23 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
This article was first published in the Guardian
Nothing titillates journalists more than talking about their profession or, should I call it, their trade. The Leveson inquiry has spawned almost daily public discussions about the future of the Press Complaints Commission, freedom of the press and standards. At the last count three parliamentary committees are looking into the issue, listening to academics and former editors opine ad infinitum about “co-regulation”, “enhanced regulation”, “self-regulation” and “statutory regulation”.
Most of the time, however, the people who matter are silent or surly. Present-day tabloid and middle-market editors seem to have convinced themselves that the hacking scandal is a bit of a diversionary tactic by the government, and that, aside from a few technical changes here and there, it will blow over in time. Keep calm and carry on.
An atmosphere of denial permeated the recent Society of Editors conference. On the issue of phone hacking, many simply did not engage, beyond saying that the guilty will be punished and we will all move on. We have moved on … to the Royal Courts of Justice, and it does not make for a pleasant spectacle.
The first two days of victims’ hearings at Leveson have been enervating. From the quiet dignity of Milly Dowler’s parents to the fragile suffering of Mary-Ellen Field – sacked by Elle Macpherson, who wrongly suspected her of feeding the press – those who have suffered at the hands of the phone hackers have illustrated the bullying and the snooping of the hacks.Margaret and Jim Watson saw a child die as a result. Others had gone through breakdowns.
Their heart-rending testimony was somewhat overshadowed by Hugh Grant’s angry exchanges, his accusations against the Mail on Sunday, and the subsequent war of words among the lawyers. The more studied performance of comedian Steve Coogan this afternoon, including damning testimony against Andy Coulson, the prime minister’s former head of communications, was piercingly effective.
All the while Leveson has sat largely in silence, absorbing the magnitude of the task he has taken on. He has to find a way to prevent future criminality; to help create a new body that can regulate and punish quickly and effectively, and come up with guidelines on privacy that leave the private individual in peace but allow the press to expose the hypocritical. He needs to defend free expression and reinforce good investigative journalism that already faces a host of restrictions. He must try not to hasten the economic decline of an industry that is adopting increasingly desperate measures to keep itself afloat.
From everything I’ve seen of Leveson and those advising him, he gets it. Of course, caution is in order. Memories turn to the Hutton inquiry. The sharp questioning from the presiding judge then lulled everyone into a false sense of security. Hutton’s report was a shocker, a whitewash for government that opened the door to the emasculation of the BBC. And Leveson knows his recent history.
Yet those who need him most – the tabloids – are not helping him. By hiding or lashing out against their critics, the editors, proprietors and their legal teams are playing into the hands of the many voices calling for strict controls. Anyone who has sat before a parliamentary committee knows that the default position of MPs and peers is to hit back at the “beasts” in the media.
This is reflected in ministers’ positions. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, told the Society of Editors not to underestimate the “shocking effects” of recent revelations. Later that day, Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, served warning about a government clampdown on contempt of court. He has since acted on his threat.
The PCC, under its new chairman, is looking at its own future. It aims to submit a detailed report to Leveson in the spring. By the nature of its constitution, it depends on the constructive engagement of its members. The more they resist, the more churlish their involvement with Leveson, the worse for the tabloids will be the result.
For a small army of celebrities the demise of the papers they loathe will be a cause for celebration. Yet the narrowing of a media discourse to an elite talking to an elite, through three or four “quality” papers, will ill serve freedom of expression and democracy. It is not too late for the tabloids to get real. Their obduracy is furrowing Leveson’s brow – and narrowing his room for manoeuvre.
John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship. He’s on twitter @johnkampfner
23 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
This article was first published in the Guardian
Nothing titillates journalists more than talking about their profession or, should I call it, their trade. The Leveson inquiry has spawned almost daily public discussions about the future of the Press Complaints Commission, freedom of the press and standards. At the last count three parliamentary committees are looking into the issue, listening to academics and former editors opine ad infinitum about “co-regulation”, “enhanced regulation”, “self-regulation” and “statutory regulation”.
