It is inevitable that in reporting on the day to day happening at the Leveson Inquiry the national media of which I include myself as an infinitesimal part should focus on those contributions which go to the core of why the Inquiry was set up, the victims, the major events in which they became unwilling players on the media stage and those who created the events or have become notorious for their attitude to exposure and revelations of what others seek or believe should be private and confidential. In this my thirteenth report I am concentrating on what the Inquiry may conclude is the Gold Standard approach, that of the Financial Times
The following Executives of the Financial Times submitted statements and documentation to the Inquiry associated with the written and oral testimony of the Editor which took place on the morning Tuesday of January 2012.
Alison Fortescue Financial Times Company Secretary had her statement of 15.09.2011 taken as read and attested that the documents requested by the Inquiry were provided attached to statements of Tim Bratton General Counsel to the Financial Times, and Les MacLleod Managing Editor.
Tim Bratton the General Legal Counsel stated that he advised colleagues in relation to leaked documents and related confidentiality issues and on the recording by editorial staff of their conversation by telephone but not any of the matters regarding legality of information obtained by other methods, He controls a budget which also covers the training of staff and himself on all aspects of the legal affairs of the company. He and his team have not been asked to advise on the legality of making any payments. In July of 2011 all staff was provided with an email on the issue of FT Gifts Corporate Hospitality, Freelancing and Anti Bribery policy. Since his first appointment in 2000 he has not been engaged in any enquiries re illegal or questionable practices because his company has not had cause to do so. He responded at length to the issue of corporate Governance. It has not proved necessary to ask a member of the editorial staff to disclose the source of information used in an article.
He defined ethics as decency and honesty and within the law and he emphasised their importance in terms of the guiding principle of the FT “Without fear or favour.” While everyone including the legal team is subjected to commercial pressures these have never affected how the team functions and the remuneration of the team is unrelated to the performance of the paper within the market on a month by month or other basis for measuring circulation or success. He had never been asked to advise on payments to private investigators, police, public officials or mobile phone companies because the Financial Times does not pay such sources for information. He provided a summary of the documents attached to his statement of 15 09 2011.
Mr Scot Henderson the Chief Financial and Operating Officer also provided a written statement The financial practices at the paper reflect compliance with applicable laws, accounting standards, best practice and checks and balances. He explained that the FT was governed by the standards and procedures of the parent company (Pearsons). After describing procedures for control of expenses and payments to suppliers he records that 20 individuals within the Editorial staff (of some 600) are authorised to approve expenses and 22 individuals with the FT Company are able to approve payments to suppliers. There are internal monthly and quarterly checking and monitoring systems as well as the annual external review. 15.09.2011
Lisa MacLoad is the Managing Editor of the Financial Times since 2010 and has been with the company since 2003. The Paper maintains a register which include any investments held by employees or that they do not hold any investments. An electronic version of the register was created in 2004.
Because of the resignation of a member of staff for an alleged breach of their code of conduct employed by Thomson Reuters there was a review of practice at the FT and in October 10 an email on the subject was sent to all staff and attached. 75% of staff had completed the requested compliance form. The remaining percentage has been reminded of the request. All new starters will be approached on an annual basis. A substantial number of documents were listed and attached. (The figure was updated to 99.9% of editorial staff at the Inquiry)
John Riding responded as the Chief Executive Officer since 2006 having been with the company for 24 years. In his statement he made the point that although the company has a zero tolerance towards bribery they reviewed policy and practice to ensure they were in compliance with the latest Act(2010) He was subject to appropriate pressure to meet financial targets and budget as any other business leader but he had never been under pressure to bend or break rules and he commented that the Editorial department has full independence to publish stories and was only subject to the standards and practices adopted by the company.
Lionel Barber the Editor of the Financial Times has worked for the company for 26 years including 16 years as Foreign Correspondent in Brussels and Washington. He remains a member of the Board of the New York based Internal Centre for Journalism promoting quality journalism world wide.
