13 Feb 12 | News and features, Uncategorized
Cross-posted at Hacked Off
There is fury and fear among Sun staff after the latest round of arrests by police investigating the alleged corruption of public servants by journalists, and there is more widespread alarm about the future of the press. Where will this end? Will other papers close, as the News of the World did? Is the baby of free expression about to go down the plughole with the murky bathwater of journalistic misconduct?
The anxiety is likely to increase as Rupert Murdoch visits London this week. Though he has said he has no intention of closing the Sun, he is not (how to put this?) a man distinguished by the rigid keeping of his word. It is easy to see why nerves are frayed.
But the picture is not as bleak as some fear, and News International and the Metropolitan police are only doing what they have to do in a society ruled by law. (We need to note, too, that nobody has been charged with anything.)
It is only a few months since News International was rightly lambasted for covering up evidence of, and information about, potentially criminal activities. That material, about phone hacking, had to be dragged out of the company, notably by civil litigants who for the most part have now settled their cases.
If, as seems to be the case, the company is now diligently searching its databases and handing everything suspicious that it finds to the police, then we should be grateful. Nor can we complain that junior figures are suffering the consequences while the top brass are spared: those arrested (and bailed) are for the most part big hitters.
As for the Met, it is doing its job. It may well be doing it with a special zeal, in response to criticisms about a previous absence of zeal, but we can hardly complain about that either. And it is not as though it can make up new laws. Where they have information about possible breaches of the law the police are supposed to investigate, question, search and so forth, and that is what they are doing here.
Corrupting officials matters, too. If local government officials take bribes to fix planning applications for builders, or if defence officials take bribes when awarding arms contracts, we expect prosecutions of both those who pay and those who receive. More than that, we expect the press to expose such wrongdoing, and journalists tend to take pride in the work. Corruption creates injustice and is anti-democratic.
Will the pursuit of these matters lead to unwanted consequences? Will it corrode free expression? I cant see why.
There are no grounds for Murdoch to close the Sun, and if he were to do so it would be another short-sighted, cowardly and capricious act like the closure of the News of the World. He has to take responsibility, show leadership and steer his paper (which is by any measure a national institution) through the crisis.
Does it follow that other papers are in danger? I have no idea, but if journalists on other papers have been bribing public officials (something which nobody can fail to realise is against the law) then they need to face the consequences. It is no use saying that the law is wrong or unfair; if that is the case the right course is to try to change the law, not to ignore it. (Newspapers are rarely tolerant of others who consider themselves above the law.)
The bathwater of unethical and illegal practices in journalism needs to be drained, and the Leveson process exists to do that. There is no reason to suppose that the baby of free expression will be washed away in the process. A far more realistic prospect is that, if we are persuaded to leave this bathwater where it is, the baby will drown in it. Corrupt journalism is the enemy of free expression; it places us at the mercy of monopolists, bullies and lawbreakers. We surely don’t want that.
Brian Cathcart, a founder of Hacked Off, teaches journalism at Kingston University London. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
10 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
As the first module of the Leveson Inquiry drew to a close yesterday, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre refused to retract a statement accusing actor Hugh Grant of “mendacious smears” against his company unless Grant agreed to take back the “toxic and explosive” statements made about the Mail.
In a heated debate Dacre and David Sherborne, counsel for the core participant victims, discussed answerphone messages left for Grant from a “plummy-voiced woman,” described in a 2007 Mail on Sunday article. In his evidence to the Inquiry in November, Grant suggested that the information for the story, which suggested his relationship with Jemima Khan was on the rocks, could only have been accessed by phone hacking.
Dacre, who was recalled to give evidence on the issue for a second time this week, said: “Our group did not hack phones and I rather resent your continued insinuations that we did,” adding that he had given the Inquiry his “unequivocal word” on the matter earlier in the week.
Dacre accused Sherborne of “attacking my group rather unpleasantly”. Referring to Grant as the “poster boy for Hacked Off,” Dacre went on to add that the actor “is obsessed by trying to drag the Daily Mail into another newspaper’s scandal.”
Lord Justice Leveson Leveson suggested that the editor may need to appear before the Inquiry again at a later date. Dacre replied: ” I have shown this week I am prepared to devote a lot of time to this.”
Heather Mills, who also appeared before the Inquiry yesterday, said she had “never” played voicemail recordings to former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan. In his evidence to the Inquiry last December, Morgan claimed he had heard voicemail tapes, in which Mills’ then partner Sir Paul McCartney sang an apology and asked for forgiveness, that had been obtained legitimately, but he refused to “compromise” his source.
Mills added: “I couldn’t quite believe that he would even try to insinuate [that], a man that has written nothing but awful things about me for years, would relish in telling the court if I had played a voicemail message to him.”
The court also heard how Mills had recorded over 64 hours of footage of alleged harassment from journalists, including evidence, shown to the court of a car chase involving paparazzi which resulted in a crash.
Thursday’s session also focused on bullying within the journalism industry, hearing a number of anonymous testimonies from reporters. Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) presented 12 written accounts to the court, detailing “tremendous pressure,” “macho culture” and other “degrading” treatment.
