01 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The chairman of the body that funds the Press Complaints Commission told the Leveson Inquiry today that the News of the World phone hacking scandal has convinced him of the regulator’s need to impose fines.
Lord Black, chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), revealed that he had been opposed to the imposition of fines, arguing that they would not have strengthened the PCC, but admitted the phone hacking scandal had made him change his mind.
“I certainly now believe that some form of fining system would be appropriate,” he said, citing the scandal that led to the closure of the News of the World as “the most obvious example of why urgent reform of the system is needed.”
Black said there was a “very real” appetite for change from the industry and argued that there needed to be “radical proposals” for changes to self-regulation in order to thwart a threat of statutory regulation.
Black’s testimony follows Lord Hunt’s call yesterday for a new regulator that had increased powers to investigate, as well as audit and enforce standards. Hunt told the Inquiry there was a “wide consensus for radical reform” in the industry.
Ofcom CEO Ed Richards and Chair Colette Bowe also gave evidence today. The pair defended the broadcast regulator, which is underpinned by statute and whose chief executive is chosen by the Culture Secretary, as being able to maintain its independence. Bowe emphasised the regulator is accountable to Parliament — not the government — and Richards stressed that independence was “probably the most prized characteristic of the entire organisation.”
Asked by counsel Carine Patry-Hoskins if Ofcom’s independence would be stronger were its board not selected by the government, Bowe said it would not in practical terms. She added that a better model had not been proposed, and that well-informed parliamentary committee served to hold Ofcom to account.
Richards described Ofcom as a “post-broadcast regulator” that does not attempt to intervene with broadcasts in advance of being aired. He said he pre-broadcast intervention was “very difficult territory, which takes you potentially takes you into the area of censorship and suppression.”
Richards also argued that there was “no reason” why financial penalties should have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, and that there were “plenty of examples” of broadcast journalism that have been controversial and produced within the Ofcom code.
Richards added that Ofcom’s own investigatory powers, namely the ability to require data from broadcasters, were a “key tool” and crucial to the regulator doing its job effectively. He cited the sanctions levied as a result of the 2007 phone-in scandal — during which Ofcom fined GMTV a record £2 million for having repeatedly allowed viewers to enter phone-in competitions after lines had closed — as an “effective deterrent”.
Richards admitted that digital innovations did present challenges for broadcasters, but said any attempt to regulate the internet was a “fool’s errand”.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
30 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The Press Complaints Commission was today criticised at the Leveson Inquiry for having taken a “somewhat restrictive and timorous” approach to investigate phone hacking.
Robert Jay QC told former PCC director Tim Toulmin that the self-regulation body had failed to “test the boundaries of its powers” by choosing not to question former News of the World editor Andy Coulson after he resigned from the tabloid following the 2007 convictions of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire over phone hacking. Toulmin rejected this suggestion.
Toulmin, who headed the PCC from 2004 to 2009, said the prospect had been discussed but it was decided that the body’s powers “wouldn’t have had traction” with Coulson.
He added that he later thought this was a mistake. “The PCC should have been seen to ask him,” he said. Lord Justice Leveson interjected, saying that doing so would have been “incredibly powerful”.
Quizzed about the PCC’s response to the Goodman and Mulcaire jailings, Toulmin said that although the PCC did not investigate the matter, it conducted an “exercise that was designed to produce a forward-looking report” and establish principles of internal governance to avoid future wrongdoing.
“We were looking at how it arose, and the culture,” he said.
The PCC produced two reports, one in May 2007 that found no further evidence of wrongdoing, and one in September 2009 that has since been withdrawn, which concluded the body was not misled by the News of the World.
Regarding the 2009 report, Toulmin conceded that dismissing evidence from the Guardian was a “major mistake”. He said he was not a member of the board that decided on the report’s conclusions.
Testifying at the Inquiry earlier this month, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger had said the 2009 report was “worse than a whitewash”.
Elsewhere in his testimony, which ran for over three hours, Toulmin discussed the PCC’s response to the Information Commissioner’s findings on Operation Motorman, which examined the use of a private investigators by the media to obtain personal information. He said that the then commissioner, Richard Thomas, went to the wrong body when he approached the PCC with his report. “He either should have gone directly to the industry — trade bodies — or the code committee, which is more representative of the industry,” he said, noting that data protection breaches were outside of the PCC’s remit.
Last month, Thomas told the Inquiry the PCC “should have done more” in response to the Motorman findings, and that he sought their “loud, strident condemnation.”
Toulmin also asserted that the PCC was not subject to influence from current editors serving on its board, namely Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and former News International CEO Les Hinton. “They never a single time would phone me up and suggest we should behave in a certain way,” Toulmin said.
Toulmin argued that PCC members were not “cowed” by editors’ presence, and that their presence gave”bite” to complaints rulings.
In his witness statement, Toulmin argued that it was “inappropriate” to call the PCC a regulator.