In the written statement Mr Barber provided information on the limited circumstances when the FT did report private behaviour issues directly relating to the position held by the individual and the related matters which had become newsworthy. This issue was taken up by Ms Patsy Hoskins with Mr Barber when he gave oral evidence in the morning of January 10th. He mentioned the story that the Chief Executive of Lloyds Banking Group had developed a stress problem which required medical attention and had to step back from his role. They established two confirmation sources and published because of the significance to shareholders. They regarded the reference of his personal health problem as legitimate in the particular circumstances.
In the written statement he explained the importance which the FT gave to all stories having a minimum of two sources. While responsibility first rests with the individual journalist the news editors and their deputies are responsible for asking appropriate questions and ensuring appropriate checks have been made. This issue was followed up at length in the oral questions and Lord Leveson also intervened. Mr Barber made the point that what they said could affect markets in terms of individual companies and the national economy. It was essential that those reading the paper correctly assumed every story was accurate and published in its proper context.
He mentioned a situation where he received reliable information that Shell was going to revise its policy on oil reserves. He had known the sources for ten years but they could not find another source so they did not publish. Shell confirmed the position the following day. He would rather be right than first. While the FT did publish exclusives from time to time he considered they were over valued in the age of 24 hours TV News and the Internet. When the FT published an exclusive they were not proactive in making this aspect newsworthy or as a promotional vehicle.
There was some confusion over the term prior publication notification. Mr Barber first explained that the did not advise in advance of their interest, and his reasons included the problem of affecting share price and attempted story manipulation but when they were ready to publish they always informed the party of their intentions and provide the opportunity for comment. That comment could alter the timing of publication or indeed the substance so it was essential to do this before publication. But the story had been cooked so to speak and was ready for publication.
He preferred to talk in terms of standards rather than ethics. When a reporter wanted to go undercover they would have to first discuss the proposal with their editor, He touched on a possible example of journalist who did not enter Burma as a journalist because of the attitude of the authorities but had made is position and purpose clear to those with whom he communicated once inside the country.
In dismissing all illegal and questionable practices he made the point that it was part and parcel for journalists to
entertain their sources over lunch, dinner or a drink or taken them to an event for the purpose of developing a relationship. He said that some sources might request expenses such as the cost of a travel ticket although this happened infrequently. They might use sources such as Kroll and Control Risks but these are not paid for information.
As Tim Bratton stated the FT did use a reputable Investigation firm when defending a libel claim several years previously. The claim was settled and the information from the investigators became a non issue. This was the only kind of situation when the use of a paid private investigator would be considered.
Counsel for the Inquiry raised his criticism of the Daily Telegraph action to get Vince Cable to disclose his view of the Murdoch bid to own 100% of BskyB. The comments were made in a Hugh Cudlip lecture. He had praised the Telegraph for its exposures of the Members of Parliament misuse of expenses. He confirmed that he felt the Vince Cable story was an example of entrapment journalism and wrong. He put his words in context but maintained his viewpoint and as an illustration that the FT did not engage in misrepresentation. He quoted from Harold Evans that “Deception may ultimately be justified in the most exceptional of circumstances. The reason is that it can be deeply corrosive not just to the newspaper’s bond with its readers but also with the body politic.”
The paper also touched on the relationship with politicians and Mr Barber commented that it was interesting that a number of leading politicians had worked in the media business or were connected to it with David Cameron having worked in a TV company and Jeremy Hunt running a publishing business. Ed Balls had been an editorial writer for the FT. There had been too close a relationship developed in the Blair Brown years between government and sections of the press, notably the Murdoch Empire. There was some excellent marketing by Kelvin McKenzie who agued that the Sun had won the 1992 election for the Conservatives. But why would a Prime Minster with a 179 Majority care so much about the popular press? It was extraordinary how much time Tony Blair spent in the company of Piers Morgan.
