PCC reform: welcome, if overdue – but who will foot the bill?

SOURE: MEDIAWISE – MIKE JEMPSON

6 August 2009 - The ‘silly season’ story no-one expected is news that the Press Complaints Commission intends to investigate itself. For the first time in 18 years an allegedly ‘independent review’ is to be led by Commissioner Vivien Hepworth who is ‘stepping down early’ to spend six months examining the way the PCC conducts its business.

There is something a tad disingenuous about appointing a member of the Commission to lead the reform group which will also include someone with ‘senior experience of the newspaper and magazine industry’. Scepticism may be assuaged if this turns out not to be an editor who has already served on the Commission, nor one whose publication has had to be censured. And it would be healthy if Ms Hepworth were to take on board one of the legion of the critics the PCC has attracted over the years.

More to the point, it is vital that those critics make their own submissions to Ms Hepworth. TheNational Union of Journalists, and other journalists’ organisations, may want to ask why working journalists have been excluded from both the PCC team and the Editors’ Code Committee which sets its terms of reference. The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom will no doubt want to press her to explain why the PCC is being shielded from Freedom of Information requests. The Media Standards Trust, still smarting from the way in which its recent criticism was dismissed by the PCC, will want to present her with the findings of its continuing enquiries about preferable alternatives.


Certainly MediaWise, perhaps the most vocal critical friend of self regulation, will have a contribution to make based on its 16 years of experience in assisting complainants.

This is also an important opportunity for campaigners and charities to speak up for the sectors of society most vulnerable to inaccurate, intrusive or downright prejudicial coverage. These civil society groups are often best placed to represent the interests of asylum-seekers and refugees, people with mental health issues, young people, hospital patents, victims of crime, relatives of disaster victims, families of prisoners, etc. Yet third party complaints are in the main, rejected by the PCC. What is more the Editors’ Code continues to allow discriminatory stories to be published so long as no individual is named – thereby sidestepping the possibility of first person complaints.

It is to be hoped that readers of newspapers and magazines will be encouraged to express their views, via the free advertising offered to the PCC. However, it is unlikely that Ms Hepworth will be afforded the funds to commission a thorough-going survey of how some 50,000 complainants think the PCC should be reformed. The PCC refused to collaborate when MediaWise sought to do this back in 2004, preferring instead to issue self-serving statistics suggesting that the majority were happy with the PCC (though they were only asked if the PCC had complied with its own procedures).

And this brings us to the real question. Why is it “the right time for a fresh and independent look” as Ms Hepworth puts it? Is it because the burgeoning scandals of press malpractice in recent years make such a review inevitable? Is it because the press fear a backlash from politicians whose own unethical antics have so recently been exposed to public scrutiny? Or is it perhaps because year on year the number of complaints the PCC is struggling to deal with is increasing in inverse proportion to falling newspaper revenues?

Who knows, the PCC may end up calling on the public to support its reform agenda if its current paymasters are reluctant to foot the bill.

Mike Jempson
Director, MediaWise








PCC to undergo independent review

SOURCE: MEDIA GUARDIAN

Press self-regulation body reviews structure for first time since its creation

The Press Complaints Commission, the self-regulation body of the UK newspaper industry, is to launch the first independent review of its governance structure since it was created 18 years ago.

 

The PCC’s new chairman, Baroness Buscombe, said that the review will examine the operation of the PCC board, sub-committees and secretariat; how transparency in the system can be “enhanced”; whether its independent systems of accountability can be improved and its articles of association. Findings will be published next spring.

 

It will be led by Vivien Hepworth, executive chairman of the PR firm Grayling, who is a member of the PCC board but will step down before the end of her term to conduct the review. The rest of the review group will be announced in due course.

 

“I have been impressed… by the extent the PCC works hard behind the scenes to minimise intrusion and resolve complaints quickly and amicably,” said Buscombe, who took over from Sir Christopher Meyer at the PCC in April and is a former chief executive of the Advertising Association.

“However, I think it is important periodically to reflect on the way an organisation works to make sure we have taken account of good practice elsewhere and wider public expectations.”

The launch of the review follows increasing criticism of the PCC in some quarters. Earlier this year the Media Standards Trust published a report arguing that the press was not accountable enough. Its findings were fiercely criticised by Meyer.

 

Hepworth added: “I am a strong believer in self-regulation of the press but it must constantly adapt in order to prosper. It is the right time for a fresh and independent look at the areas this review will consider.”

 

MST, an independent journalistic ethics charity, claimed in its report released in February that self-regulation, the bedrock of the PCC’s operations, was “not sustainable in its present form”.

 

The MST report concluded that the PCC suffered from a lack of “transparency, a lack of accountability, conflicting interests and inadequate resources compared to equivalent organisations” and because it was a complaints body, was not set up to deal with what it claimed was a perceived decline in press standards.