One testimony described a journalist being forced to write “anti-Islam stories”, and being called the “token lefty” when they complained. The journalist described being “in tears” at the treatment, but explained that it continued.
Another said: “three or four staff suffered physical collapses, almost certainly to some extent as a result of the stress.”
Former News of the World news editor Ian Edmondson also described a “culture of bullying” at the newspaper, explaining that “you will do what you are told”. Edmondson said that everything was dictated by the editor and explained editor Colin Myler, who replaced Andy Coulson following his resignation in 2007, continued the newsroom bullying.
Edmondson also denied drafting emails sent by Neville Thurlbeck, former chief reporter of the News of the World, to women involved in an orgy with ex-motorsports boss Max Mosley in 2008, though he added it was “more likely that I would have asked” Thurlbeck to contact them.
Edmondson told the Inquiry he believed the emails to be a “threat”, chiming with the inference of Mr Justice Eady that the messages amounted to blackmail, as suggested in the judgment following Mosley’s successful privacy action against the News of the World in the same year.
He was also quizzed about extracts of Kate McCann’s diary that appeared in the paper in 2008, contradicting claims made by Myler that Edmondson had sought permission to publish from the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell. Asked if he had led editor Myler to believe he had “made it clear” to Mitchell that the paper had the whole diary and planned to publish parts, Edmondson replied: “No.”
Appearing via video link, Darryn Lyons of photo agency Big Pictures, explained that his photographers tried to stay in line with the PCC code, but added that photographers, picture agencies, and publishers no longer know where they stood in the industry.
“Celebrities court publicity when they want to, and all of a sudden they want to switch it off. I don’t agree people should be hounded up and down the street. I do agree people should be photographed in public places, we have a free press and a free press should be able to work in public places,” he said.
When asked about the legal case against his group brought by actress Sienna Miller regarding photographs taken of her on holiday, Lyons said that paparazzi had been taking pictures of people on holiday since “Brigitte Bardot was seen sunning herself on the beaches of St Tropez”.
PR veteran Max Clifford told the Inquiry that he had agreed his own hacking settlement with former NotW editor Rebekah Brooks over a “quiet lunch in Mayfair.” Clifford agreed to £220,000 a year for three years plus legal costs, and to provide the newspaper with tip-offs.
Clifford said he believed the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World and the Leveson Inquiry had “frightened people”. He added that he was aware of “several stories that would have dominated the headlines,” over recent months that had not been published.
The Inquiry will resume with module two, examining the relationship between the press and the police, on 28 February.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
09 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
Political blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes took the stand at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, and made numerous allegations relating to phone hacking. Appearing before the court, Staines, who is well known for his website’s “tittle tattle, gossip and rumour”, accused politicians, journalists and editors alike.
Staines told the court that two journalists had confirmed to him that Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver had authorised phone hacking and blagging, and went on to accuse Telegraph journalist Gordon Rayner of using private investigator Steve Whittamore. The blogger said that the journalist’s name appeared 335 times in Operation Motorman files, and 185 of those appearances were in relation to alleged illegal transactions.
The allegations continued, as Staines described selling a series of photographs to the News of the World of Chris Myers, special advisor to Foreign Secretary William Hague, in a gay bar, following his publication of a story on Hague sharing a hotel room with Myers. Staines said the pictures, which were sold for £20,000 but were never published, were bought to take them off the market.
Describing “lobby terms”, a term applied to off the record information divulged to journalists by politicians, Staines said that it went “beyond off the record” and often resulted in “journalists complicit in politicians’ lying.” Staines added: “Journalists shouldn’t accept anonymous briefings, because most of the time it is used to besmirch other politicians, without them getting their fingerprints on it”
With regards to the attacks from the press on people such as Chris Jefferies and Kate and Jerry McCann, the blogger said:
“I think ultimately, the McCanns and Chris Jefferies have been able to get reparations through the courts. Stopping these abuses from happening means you’ll lose the freedom of the press.”
Staines added: “Phone hacking is against the law and criminal sanctions are available to deal with that. We don’t need press reform to deal with that.”
In reference to his Irish citizenship, the blogger also said: “What I think you’re missing is that I’m a citizen of a free republic and, since 1922, I don’t have to pay attention to what a British judge orders me to do.”
Martin Moore from the Media Standards Trust and Will Moy from Full Fact also appeared before the court.
In a lively and entertaining submission, the pair, who gave their evidence together, discussed PCC data and gave their suggestions for regulation of the press.
Moore explained that most often problems with dealing with complaints do not stem from the PCC, but from news organisations dragging their feet: “through all my experience the PCC secretariat have been very helpful and done the best they can. In many cases the problem is with the newspaper outlet, not the PCC.”
Moy suggested that regulation was necessary to “counteract market failures” and added that publishing accurately was “a matter of basic civic responsibility.”
Moy added: “If a newspaper has been told that there is a serious problem with a headline, if a complainant goes away, it doesn’t mean that the problem has gone away. A regulator would pursue the problem, a complaints handler pursues the complaint.”