Most of the time, however, the people who matter are silent or surly. Present-day tabloid and middle-market editors seem to have convinced themselves that the hacking scandal is a bit of a diversionary tactic by the government, and that, aside from a few technical changes here and there, it will blow over in time. Keep calm and carry on.
An atmosphere of denial permeated the recent Society of Editors conference. On the issue of phone hacking, many simply did not engage, beyond saying that the guilty will be punished and we will all move on. We have moved on … to the Royal Courts of Justice, and it does not make for a pleasant spectacle.
The first two days of victims’ hearings at Leveson have been enervating. From the quiet dignity of Milly Dowler’s parents to the fragile suffering of Mary-Ellen Field – sacked by Elle Macpherson, who wrongly suspected her of feeding the press – those who have suffered at the hands of the phone hackers have illustrated the bullying and the snooping of the hacks.Margaret and Jim Watson saw a child die as a result. Others had gone through breakdowns.
Their heart-rending testimony was somewhat overshadowed by Hugh Grant’s angry exchanges, his accusations against the Mail on Sunday, and the subsequent war of words among the lawyers. The more studied performance of comedian Steve Coogan this afternoon, including damning testimony against Andy Coulson, the prime minister’s former head of communications, was piercingly effective.
All the while Leveson has sat largely in silence, absorbing the magnitude of the task he has taken on. He has to find a way to prevent future criminality; to help create a new body that can regulate and punish quickly and effectively, and come up with guidelines on privacy that leave the private individual in peace but allow the press to expose the hypocritical. He needs to defend free expression and reinforce good investigative journalism that already faces a host of restrictions. He must try not to hasten the economic decline of an industry that is adopting increasingly desperate measures to keep itself afloat.
From everything I’ve seen of Leveson and those advising him, he gets it. Of course, caution is in order. Memories turn to the Hutton inquiry. The sharp questioning from the presiding judge then lulled everyone into a false sense of security. Hutton’s report was a shocker, a whitewash for government that opened the door to the emasculation of the BBC. And Leveson knows his recent history.
Yet those who need him most – the tabloids – are not helping him. By hiding or lashing out against their critics, the editors, proprietors and their legal teams are playing into the hands of the many voices calling for strict controls. Anyone who has sat before a parliamentary committee knows that the default position of MPs and peers is to hit back at the “beasts” in the media.
This is reflected in ministers’ positions. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, told the Society of Editors not to underestimate the “shocking effects” of recent revelations. Later that day, Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, served warning about a government clampdown on contempt of court. He has since acted on his threat.
The PCC, under its new chairman, is looking at its own future. It aims to submit a detailed report to Leveson in the spring. By the nature of its constitution, it depends on the constructive engagement of its members. The more they resist, the more churlish their involvement with Leveson, the worse for the tabloids will be the result.
For a small army of celebrities the demise of the papers they loathe will be a cause for celebration. Yet the narrowing of a media discourse to an elite talking to an elite, through three or four “quality” papers, will ill serve freedom of expression and democracy. It is not too late for the tabloids to get real. Their obduracy is furrowing Leveson’s brow – and narrowing his room for manoeuvre.
John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship. He’s on twitter @johnkampfner
21 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry
Actor Hugh Grant linked the Mail on Sunday to phone hacking today as he and other witnesses gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, starting what is set to be a week-long attack on the practices of the tabloid press.
In his marathon account, he spoke of a 2007 story in the paper that claimed his relationship with Jemima Khan was on the rocks due to his late night calls with a “plummy voiced” studio executive. Grant said the only way the paper could have sourced the story was through accessing his voicemail, and that he “would love to hear what their source was if it wasn’t phone hacking.”
He also told the Inquiry about a chance encounter with Paul McMullen, former features editor at the News of the World, who “boasted” about hacking at the paper.
