06 May 11 | Uncategorized
So the Press Complaints Commission wants to regulate the tweets of newspapers and their reporters. It is a logical step, as the commission continues to track the old print titles in their march into electronic space. The editors’ code of practice it tries to enforce, after all, applies to journalists and does not restrict itself to one mode of delivery. (more…)
11 Apr 11 | Uncategorized
Solicitor Mark Lewis has accused Press Complaints Commission chair Baroness Buscombe of being in “complete denial” over the News of the World phone hacking scandal.
In a scathing letter to Buscombe, Lewis says:
As recently as your [2 February] appearance on the Media show you remained in complete denial. The PCC’s role as an independent regulator of the press is meaningless. You tried to explain your actions by saying “we just don;t know” what the facts are. Well they are out there now. Even the News of the World has conceded that there have been more examples of hacking. Whilst their “mea culpa” in the inside cover of yesterday’s paper was partial and largely hidden, it made a concession that demonstrated that your report of 7 November 2009 was not worth the paper it was written on.
He goes on:
I would be very surprised if you were unaware of the latest developments and the admission by the News of the World about the extent of “hacking”. Yet our silence has been breathtaking. If it assists, your report concluded that you had not been “materially misled” by them then, and then chose to mislead yourself a second time. now is the time for you and the PCC to come out and condemn the News of the World in a robust and unequivocal way.
Read the full letter below
lewis-buscombe-letter
UPDATE: Jonathan Collett of the Press Complaints Commission has contacted Index to point us to this statement released by the PCC on Friday:
Statement from the PCC’s Phone Hacking Review Committee (8/4/2011)
The PCC’s Phone Hacking Review Committee has noted today’s statement by News International.
The newspaper has now admitted its own internal investigations have not been sufficiently robust. This raises serious questions about its previous conduct in regard to this issue. Our Committee will need a detailed explanation for this, along with other answers we will be seeking from executives. We have already made clear that we require and expect full co-operation from News International.
The PCC, through this Committee, is committed to holding the News of the World properly to account regarding concerns about phone hacking. It will also work to ensure that situations such as this do not arise in the future. Our findings will be made public.
Phone hacking among journalists, even in the past, raises clear issues about journalistic ethics. The PCC will play its part in acting vigorously to deal with it, in regard to both the News of the World and the industry as a whole.
The Committee is conscious that there is an ongoing police investigation, as well as active legal proceedings. Its own review process must not interfere with them. It will not be commenting further at this stage.
01 Apr 11 | News and features
The Press Complaints Commission paid solicitor Mark Lewis £20,000 in damages after he brought a libel action against chair Baroness Buscombe, it has been reported.
Buscombe had alleged that Lewis had misled the the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in his testimony in the investigation into the News of the World phonehacking scandal.
14 Jan 11 | Uncategorized
The Press Complaints Commission wants us to think it has renewed itself. That it is no longer the feeble outfit that was derided for doing nothing about the McCann scandal and thinking everything was fine at the News of the World. It has new people in charge, it has carried out a governance review and its code of conduct for journalists is being revised. It’s also Tweeting to draw attention to how proactive it is.
So, is the investigation it has just announced into last month’s Daily Telegraph sting against the Liberal Democrats evidence of a new assertiveness? There’s a hint in their press release that they want us to think so, where they say: “The PCC was contacted by around 200 members of the public on this subject, and proactively sought the comments of party representatives.” That word “proactive” again: it is code for “we don’t just sit here waiting for complaints to come to us”.
Now they have received a formal complaint from the Lib Dem president, Tim Farron, alleging that the Telegraph breached the PCC editors’ code rules on use of subterfuge, and in consequence have launched their investigation.
It will be an interesting case. You might argue that the Telegraph uncovered something that was in the public interest in Vince Cable’s remarks (to reporters posing as constituents) about the Murdoch media. But then you have to note that the Telegraph, for reasons of its own, didn’t actually intend to publish that story.
The real issue, however, is likely to be this: before they visited the MPs’ surgeries, and before they turned on their hidden recorders, did the Telegraph journalists have an idea of what they were going to hear? Did they have reason to believe, for example, that Cable would tell them what he told them? If not, then they were merely fishing, and in the past the PCC has taken the view that newspapers are not justified in lying to law-abiding people and secretly recording them just to see what they might get out of it.
It is obviously a big case for the PCC. A finding against the Telegraph will be unpopular in the industry that pays the PCC’s bills and would doubtless be presented as bad for journalistic freedom. A finding that absolves the Telegraph will be unpopular with MPs, who already believe the PCC is wimpish and toothless. It’s good to see this tackled, and we watch with interest.
But to come back to the opening point: does the launching of this investigation reveal a new and assertive PCC? Maybe it’s a good sign, but it’s not convincing. The Commission’s rules allow it to investigate an issue of concern on its own authority, without waiting for — or soliciting, or negotiating — a complaint from anyone, victim or otherwise. It doesn’t do that, and it hasn’t done it here.
It has been proactive in only a limited sense since in the end the authority and initiative for the investigation have been carefully located with the LibDems. Maybe that’s appropriate in this case, but it means this can’t be described as a real flexing of muscles by a reformed PCC. It’s complaints processing — what they always did.
Until we see it being seriously proactive, elbowing its way into difficult areas of public concern and showing initiative and authority, the PCC’s claim to the role of serious industry regulator and its claim that it upholds standards in anything more than an indirect and intangible way will remain weak.
Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University London, he tweets @BrianCathcart