 

However, Meyer dismissed the MST report as a “cuttings job masquerading as a serious inquiry”, which was “full of assertions, unsupported by the evidence on privacy on public confidence and transparency”.

 

Last month, following new revelations by the Guardian about alleged phone hacking by the News of the World, the PCC faced questions over whether it had conducted a thorough enough investigation after the paper’s royal reporter, Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed in January 2007 for illegally accessing the voicemails of royal household staff.

 

The PCC was criticised for failing to question Andy Coulson, who was editing the News of the World when Goodman was arrested. Coulson resigned when Goodman was jailed in January 2007 and the PCC spoke to his successor, Colin Myler. The PCC said it could not call Coulson because he was no longer a News International employee.

 

In a letter published in the Guardian last month Tim Toulmin, the PCC director, said the commission’s 2007 inquiry had led to six recommendations to newspaper managements to help ensure there would be no repetition of the royal phone hacking saga.

 

Toulmin added that in light of if there were any complaints that phone messages have been tapped since 2007 the PCC would deal with them, as well as urgently looking at whether the commisison was deliberately misled at any point during its 2007 inquiry.










PCC’s critics welcome Buscombe’s review but ask questions about its independence

MEDIA GUARDIAN – GREENSLADE BLOG

Two swift reactions to the announcement that the Press Complaints Commission is to undergo a review from bodies likely to make critical submissions.

MediaWise refers to it as welcome, if overdue –

but says: “There is something a tad disingenuous about appointing a member of the commission to lead the reform group.”

Vivien Hepworth, after seven years on the PCC board, is stepping down in order to lead the review team, which will also include two other independent members and a figure with “senior experience of the newspaper and magazine industry.”

The MediaWise director, Mike Jempson, says: “Scepticism may be assuaged if this turns out not to be an editor who has already served on the commission, nor one whose publication has had to be censured.

“And it would be healthy if Ms Hepworth were to take on board one of the legion of the critics the PCC has attracted over the years.”

He also points out that the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom will probably ask again why the PCC is shielded from freedom of information requests.

Another likely area for Hepworth’s consideration is the PCC’s refusal to accept third party complaints (a particular bone of contention for bodies that represent asylum-seekers and refugees, people with mental health issues, young people, hospital patients, victims of crime, relatives of disaster victims and the families of prisoners).


As Jempson argues, the editors’ code of practice “continues to allow discriminatory stories to be published so long as no individual is named –

thereby sidestepping the possibility of first person complaints.”

He concludes by asking a series of questions:

“Why is it ‘the right time for a fresh and independent look’ as Ms Hepworth puts it? Is it because the burgeoning scandals of press malpractice in recent years make such a review inevitable?

“Is it because the press fear a backlash from politicians whose own unethical antics have so recently been exposed to public scrutiny?

“Or is it perhaps because year on year the number of complaints the PCC is struggling to deal with is increasing in inverse proportion to falling newspaper revenues?”

The Media Standards Trust’s response is altogether more low key in welcoming the announcement of a review ordered by the PCC’s chair, Baroness (Peta) Buscombe.

It refers to its report, A more accountable press, issued in February, that called for urgent reform to the system of press self-regulation.

In its statement yesterday, the MST said:

“The current system of self-regulation… is not transparent or accountable enough, and we are very pleased that the PCC’s review will look at these issues alongside its operation and constitution.”

Martin Moore, the director of the MST, pledged to “be as helpful as we can… We look forward to discussing these issues with the PCC over the coming months.”

The choice of Hepworth’s team is, of course, crucial. Evidently, the PCC has no-one in mind for the other two independent spots. But, as Jempson says, it is the choice of the editorial figure that will indicate just how serious Buscombe is about reform.







Richard Desmond’s defeat will be hailed by his critics

SOURCE: GUARDIAN

When Richard Desmond lost his high court libel battle with the journalist Tom Bower today, he confirmed the view much of Fleet Street had had of him for years – he is a thin-skinned, foul-mouthed and interfering proprietor who uses his publications to settle personal grudges.

The jury decided the 57-year-old owner of the Express and Starnewspapers had not been libelled in two pages of Bower’s unauthorised biography of the jailed newspaper tycoon Conrad Black.

Desmond argued his reputation as a tough businessman had been damaged because Bower made him look like a “wimp” and also said that he ordered journalists to print negative articles about his enemies.

Bower’s win will no doubt please the scores of journalists who have been made redundant from Desmond’s four national newspapers since he bought them in 2000. Desmond has pursued a ruthless regime of cost-cutting at the titles while paying himself up to £1m a week.

It is a sweet victory too for those who have been on the receiving end of Desmond’s volcanic temper over the years, such as Ted Young, a former executive editor of the Express, whom Desmond is said to have punched in the stomach in full view of the newsroom in 2004.