A spokesman for the Mail on Sunday said this afternoon: “Mr Grant’s allegations are mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media.” Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Mail, has consistently denied that any of its staff were involved with hacking.
Grant went into detail about a slew of other incidents. He noted how he and his girlfriends had been “chased at speed” by papparazzi, the Sun and Daily Express had invaded his privacy by publishing details of his medical records, and that the life of the mother of his newborn baby had “been made hell” due to press intrusion. He also alleged that the Daily Mail paid £125,000 to the ex-lover of the child’s mother for photos of her.
Grant said the “licence the tabloid press has had to steal British citizens’ privacy for profit” was a “scandal that weak governments for too long have allowed to pass.”
In their brief but raw account this morning, the parents of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler spoke of the moment they believed their daughter was picking up and deleting her voicemail messages. Sally Dowler said, “it clicked through on to her voicemail so I heard her voice and [said] ‘she’s picked up her voicemail Bob! She’s alive!’.”
Milly’s voicemail had been hacked into and her messages deleted, making room for new ones to be left. Sally Dowler said she did not sleep for three nights when she was told of the interception this year.
The Dowlers also described a walk they took seven weeks after their daughter had gone missing to retrace her steps, a photo of which was featured in the News of the World. The Dowlers believed it was a result of photographers being tipped off after their own phones had been hacked. “How did they know we would be doing that walk on that day,” Sally Dowler asked. She called the photo an “intrusion” into the family’s private moment of grief.
Of the press attention that followed Milly’s disappearance, Sally added that the family had to “train” themselves not to answer questions. “Someone would come up to you when you least expect[ed] it,” she said.
The Dowlers added that the press had been a “double-edged sword”, noting the efforts made by the papers to spread information about Milly’s disappearance.
They said they would leave it to the Inquiry to make decisions, but wanted the extent of hacking to be exposed. Bob Dowler said he hoped News International and other media organisations would “look very carefully” at how they procure information for stories. “Obviously the ramifications are very much greater than just an obvious story in the press,” he added.
Journalist Joan Smith also gave evidence. She discovered her phone had been hacked around six weeks after the daughter of her partner, Labour MP Denis MacShane, had been killed in a skydiving accident in 2004. She revealed that detectives had shown her notes taken by Glenn Mulcaire earlier this year, which listed her name, address and phone numbers.
She attacked tabloid culture as “so remorseless” that those involved have “lost any sense that they’re dealing with human beings.”
She said she did not consider herself a celebrity. “You don’t have to be incredibly famous to be a target for their intrusion,” she said, adding later that the press interest in her came from her relationship with MacShane.
Smith was keen to defend freedom of expression, noting that she opposed state regulation and the licensing of journalists. She added that there needed to be a “successor body to PCC (Press Complaints Commission) that isn’t dominated by editors.”
Media lawyer Graham Shear also attacked the redtops, calling the industry a “business model which has become dependent on titillating and sensationalist stories.”
He said his clients began to suspect they were under surveillance in 2004, when “stray facts” known to few began to appear in the press. Several would clients would change their mobile telephone numbers two or three times a year, he added.
He spoke of “orchestrated” attempts to persuade clients to pay off kiss and tell girls, and noted the reluctance of press to contact him and his clients prior to publishing, preferring to pay any damages for breaches of privacy afterwards. He also described the £60,000 in damages paid by the News of the World to Formula 1 boss Max Mosley for privacy invasion as a “very gentle parking fine”.
The hearing continues tomorrow, with evidence from Steve Coogan, Elle Macpherson’s former business adviser Mary-Ellen Field, ex-footballer Garry Flitcroft, and Margaret Watson, mother of murder victim Diane Watson.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
16 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry
The solicitor representing hacking victims attacked Britain’s tabloid press today as he pledged to unmask the “tawdry journalistic trade” at the third hearing of the Leveson Inquiry.
