24 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Ryan Parry, the Daily Mirror journalist whose byline appeared on the libellous coverage of wrongly arrested Bristol landlord Chris Jefferies said the episode was a “watershed moment” for the British media.
“All we can do is learn from this and improve for the future,” Parry told the Leveson Inquiry. The Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and The Sun £18,000 respectively for contempt of court over its coverage of Jefferies. It was revealed today that the Sun has withdrawn its Supreme Court appeal against the contempt ruling, while the Mirror’s appeal is ongoing.
Parry said he was pleased with how he had conducted himself on the coverage of Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murdering his tenant Joanna Yeates in December 2010.
“If he came across…as an eccentric, it’s because the evidence suggested he was,” Parry said of the correspondence he had had with Jefferies’ former students. One story carried the headline “Nutty Professor”, while in others Jefferies was referred to an “oddball”.
Gary O’Shea, a journalist at the Sun who had also covered the case, told the Inquiry that their coverage should have been more “neutral and dispassionate”, and said that the paper’s libel settlement with Jefferies was an acceptance of this.
“We don’t often go wrong, we don’t often make mistakes, and when we do they’re honest mistakes,” O’Shea said. The paper’s publishing director, Stephen Waring, also took responsibility for a headline in a story about Jefferies titled “Obsessed by death”, and apologised to the former teacher.
Earlier in the day, 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 the redtops’ page 3 feature existed “for the sole purpose” of women being sex objects.
Van Heeswijk added that violence is often trivialised and eroticised in the papers, and 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.
Heather Harvey of Eaves Housing for Women told the Inquiry that media coverage of women and the sexist abuse they may encounter online “actually curtails and limits” women’s freedom of expression and their ability to engage in public debate.
Overhyped headlines and inaccurate stories were also slammed today. Inayat Bunglawala of Muslim group Engage accused the Daily Express and the Daily Star of being “the most egregious offenders” in relation to Britain’s Muslim community. He and Robert Jay QC read through a series of headlines from the two redtops — one from the Express read “Christmas is banned, it offends Muslims” — which Bunglawala said were aimed at increasing hatred and prejudice against Muslims.
Bunglawala noted that he got a one-paragraph clarification after complaining to the Press Complaints Commission about a story in the Star that claimed remembrance poppies were banned in Muslim areas. He added that it was a “very odd situation” that the Express and the Star are not members of the PCC.
Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre praised Britain’s “excellent” science journalists but blamed sub-editors for writing inaccurate headlines. She cited a report in the Independent today headlined “Once they were blind, now they see. Patients cured by stem cell ‘miracle'”, which describes how two blind people have shown signs of being able to see again.
“Within science extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, but in the newsroom it’s the exact opposite,” Fox said, lamenting media reports of preliminary findings. “It would solve a lot of problems if journalists just didn’t over-claim for these stories.”
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from journalists Roy Greenslade and David Allen Green, RMT union leader Bob Crow and further testimony from investigative journalist Mazher Mahmood.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
24 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.
Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.
Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”
The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.
Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.
Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.
The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.
On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.
Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.
But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.
Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”
Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”
Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards, and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012
23 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor of Channel 4 News and head of compliance at ITN both argued against statutory regulation of the press at the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon.
In a debate with Lord Justice Leveson, ITN’s John Battle expressed concerns over statutory regulation, noting that it was “quite a leap” from the current self-regulatory model, and suggesting a meeting point between the two.
Lord Justice Leveson argued that there were “all sorts of statutes that affect us, without affecting our independence”.
Chiming in with the evidence given by BBC Director General Mark Thompson and BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten earlier today, Battle argued that broadcasters were heavily regulated by the law, and that a state regulator of the press might “be left open to being viewed as not independent or not impartial”.
He called the current climate a “difficult and dark” period for the press, but reiterated the UK had a “strong tradition” of press freedom that needed to be maintained.
He added that he hoped there could be a regulatory system that could be viewed or considered by the press before being enacted.
Channel 4’s Jim Gray also said he was “anxious” about a heavy form of regulation for print media.
The Inquiry will continue tomorrow, with Index on Censorship CEO John Kampfner among those giving evidence.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
23 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Politicians would make better decisions if they were not so influenced by the front pages, BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten told the Leveson Inquiry today.
Patten said that politicians have allowed themselves to be “kidded” by editors and proprietors that newspapers have more power and sway with the public than they in fact do.
“The question is how seemly it is for politicians to behave in a certain way or appear to be manipulated by papers,” Patten said.
He accused major political parties and their leaders of having “demeaned themselves” by courting the press over the last 25 years, adding that he was not a fan of “grovelling” to the press.
He said he would need a “lot of persuading to organise sleepovers for newspaper proprietors”.
Taking a mischievous dig at Rupert Murdoch, Patten said: “I’d have expected to meet the prime minister and other party leaders more times if I was a News International executive.” He told the Inquiry he had seen culture secretary Jeremy Hunt two or three times, and met David Cameron once.
When asked about his relationship with the media mogul, Patten told the Inquiry he sued publisher HarperCollins after Murdoch — its owner — tried to block the publication of a book Patten had written that was critical of his dealings with the Chinese authorities. Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, said Murdoch had intervened to “curry favour with the Chinese leadership”, fearful that the book would “harm” his prospects in China.
But Patten went on to say he did not have a vendetta against the News International chief, adding that ” it is probably the case that certain papers exist in this country because of him.” He also described Sky News as a “terrific success”.
He also reiterated his view made last November at the Society of Editors that broadcasting regulation could not be applied to the press.
“It would be preferable not to have any statutory backup because we should be able to exercise self-discipline in our plural society,” he said, “which doesn’t involve politicians getting involved in determining matters of free speech.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