Young, now editor of the freesheet London Lite, was in court this week with his family to hear the closing speeches. Rumours circulated that he was due to give evidence for Bower and would finally be able to talk openly about being punched – he signed a gagging clause when accepting a substantial payout for the attack. But he was never called. It would have taken two days of legal arguments to get his evidence submitted, said sources close to the case.

The defeat will also have been welcomed by the serious journalists who, one suspects, may well be less than happy about writing regular hagiographies on their boss detailing his philanthropy. Earlier this year, a piece appeared in the Express detailing Desmond’s “extraordinary generosity” after he was awarded “one of the world’s highest accolades” for his charity work.

It will be satisfying too, for the reporters who complain that their balanced reporting on sensitive issues such as asylum seekers are ruined by inflammatory headlines – journalists at the Daily Express were so appalled by this that in 2001 they passed an NUJ resolution, which declared the management had organised a “sustained campaign against asylum seekers”.

But there will undoubtedly also be bitterness in the already beleaguered newsroom that this court action – started over such a trivial matter – has dragged the reputation of Desmond’s newspapers and their hard-working journalists further into the dirt.

Despite rumours of Desmond’s interfering style circulating in the newspaper industry and beyond, the Express owner insisted under oath that he never intervened in editorial decisions. He declared that newspaper proprietors never meddle in editorial matters. “It’s not the way it works. You do not instruct or order your editors or journalists to write features about people you know. It does not happen,” he said, to incredulity from the press bench.

He seemed furious when the ex-Mirror editor Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University and Guardian blogger, told the jury Desmond had a worse reputation than any newspaper proprietor since the second world war — including Robert Maxwell.

As Greenslade expanded on this theory, Desmond gripped the table in front of him tightly, and his wife whispered, “Are you OK?”. When Greenslade finished his turn, the Desmonds left the court for some time.

Maxwell and Desmond have at least one thing in common – Maxwell fought a court battle to block Bower’s first book about him, though the late Mirror proprietor failed in the end and the publicity of the case merely fuelled sales.


Desmond brought the libel action because he objected to Bower’s account of his relationship with Black back in 2001-02, when the pair owned rival newspaper groups – Desmond being newly in possession of the Express and Star newspapers, and Black running the Telegraph Group.

In his unauthorised biography of Black, entitled Conrad and Lady Black: Dancing on the Edge, Bower wrote that the Canadian tycoon humiliated Desmond by making him apologise for negative articles printed in theSunday Express about the imminent demise of the Telegraph’s parent company, Hollinger International. As Hollinger did implode, Bower argued that Desmond had been “ground into the dust” by Black by saying sorry for something which was true, just as the Canadian tycoon had got the better of countless others.

In court, Bower’s barrister Ronald Thwaites, QC, concentrated less on the words complained of and more on attempting to rubbish Desmond’s reputation. He dug up evidence of past feuds, routed out a disgruntled former colleague and did his best to wind Desmond up in cross-examination. He mocked Desmond’s “thin skin” and said the case had merely been brought because of Desmond’s bruised pride at having been bettered by Black.

In one of the trial’s most dramatic moments, a sealed letter was produced after a mad dash to the Bower residence by Veronica Wadley. The letter, in which Bower requested an interview with Desmond for the biography he was writing about him, had been sent to Desmond’s home in northwest London by recorded delivery. It had been returned to sender after no one signed for it – though Desmond suggested it had not reached him because it was addressed to a house called “Badgers” when his residence is called “The Badgers”.

Before Wadley arrived with the letter, Desmond had suggested Bower had never written to him and that any letters produced in evidence were fakes – a “monstrous allegation”, said Thwaites, who later made a sarcastic remark about needing to find a silver-plated letter opener worthy of Desmond to open this “forgery”.

Central to Bower’s defence was the claim that Desmond regularly ordered his journalists to print negative articles about his rivals – specifically Conrad Black – to settle his grudges. Thwaites referred to Desmond as a “malevolent” and “interfering” proprietor who will tell lies “at the drop of a hat”.

After lengthy legal arguments, Thwaites was eventually allowed to play to the jury a tape of a phone call from July 2008, in which Desmond issued a sweary threat to a business contact. In this conversation, Desmond warned he could be “the worst fucking enemy you’ll ever have”. Three days later a libellous and defamatory article appeared in the Sunday Express about the contact and his hedge fund, Pentagon Capital Management.

Desmond appeared impassive as his expletive-laden rant echoed through the court room. It was not the first time the jury had been given a hint of his penchant for coarse language – letters read out in court revealed that his preferred nickname for Dan Colson, Conrad Black’s righthand man at Hollinger, was “Dildo Dan”. In the witness box, however, he was charm personified, brushing off insults from Bower’s barrister with smiling abandon.

