now have to work in an environment where there can be an external reaction to what is said within minutes of being published. This is also true but still those who published and edit the printed paper or TV News continue to exercise significant control over who writes or speaks and in defining the limits of what they say.
In this sense the Internet remains more free and open for better or worse and there are those now seeking to control and restrain, again for good and bad reasons.
He then argued that issues of privacy had also become matters for everyone’s concern because of the development and I would say dramatic escalation in digital based surveillance. In past it was the rich and famous or the criminal who might find someone going through the rubbish they put out whereas some local authorities have put cameras/digital recorders inside the bin lid!
His third point I hope is true, that citizens are more conscious of the idea of a rights-based society with consequential responsibilities. I have hoped this would emerge from the growth in education to university level although we have still to catch up with many other countries. The problem I forecast was the increasing divide between the educated and the moron although this is not to imply that those who go to university cannot remain the morons they were on arrival or that everyone who does not, is. For many it seems to me the emphasis has been on rights rather than responsibilities and which goes to heart of the Inquiry because the freedom of speech, freedom of the press must be balance against the rights and interests of others.
Mr Rusbridger made the point that although the investigation of how the hacking went was the subject of part two of the inquiry he hoped it would be able to look at the rotten apple defence which occurred after the Guardian told the story in July 2009 until late January 2011.
That he raised the issue and in way he went on to do begs the question of what can be raised in part one and what cannot. The position will become more clear on Monday when the first victims give their testimony. He wanted to know what accounts for the reluctance of the police to investigate phone hacking properly even in 2009. Why did it take four enquiries for them to take it seriously? Why did senior officers make untruthful statements about what happened? Were Members of Parliament intimidated or put under surveillance or threatened? Why did the Press Complaints Commission fail in its attempts to get to the truth, Why was there such a widespread reluctance among other journalists to touch the story. Why did it take an American paper to see the significance of an issue to which so many British Journalists appeared blind?
Why when in November 2009 a News of the World Journalist received a staggering sum of £800000 at a tribunal for bullying by Andy Coulson no British Editor considered it interesting? He asked if the power of the Murdoch’s and their companies over political and cultural life had become too dominant. How did its commercial, political, journalistic and criminal muscle operate? Turning to ways of increasing safeguards in newsroom practices he offered the experience of 15 years of running a truly independent column in the Guardian, something which I was not aware of and will investigate.
Mr Rusbridger then suggested the Inquiry should look at the approach and experience of others highlighting the view of the former director of the GCHQ that in relation to intrusion of privacy one should apply the harm test, the public good test, the proportionality test, the need for due authorization and the ban against fishing expeditions. He suggested that that the issue of regulation should be dovetailed with the thinking on defamation now before Parliament. He argued that the present laws are slow, costly and illiberal and are often used as a sledge hammer to crack a nut and which could be solved as part of a system of mediation within a system of regulation. He proposed that any new body should be called the Press Standards and Mediation Commission.
He was scathing about the so called press regulation system saying it was non existent and that before it is abolished it ought to be tried! In making reference to how it handled the phone hacking complaint and argued that the Commission had been lied to by News International but lacked the will or the powers to do anything about it.
He echoed the views of the national Union of Journalists against any statutory system which involved state control the licensing of journalists, but it was possible that statute could be used to ensure the effective running of self regulation as long as there was careful scrutiny of all concerns regarding press freedom. A new standards and mediation service could cover privacy as well as libel issues but here the issue was defining pubic interest. (I have suggested that it may the attention should be on the process within providers perhaps involving some independent evaluation as it is unlikely that any system could and should cover all case situations which have to be matters of judgement),
His last point concerned the need for plurality within the press media in the situation where there was increasing concentration because of the costs. If the case was made about the dominance that News International then the Inquiry should make recommendations on how such a situation could be avoided in the future.
Any new system had to command support from the entire market including regional editors and magazine tittles. Having spent such time looking inwards he recognised that the Inquiry had come about because of public response and therefore concluded that the position of the public had to be foremost in mind.
Lord Leveson thanked Mr Rusbridger as someone who had evidently spent much time reflecting on the issues which was coming to grips with and looked forward to hearing possible solutions. He was fully aware, (as his interventions and comments to the others who had made their presentations indicated) of the need to ensure protection of press freedom and that the overwhelming majority of journalists had the public interest in mind and at heart but added “But I think you’re right there is a distance to go which we cannot ignore and which we ignore at out peril.”
Lord Leveson raised a number of issues which he provided opportunity for Mr Rushbridger to immediately respond or do so later and he invited all core participants to also respond if they wished.
The first concerned the question of his accepting anonymous testimony from within the industry and which by its nature could not be tested though cross examination. He said the problem was how else to get to the bottom of a situation which people hinted at. How could help those who wished to come forward but were concerned about the implications for their livelihood. It is understood from his response to a question being raised about this at the end of Monday’s hearing that he is close to a protocol being ready on this subject. He mentioned that in relation to a victim witness being heard he court would be cleared except for legal officers and the transcript would only be issued after it had been reacted as appropriate. This seems to me to be the best way forward because it will be important that such individual will be able to speak freely and in detail referring to individual newspaper titles and individuals by post if not by name if relevant but this information should be restricted to the Inquiry and not be made available beyond the parties directly involved.
The second issue on press ethics appeared to stem from core participant complaints that the Inquiry lacked direct knowledge and experience in relation to its assessors of how the tabloids worked and the pressures in which they were under implying a significant difference between them and other journalists. Leveson made that there was no justification for a separate code of ethics for the tabloid journalist which was not applicable to all journalists.
He mentioned he conscience clause raised by Ms Stanistreet and asked if it was appropriate for him to require that. He admitted his natural hesitancy over the law prescribing things. Was there a place for some objective test of the public interest? What would be the circumstances in which to insist upon the pre publication notification? Was there value in trying to find some mechanism that allows for the resolution of disputes short of going to court given the expense involved? How was he going to persuade those who were presently subscribing to the Press Complaints Counsel to join any new system? How was it possible to ensure plurality?
Mr Rushbridger He said that the issue of anonymity was a problem because the way the Guardian, Panorama, the New York Time and Dispatches had managed to bring the matter to public attention is because they spoke to journalists off the record but as soon as they are identified the police get involved and then the journalists are under caution and unable to communicate further. He said that there was those trying to get public evidence and did not get it and those who went off the record and did. However Lord Leveson pointed out that presentation had to also include the possibility were not seeking to get to the truth.
Rusbridger accepted the point made by Ms Stanistreet of the feat factor, of retribution on those who spoke out. A point which he made also made by a witnesses subsequently on Monday that when the tabloids are taken to counter they rarely put up the public interest defence. His Lordship understood that newspapers had different audience and therefore when it cam to challenges the basis was different with privacy the issue for tabloids an libel for the broadsheets. While accepting that some papers had a different commercial model than others if one did not have universal standards and guidelines you end up with the News of the World. The discussion of the issues confronting anyone creating a new system of regulation was further discussed before session ended and which I will leave as they are more appropriate for consideration after the evidence has been heard on the scale and depth of the problem which commences on Monday 21st November 21st.
My hope of addressing the case of the tabloids and the neutrals will have to wait given the decision to write about Satyagrapha and what happened when the Inquiry heard the first victim witnesses on Monday.
No comments:
Post a Comment