Leveson also put it to Toulmin that the PCC was believed by the public to be a regulator ” when it wasn’t actually a regulator at all,” Leveson said. Toulmin agreed, claiming that it was “a complaints handler (…) a sort of ombudsman.”
The PCC’s current director, Stephen Abell, who gave evidence this afternoon, said he too was “happy” that the term regulator not be used to describe the PCC. He said that at the heart of the newspaper industry is “people exercising their right to be polemic”, and that regard needed to given to the nature of the industry when coming up with an over-arching structure.
During his testimony he ran through cases of complaints made to the PCC, citing Jan Moir’s column in the Daily Mail about the death of singer Stephen Gately, which was originally headlined “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”. Abell said there were over 22,000 complaints about the piece — which was later amended to the print edition headline “A strange, lonely and troubling death” — but it was “just short” of a breach of the PCC code, despite being a “difficult” episode to judge.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow, with evidence from current PCC chairman Lord Hunt, former chair Sir Christopher Meyer and PCC member Lord Grade.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
19 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Crossposted at Hacked Off
After two years of foot-dragging, nit-picking, hair-splitting and general obfuscation, News International has finally done the right thing in the civil litigation about phone hacking. It has put its hands up and agreed to compensate all but a few of the remaining victims who were suing it.
So this is a moment to pay tribute to all of those civil litigants, famous and obscure. We should honour them for their courage in challenging not only the might of Rupert Murdoch’s company, but the whole tabloid press, which was so eager to help keep Murdoch’s dirty linen hidden. And we should also honour them for prising open this huge can of worms when the entire establishment was determined to keep it shut.
There is talk of a new royal yacht for the queen’s diamond jubilee; perhaps before 2012 is out we should also have a handsome monument to the civil litigants as a gesture of thanks from a grateful nation. It could take the form of a giant tin-opener, and a location in Fleet Street might be appropriate.
These people changed everything. Without them the “one rogue reporter” lie would probably still be the official line from both News International and the Metropolitan Police. Rebekah Brooks would still be in her job, the ghastly Colin Myler would be editing the News of the World, Andy Coulson would be in 10 Downing Street and the press would still be telling us the PCC was an effective regulator.
A whole industry of deception, in other words, has crumbled thanks to the people compensated today and thanks to their predecessors who settled earlier, notably Sienna Miller.
And pathetic though News International’s legal defence has been lately, suing was never easy for the claimants. Think of the risks they exposed themselves to.
Back in 2010 when many of these cases began life, every politician knew that the Sun and the News of the World could wreck their reputations, and that these papers had more access to the prime minister (and his two predecessors) than any backbencher and most ministers. Suing probably looked like political suicide to most MPs.
Across television, cinema and sport, from Hollywood to India, News Corporation owns or controls far more than any other company, so if you were an actress, a sportsman, a football agent or a PR person you risked much more than your time and money by suing — you risked your livelihood.
As for ordinary people whose phones had been hacked, you might think they had nothing to lose by suing, but think again: this is a company that employed private investigators on an industrial scale. Would you be happy to have every aspect of your private life secretly investigated, and if the slightest blemish was found — perhaps involving a vulnerable relative — to have that exposed in the press?
So it took courage for these people to sue, and collectively they made the difference between News International escaping scot free and what we have now: substantial police investigations, a couple of dozen arrests, and the historic and far-reaching Leveson Inquiry.
If they can’t have a monument on Fleet Street, then what about MBEs all round?
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
17 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger told the Leveson Inquiry today the British newspaper industry has been “under-regulated and over-legislated.”
Rusbridger urged for a greater balance between the two, but praised the Inquiry for bringing about more nuanced questions about regulation and statute.
He said he “wouldn’t be against the use of statute” if a new regulatory body could enforce its powers to deal with early-stage libel claims, adding that statutory underpinning of a new adjudication system would make settling libel and privacy cases cheaper and easier.
He said the Press Complaints Commission’s 2009 report into phone hacking was “worse than a whitewash” and “undermined the principle of self-regulation”. In the report the PCC concluded there was no evidence it had been misled over phone hacking by the News of the World, which closed last summer in the wake of further hacking revelations.
“Even when they were lied to by the most powerful media player,” Rusbridger said, “there was nothing they could even do about that. Its inadequecies were fatally exposed”.
Also speaking this afternoon was Sunday Times editor John Witherow, who shared concerns expressed earlier today by James Harding that statutory backing may lead to political interference in the press.
Witherow said the reputation of the UK press abroad needed to be taken into consideration: “Our libel laws have created a lot of controversy around the world,” he said, adding that “if we moved to a statutory body, it would send a message worldwide that we’re taking a tougher stance on the media.”
Witherow also admitted that his paper tried to blag details of Gordon Brown’s mortgage from Abbey National by calling the bank and posing as the former prime minister.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from magazine and regional editors.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