In response to a question from Lord Leveson Mr Barber explained that over the past three decades it had become the practice for the Prime Minister to employ someone close to them on a day to day basis who understood the tabloid press and who fed the med stories 24/7. These people almost assumed the role of policy makers. He suggested this was a little bit dangerous. Why was this necessary with such a huge majority after the first and second Blair won General elections?
On the issue of Press regulation he was asked if online blogger could be regulated, Mr Barber said no and he would not seek to regulate the Internet. There are questions of a two tier media market. If individuals broke the law, libel someone or engaged in a contempt of court they could be brought to the law, could be brought before the courts.
Mr Barber suggested that the inquiry should not restrict itself to just the print media but consider the press as part of news reporting in general and its ecosystem (This is a point where I am in complete agreement as I do not understand why a distinction has been made between the position of the print media and that of the news media in general). Where the News Media the Internet then this aspect should also be regulated. He did not expect individual blogger to join in such regulation but those drawing on mainstream media content should be encouraged to be part of a quality system of independent regulation in this country,
He then made reference to what happened with the situation reading Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII. The British media could not print a word because of an agreement with Buckingham Palace but the story was fully reported in the New York Times and other overseas publications. Lord Leveson said that the difference between factual reporting and making comments. Mr Barber said that in the USA where he had experience the journalists who also provide Blogs believe they can say what they like and that mistakes will be corrected by their peers using the same media. They do not feel required to publish to the same level of crafted journalism as the FT or tabloids considered necessary for the printed paper.
There was then a discussion about the PCC and future regulation which I will cover separately expect to make the point of the Lord Leveson intervention that the press media had been placed in the last chance saloon 20 years ago, and therefore account had to be taken that lesson of the past had not been learned and this in turn must govern how the situation can be dealt with for the future. Given the number of intervention and the length of the discussion about any new framework, that everyone should participate and the need for a framework to cover such issues such as a financial arbitration system within the new framework it was evident Lord Leveson believe the contribution from the FT had weight. This is not imply more weight than from other contributors although I might have independently concluded that Mr Barber was a voice to be respected and listened to compared to some of the other contributors who have held or continue to hold such positions.
The following Executives of the Financial Times submitted statements and documentation to the Inquiry associated with the written and oral testimony of the Editor which took place on the morning Tuesday of January 2012.
Alison Fortescue Financial Times Company Secretary had her statement of 15.09.2011 taken as read and attested that the documents requested by the Inquiry were provided attached to statements of Tim Bratton General Counsel to the Financial Times, and Les MacLleod Managing Editor.
Tim Bratton the General Legal Counsel stated that he advised colleagues in relation to leaked documents and related confidentiality issues and on the recording by editorial staff of their conversation by telephone but not any of the matters regarding legality of information obtained by other methods, He controls a budget which also covers the training of staff and himself on all aspects of the legal affairs of the company. He and his team have not been asked to advise on the legality of making any payments. In July of 2011 all staff was provided with an email on the issue of FT Gifts Corporate Hospitality, Freelancing and Anti Bribery policy. Since his first appointment in 2000 he has not been engaged in any enquiries re illegal or questionable practices because his company has not had cause to do so. He responded at length to the issue of corporate Governance. It has not proved necessary to ask a member of the editorial staff to disclose the source of information used in an article.
He defined ethics as decency and honesty and within the law and he emphasised their importance in terms of the guiding principle of the FT “Without fear or favour.” While everyone including the legal team is subjected to commercial pressures these have never affected how the team functions and the remuneration of the team is unrelated to the performance of the paper within the market on a month by month or other basis for measuring circulation or success. He had never been asked to advise on payments to private investigators, police, public officials or mobile phone companies because the Financial Times does not pay such sources for information. He provided a summary of the documents attached to his statement of 15 09 2011.