David Sherborne, who is representing 51 core participant victims, gave a powerful and emotional account of how murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by the News of the World. He called the act one of “cruelty and insensitivity” and said that Dowler’s parents will testify of the euphoria they felt when the deletion of their daughter’s messages meant they thought she was alive.
Sherborne questioned News International’s earlier claims that hacking was limited to one rogue reporter, adding that there was a cover-up at the newspaper over the extent of the practice, and that there was a concerted effort after the event to “conceal the ugly truth from surfacing.”
He said the paper’s former glory has been so “fatally befouled by its cultural dependency on the dark arts”, giving journalism a bad name.
But phone hacking was, Sherbone said, “just one symptom” of a disease afflicting Britain’s tabloid press. He called the red-tops’ treatment of the parents of Madeleine McCann, he little girl who went missing in Portugal in 2007, “a national scandal”. He noted that Kate McCann’s diary that was given to Portuguese police was published by the News of the World and left her feeling, in her husband’s words “mentally raped”.
He also attacked the reporting of the arrest of Christopher Jefferies, the landlord of murdered Bristol woman Joanna Yeates who was later released without charge and cleared of any involvment of any involvement in her death. Reading out a range of damning headlines referencing Jefferies, Sherborne accused the press of a “frenzied campaign to blacken his [Jefferies’] character, a frightening combination of smear, innuendo and complete fiction”,
Sherborne said such stories were printed to “make money, not solve crimes”, and that none of them had a public interest defence. Earlier this year, both the Daily Mirror and the Sun were fined for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of Yeates’ murder.
The Dowler family, Gerry McCann and Jefferies will all give evidence to the Inquiry next week.
Sherborne also made the case for respect to individual privacy, saying it was “as much a mark of a tolerant and mature society as a free and forceful press.” He condemned tabloid culture of kiss-and-tell-stories, citing reporters’ invasions into the lives of JK Rowling, Charlotte Church, Max Mosley, Sheryl Gascoigne and Hugh Grant, all of whom will be giving evidence in the coming weeks.
In a recent development, Sherborne added that the mother of Hugh Grant’s child had received abusive phone calls because the actor had criticised the press. She was allegedly told to “tell Hugh Grant to shut the fuck up”. Sherborne said that last Friday he had to seek an emergency injunction on behalf of a woman who just had the actor’s baby, the real reason for which being the threats she had received.
Sherborne said he was calling for “real change.”
Earlier in the day, the National Union of Journalists’ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet painted a stark picture of journalistic life in the UK, with an omnipotent editor, a slew of relentless pressures, and “brutal” consequences for reporters who did not deliver stories. She said a culture of fear among journalists inhibited them defending fundamental and ethical principles, and that speaking out publicly was “simply not an option” for fear of losing their jobs.
Referring to one of the Inquiry’s key questions raised by Lord Justice Leveson earlier this week, Stanistreet argued that the protection of journalists by way of a trade union could help “guard the guardians” and promote ethical awareness.
Following her, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger made the case for a stronger Press Complaints Commission that must have the power to intervene, investigate meaningfully and impose significant sanctions. Unimpressed by how the PCC handled phone hacking, Rusbridger argued in favour of a press standards and mediation commission, a “one-stop shop” that is responsive, quick and cheap. He added that the industry needed to establish a public interest defence that could be agreed upon and argued for.
Leveson agreed on the value of a “mechanism being set up that benefits all”, but questioned how to persuade those who do not subscribe to the PCC that it is a sensible approach.
Sherborne, however, vowed that his victims’ evidence will show “how hopelessly inadequate this self-regulatory code is as a means of curbing the excesses of the press.”
While conceding he, his clients and Rusbridger may agree on strengthening the PCC, Sherborne also quoted a client who claimed that leaving the PCC in the hands of newspapers would be tantamount to “handing a police station over to the mafia.”
The Inquiry will continue with evidence from victims on 21 November.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