But there were inconsistencies. He denied having anything to do with the Sunday Express printing a story about Pentagon and denied the existence of a grudge against the fund. Yet the jury was told that earlier this year a statement, read out in open court after Desmond agreed to settle the libel action which resulted from that article, said: “Mr Desmond accepts that it was his comments in the presence of Sunday Express journalists that prompted the Sunday Express to publish the article.”

Desmond’s defeat today was also a blow for Martin Townsend, his loyal editor of the Sunday Express. Townsend, who has also edited Desmond’s OK! magazine, appeared as a witness for his boss asserting that he alone decided what went into the newspaper. He denied being Desmond’s “puppet” or “yes man” but was accused by Bower’s counsel of telling lies.

Bower’s win raises one particularly intriguing prospect: will his unpublished biography of Desmond, the tentatively titled Rough Trader, now see the light of day?

 








Did Coulson know about the hacking after all? And if not, why not?

SOURCE: GREENSLADE BLOG – MEDIA GUARDIAN

It is amazing, but it is not surprising. From the moment the Goodman story broke in August 2006, journalists were saying that hacking was endemic within the News of the World (and in some other tabloids too).

But the NoW was always more likely than other papers to have been found out because – according to commenters to this blog and to emailers who contacted me in confidence – information obtained by phone hackers was routinely available within the newsroom. Several reporters used it as a matter of course.

After all, in a paper where stings and the use of agents provocateurs are regarded as legitimate forms of journalism, hacking was no big deal.

Now Nick Davies has produced facts to back up the allegations. And, in so doing, he has raised two rather large questions that were asked at the time and never successfully answered.

Did the then NoW editor, Andy Coulson, know how his reporters were obtaining their information? Why did the Press Complaints Commission not pursue a proper inquiry into the whole affair when it was a live issue?

Those two questions are linked, of course, because it was the timely resignation of Coulson that provided the PCC with a sufficient reason/excuse (you decide) to abort any possible investigation.

Now we must contemplate yet another question. When Coulson was appointed to be the communications chief for Tory leader David Cameron I assumed that he had been vetted to ensure that there would be no return to the voicemail hacking saga. It was, I thought, all done and dusted.

So what will Cameron and his Conservative party advisers do about Coulson in the light of this new revelation? Let’s bend over backwards for a moment and concede that an editor might have known nothing about the activities of one of his senior reporters.

Let’s bend a little more and concede that he might not have realised what a single freelance “investigator”, Glenn Mulcaire, was doing in return for fees of £100,000 in the course of a year.

But we would break our backs if we bent any further by trying to imagine that an editor was entirely ignorant of a process used widely by journalists that was designed to obtain exclusive stories.

If he did not know, as he has previously maintained, then he is guilty of poor editorship. In my years on popular papers – as an editor and a senior executive on the Daily Mirror, The Sun and the Daily Star – it was inconceivable that any journalist could have produced an exclusive story without revealing its provenance.

It was the first question an executive asked of a reporter? How did you get it? And when the executive, be it news editor, features editor, assistant editor, whoever, presented that story at a conference, any editor worth his/her salt would ask the same.

Again, it’s possible, if improbable, that a senior executive (or a cabal of senior executives) kept Coulson, and his predecessor, Rebekah Wade, in the dark. And it’s similarly possible that Coulson and Wade did not wish to shed light on how their reporters went about their task. Better not to know.

However, I cannot imagine that previous editors of the News of the World, whom I knew well, would have wished to remain in total ignorance of how stories arrived. Not Bernard Shrimsley, not Ken Donlan, not David Montgomery, not Wendy Henry, not even Piers Morgan.

The irony about Wade, of course, is that she was a victim of the voicemail hacking herself. Mulcaire admitted unlawfully intercepting messages on her mobile phone.


So what should happen now? Well, I guess the culture, media and sport select committee might like to ask the NoW’s executives – including former News Int chief Les Hinton – to return to the Commons and explain themselves. Fat chance of that happening.

The MPs might also ask Coulson to sit before them and explain himself, though he cannot be compelled to do so. Anyway, it sounds unlikely.

I suppose the PCC could hold a belated inquiry. That should prove an interesting test for the new chairman, Baroness Buscombe. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Perhaps News International’s other Wapping papers –

The Times, the Sunday Times and The Sun – could carry leading articles calling on the News of the World to come clean, echoing their persistent demands for transparency at Westminster.


Meanwhile, the climate of suspicion now hangs over both Coulson and Wade, and it will continue to do so if they say nothing. Are their employers going to be happy about that

Sign Our Petition! Evolution of Integrity! Rights to Reply Tabloid Watch! Media News! Video Blog Your Stories Tell Your Story Your Stories Cartoons
The Sun Lies