Mr Scot Henderson the Chief Financial and Operating Officer also provided a written statement The financial practices at the paper reflect compliance with applicable laws, accounting standards, best practice and checks and balances. He explained that the FT was governed by the standards and procedures of the parent company (Pearsons). After describing procedures for control of expenses and payments to suppliers he records that 20 individuals within the Editorial staff (of some 600) are authorised to approve expenses and 22 individuals with the FT Company are able to approve payments to suppliers. There are internal monthly and quarterly checking and monitoring systems as well as the annual external review. 15.09.2011
Lisa MacLoad is the Managing Editor of the Financial Times since 2010 and has been with the company since 2003. The Paper maintains a register which include any investments held by employees or that they do not hold any investments. An electronic version of the register was created in 2004.
Because of the resignation of a member of staff for an alleged breach of their code of conduct employed by Thomson Reuters there was a review of practice at the FT and in October 10 an email on the subject was sent to all staff and attached. 75% of staff had completed the requested compliance form. The remaining percentage has been reminded of the request. All new starters will be approached on an annual basis. A substantial number of documents were listed and attached. (The figure was updated to 99.9% of editorial staff at the Inquiry)
John Riding responded as the Chief Executive Officer since 2006 having been with the company for 24 years. In his statement he made the point that although the company has a zero tolerance towards bribery they reviewed policy and practice to ensure they were in compliance with the latest Act(2010) He was subject to appropriate pressure to meet financial targets and budget as any other business leader but he had never been under pressure to bend or break rules and he commented that the Editorial department has full independence to publish stories and was only subject to the standards and practices adopted by the company.
Lionel Barber the Editor of the Financial Times has worked for the company for 26 years including 16 years as Foreign Correspondent in Brussels and Washington. He remains a member of the Board of the New York based Internal Centre for Journalism promoting quality journalism world wide.
In the written statement Mr Barber provided information on the limited circumstances when the FT did report private behaviour issues directly relating to the position held by the individual and the related matters which had become newsworthy. This issue was taken up by Ms Patsy Hoskins with Mr Barber when he gave oral evidence in the morning of January 10th. He mentioned the story that the Chief Executive of Lloyds Banking Group had developed a stress problem which required medical attention and had to step back from his role. They established two confirmation sources and published because of the significance to shareholders. They regarded the reference of his personal health problem as legitimate in the particular circumstances.
In the written statement he explained the importance which the FT gave to all stories having a minimum of two sources. While responsibility first rests with the individual journalist the news editors and their deputies are responsible for asking appropriate questions and ensuring appropriate checks have been made. This issue was followed up at length in the oral questions and Lord Leveson also intervened. Mr Barber made the point that what they said could affect markets in terms of individual companies and the national economy. It was essential that those reading the paper correctly assumed every story was accurate and published in its proper context.
He mentioned a situation where he received reliable information that Shell was going to revise its policy on oil reserves. He had known the sources for ten years but they could not find another source so they did not publish. Shell confirmed the position the following day. He would rather be right than first. While the FT did publish exclusives from time to time he considered they were over valued in the age of 24 hours TV News and the Internet. When the FT published an exclusive they were not proactive in making this aspect newsworthy or as a promotional vehicle.
There was some confusion over the term prior publication notification. Mr Barber first explained that the did not advise in advance of their interest, and his reasons included the problem of affecting share price and attempted story manipulation but when they were ready to publish they always informed the party of their intentions and provide the opportunity for comment. That comment could alter the timing of publication or indeed the substance so it was essential to do this before publication. But the story had been cooked so to speak and was ready for publication.
He preferred to talk in terms of standards rather than ethics. When a reporter wanted to go undercover they would have to first discuss the proposal with their editor, He touched on a possible example of journalist who did not enter Burma as a journalist because of the attitude of the authorities but had made is position and purpose clear to those with whom he communicated once inside the country.
