10 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph told the Leveson Inquiry he felt it was his duty, not a choice, to publish the paper’s revelations about MPs’ expenses in 2009.
Will Lewis said it was his “ethical obligation to bring this profound wrongdoing at heart of House of Commons into public domain.”
Lewis said it was a topic that was “laced with risk all round”. Having worked for the Sunday Times when it printed the fake Hitler diaries in 1983, Lewis also said he was concerned the expenses story was a hoax.
He described the steps leading to publication, an initial £10,000 for a sample disc was paid to an intermediary, with a further £140,000 once it was verified that the leaked documents were genuine. Lewis said it was only when Jack Straw had confirmed the details of his expenses that he gave the green light to publish.
Lewis described the role of an editor as risk mitigation. “At the end of the day you have to ask yourself, ‘does it feel right?'” he said, adding that mistakes he had made in his career came about because he had not followed his instincts.
He urged for a greater focus on a more transparent newsroom culture, noting that “sunlight is a fantastic disinfectant.”
The paper’s current editor, Tony Gallagher, also testified today, arguing that the best outcome of the Inquiry would be an arbitration system for resolving legal disputes and complaints. “The chilling effect of libel on small media organisations has to be seen to be believed,” he said.
Earlier in the day Lord Justice Leveson also spoke in favour of a low-cost libel mediation system. He cautioned against government involvement, telling Telegraph Media Group CEO chief executive Murdoch MacLennan, “I would be surprised if government regulation ever even entered my mind.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from Associated Newspapers.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
09 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
The Sun’s royal editor has revealed that over half of the paparazzi photos of royals that the paper receives are not published because of ethical considerations.
Duncan Larcombe told the Leveson Inquiry that this was due to concerns over breaches of privacy and the Press Complains Commission code, he rejected any suggestion that Clarence House put the newspaper under pressure not to run certain photographs.
He told the Inquiry that the Sun turned down photos of the royals stolen from Pippa Middleton’s car in 2009, the tipsters asked for £25,000 for the images.
Distancing himself from former editor Kelvin Mackenzie’s “lob it in” approach, Larcombe said that “it doesn’t work like that on royal stories” or on Fleet Street. He said it was particularly important to “get it 100 per cent right” with such stories.
However he admitted that the internet was “the elephant in the room”, many photos rejected by mainstream outlets finding their way online.
Larcombe added that every member of the public was a “potential paparazzo” in the age of camera phones, claiming that Prince Harry had little privacy unless he was “hiding in one of his castles”.
The Sun’s picture editor John Edwards told the Inquiry that more photos were now coming in from members of the public, though the majority of the 15-20,000 images the paper is offered per week still come from agencies.
Discussing pictures of a heavily pregnant Lily Allen shopping in London, Edwards said they were not published after a request from the singer’s agent’s request, despite Allen appearing happy to be shot in the photos. He added that there were celebrities that the paper would be reluctant to use photos of, such as Sienna Miller, due to their past experiences with the paparazzi.
When asked about the intense press coverage of the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in May 2007, Edwards said he had “tremendous sympathy” for the couple, who returned to a media scrum outside their home in Leicestershire after Madeleine’s disappearance.
“We got it spot on in Portugal, but may not have been so good when it came back to Leicestershire,” Edwards said.
02 Dec 11 | Uncategorized
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has cautioned against journalists assuming that they are free to report what is said in parliament without fear of bring prosecuted.
Speaking at City University, London, Grieve said “it is still an open question as to whether something said in parliament in breach of a court order may be repeated in the press.”
He explained that journalists are protected by qualified privilege in producing a “a fair and accurate report of proceedings”, but warned that “just because something has been said does not mean it can be repeated out of context”.
He said that the privilege to report parliamentary proceedings does not necessarily extend to all publications that are not published by order of parliament, and that this has “yet to be authoritatively decided but will shortly be considered further by parliament.”
He referred to the case earlier this year in which MPs took advantage of parliamentary privilege to reveal the identities of public figures that were protected by injunctions. Grieve argued that it “ill serves the parliamentary process if court orders are openly flouted for no good reason”.
He also criticised the British press for what he saw as irresponsible reporting. Citing the tabloids’ coverage of Chris Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested by police investigating the murder of Bristol woman Joanna Yeates, Grieve said the British press had increasingly tested the boundaries of what was acceptable in reporting criminal cases. “At times it appeared to me the press had lost any sense of internal constraint and felt able, indeed entitled, to print what they wished, shielded by the right of ‘freedom of expression’ without any of the concomitant responsibilities,” he said.
He went on to suggest the need for a “moral imperative…to observe common decency when reporting on such cases.”
He added that the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed a defendant’s previous convictions to be given in evidence at a trial, may have exacerbated matters. It is essential, he argued, “that jurors are not contaminated by material which has not been presented to them as evidence — it is only upon the evidence that their verdict must be based.”
He reiterated maintaining the “sanctity” of the jury room, expressing concern that “uncontrolled, such reporting could eventually undermine the jury system”.
He highlighted the “challenge” of the internet, whose inhabitants often feel “unconstrained by the laws of the land.” The belief that, so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect libel or contempt laws was, he said, “mistaken”.
Grieve reiterated he was a staunch defender of the freedom of the press, and wanted to build a consensus with bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission. He said meetings with the PCC and other media organisations suggested the press would welcome more advisory notices — as issued in the case of Jefferies — which highlight potential problems with coverage.
Grieve said that, although it has been practice to issue advisory notices in only the most extreme of cases, that did not mean that the absence of a notice in a case meant it is “open season”.
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Grieve has this year successfully prosecuted the Sun and the Mirror for its treatment of Jefferies. The papers were fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively. Grieve is also currently pursuing contempt actions against Sky News and the Spectator.
Marta Cooper is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship
19 Oct 11 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features
As Parliament takes a significant step in its slow removal of the UK’s pariah status on defamation, John Kampfner describes the progress on libel reform
(more…)