Helen Belcher, who appeared on behalf of TransMediaWatch described the issues surrounding media coverage of trans people to the court.
“Most trans people now, when they’re the subject of an article they deem worthy of a complaint, don’t bother, becausd the PCC has received a number of complaints and it appears that nothing ever changes as a result of those complaints.”
She explained that the use of the single word “tran” caused great distress to a number of trans people: “The word ‘tran’ dehumanises an individual. Trans people are not solely trans, they have other interests they do other things. They have different categories, and to constantly reduce trans people to one category dehumanises them.”
Belcher described the routine misgendering of trans people within the media, and the use of intrusive “before and after” photographs which are “incredibly offensive” to the subjects. She said: “It’s routine. It happens today in the press, despite the editors’ protestations that everything is sorted out.”
Editor in Chief of online newspaper Huffington Post, Carla Buzasi explained the importance of consulting digital media on the Leveson inquiry, describing it as “the future of the media in this country.”
The editor suggested that some news organisations were not interested in being a part of the PCC because they did not “hold it in high regard,” and suggested that a future regulator would need to be sufficiently respected that it would be “foolish” not to be a part of it.
Buzasi said that no phone hacking, blagging or subterfuge took place at the Huffington Post.
Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions also appeared, and advised that a policy specifically for journalists, on what a prosecution will consider when investigating a journalist in doing their work as a journalist will make things clearer. Starmer advised that an interim policy would be drawn up in a matter of weeks.
Pam Surphlis of Support after Murder and Manslaughter in Northern Ireland (SAMM NI) gave evidence to the court via video link.
Surphlis explained that SAMM NI was set up after she read “salacious gossip” about the death of her father. The group went on to conduct a study into the relationship between journalists and the victims’ families; and effects of press coverage on the victims’ families. The study found that journalists were “intrusive and insensitive in their approach.”
She added that the PCC code relating to dealing with deaths is not “user-friendly.”
Surphlis said she was grateful to the inquiry for enabling SAMM NI to have a voice that someone is prepared to listen to.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
07 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor of the Times has admitted to the Leveson Inquiry that a reporter at his paper used email hacking to reveal the identity of anonymous police blogger, NightJack, in a 2009 story.
James Harding was discussing an incident which former Times reporter Patrick Foster had identified the blogger as Richard Horton by gaining access to anonymous email account run by Horton.
Harding, recalled to give further evidence, said he had “learnt a great deal more” about the circumstances surrounding the event since his last appearance at the Inquiry a month ago.
He revealed that he and senior management figures at the Times only became aware of the email hacking after Mr Justice Eady had begun hearing the case at the High Court — to overturn the injunction Mr Horton took to protect his identity — but before a judgment was made.
The inquiry heard that the paper’s lawyer, Alastair Brett, “tore a strip off Foster” when he learned of the email hacking, telling him that “if he wants to pursue this story he has to do it by proper journalistic endeavour”.
Emails shown to the Inquiry today reveal that Foster asked his then news editor, Martin Barrow, to “leave a little space between the dirty deed and publishing”.
In another email from Foster to the Brett, the reporter said he could build his story with publicly-available information. This, Brett replied, may be the “golden bullet”.
Harding said he took the view that the story was in the public interest, though stressed it did not warrant Foster’s unauthorised access to the email account.
“I squarely do not approve of what has happened”, he said.
“If Mr Foster had come to me and said he had done this,” Harding said, “I would have taken the disciplinary action and I would have told him to abandon the story.”
“I sorely regret the intrusion into Richard Horton’s email account by a journalist in our newsroom. On behalf of the newspaper, I apologise”, he told the Inquiry. Harding also said he has written to Mr Justice Eady to apologise that the full details surrounding the story were not disclosed to the court in 2009.
Horton, who won the Orwell prize for his blog describing a PC’s life, closed down his site and removed its content.
Email hacking constitutes a breach of the Computer Misuse Act, for which there is no public interest defence. Foster was given a written warning for professional misconduct over the incident.
Also recalled today was Sun editor Dominic Mohan, who was quizzed about his paper’s page 3 feature, which since late 1970 has printed photos of topless women.
Mohan called the feature an “innocuous British institution” that celebrates natural beauty and represents youth and freshness. He said the feature does not contain models who had had plastic surgery, and that the women photographed were healthy and “good role models”.
Last month the Inquiry heard from a selection of women’s groups who discussed the sexualisation of women in media. Anna Van Heeswijk, of pressure group Object, said page 3 existed “for the sole purpose” of women being sex objects. She also pushed for “consistent” regulation of print media, arguing that the press should abide by the taste and decency watershed that determines what can be broadcast on television before 9pm.
Mohan also refuted claims the paper was sexist, arguing that it had campaigned for a range of women’s issues, such as speaking out against domestic violence in 2003 and raising awareness of cervical cancer screening following the death of reality TV star Jade Goody in 2009.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow and will include evidence from Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer; Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust and political blogger Guido Fawkes.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