In dismissing all illegal and questionable practices he made the point that it was part and parcel for journalists to
entertain their sources over lunch, dinner or a drink or taken them to an event for the purpose of developing a relationship. He said that some sources might request expenses such as the cost of a travel ticket although this happened infrequently. They might use sources such as Kroll and Control Risks but these are not paid for information.
As Tim Bratton stated the FT did use a reputable Investigation firm when defending a libel claim several years previously. The claim was settled and the information from the investigators became a non issue. This was the only kind of situation when the use of a paid private investigator would be considered.
Counsel for the Inquiry raised his criticism of the Daily Telegraph action to get Vince Cable to disclose his view of the Murdoch bid to own 100% of BskyB. The comments were made in a Hugh Cudlip lecture. He had praised the Telegraph for its exposures of the Members of Parliament misuse of expenses. He confirmed that he felt the Vince Cable story was an example of entrapment journalism and wrong. He put his words in context but maintained his viewpoint and as an illustration that the FT did not engage in misrepresentation. He quoted from Harold Evans that “Deception may ultimately be justified in the most exceptional of circumstances. The reason is that it can be deeply corrosive not just to the newspaper’s bond with its readers but also with the body politic.”
The paper also touched on the relationship with politicians and Mr Barber commented that it was interesting that a number of leading politicians had worked in the media business or were connected to it with David Cameron having worked in a TV company and Jeremy Hunt running a publishing business. Ed Balls had been an editorial writer for the FT. There had been too close a relationship developed in the Blair Brown years between government and sections of the press, notably the Murdoch Empire. There was some excellent marketing by Kelvin McKenzie who agued that the Sun had won the 1992 election for the Conservatives. But why would a Prime Minster with a 179 Majority care so much about the popular press? It was extraordinary how much time Tony Blair spent in the company of Piers Morgan.
In response to a question from Lord Leveson Mr Barber explained that over the past three decades it had become the practice for the Prime Minister to employ someone close to them on a day to day basis who understood the tabloid press and who fed the med stories 24/7. These people almost assumed the role of policy makers. He suggested this was a little bit dangerous. Why was this necessary with such a huge majority after the first and second Blair won General elections?
On the issue of Press regulation he was asked if online blogger could be regulated, Mr Barber said no and he would not seek to regulate the Internet. There are questions of a two tier media market. If individuals broke the law, libel someone or engaged in a contempt of court they could be brought to the law, could be brought before the courts.
Mr Barber suggested that the inquiry should not restrict itself to just the print media but consider the press as part of news reporting in general and its ecosystem (This is a point where I am in complete agreement as I do not understand why a distinction has been made between the position of the print media and that of the news media in general). Where the News Media the Internet then this aspect should also be regulated. He did not expect individual blogger to join in such regulation but those drawing on mainstream media content should be encouraged to be part of a quality system of independent regulation in this country,
He then made reference to what happened with the situation reading Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII. The British media could not print a word because of an agreement with Buckingham Palace but the story was fully reported in the New York Times and other overseas publications. Lord Leveson said that the difference between factual reporting and making comments. Mr Barber said that in the USA where he had experience the journalists who also provide Blogs believe they can say what they like and that mistakes will be corrected by their peers using the same media. They do not feel required to publish to the same level of crafted journalism as the FT or tabloids considered necessary for the printed paper.
There was then a discussion about the PCC and future regulation which I will cover separately expect to make the point of the Lord Leveson intervention that the press media had been placed in the last chance saloon 20 years ago, and therefore account had to be taken that lesson of the past had not been learned and this in turn must govern how the situation can be dealt with for the future. Given the number of intervention and the length of the discussion about any new framework, that everyone should participate and the need for a framework to cover such issues such as a financial arbitration system within the new framework it was evident Lord Leveson believe the contribution from the FT had weight. This is not imply more weight than from other contributors although I might have independently concluded that Mr Barber was a voice to be respected and listened to compared to some of the other contributors who have held or continue to hold such positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment