Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Prash Naik, Controller of Legal & Compliance, Channel 4, David Jordan, Director of
Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC, and Valerie Nazareth, Head of Programme Legal
Advice, BBC—Oral evidence (QQ 273–325)
public money was involved a rather different level of reassurance was required by the
general public from that where commercial interests are involved. I found that somewhat
surprising. Surely, on crucial issues of privacy and free expression the public want the same
assurance, whether public money or commercial interests are involved.
David Jordan: I am not sure whether it is true that the public requires the same
level of assurance in relation to the different bodies. For example, the way in which the
public believes different news outlets or different institutions suggests they understand very
well the difference between a publicly funded body like the BBC, which they regard as being
highly accountable to them and requiring the highest possible standards, and some
newspapers where they are quite happy to see a different standard apply, but they still buy
them and read them. I am not sure the public requires every outlet to be treated in exactly
the same way.
The result is that you get different levels of trust for those institutions. I am glad to
say that the public’s trust in the BBC and other public service broadcasters is very high, but
the level of trust in some newspapers is considerably lower. That may reflect the different
views that the public has, but it does not mean the public does not value having those two
different sorts of approaches and will not happily buy a newspaper and, I hope, subscribe to
the BBC licence fee at the same time.
Q1188 Lord Harries of Pentregarth: You mentioned practical difficulties.
Could you indicate what you think they might be?
David Jordan: I mean the practical difficulties of imposing a code across the whole
of broadcasting and newspapers.
Q1189 Martin Horwood: I am also puzzled by the distinction you draw. Setting
aside these technical and practical areas like expertise in a particular medium, surely for a
start Ofcom and the broadcasting code do not apply only to publicly funded broadcasters
but to all broadcasters, so that distinction really cannot be made. I suppose the question is:
do you think you are more or less free than the print media?
Prash Naik: We are equally free.
Q1190 Martin Horwood: Then why can you not have one regulatory body that
applies equally to all?
Prash Naik: If you were to wipe the slate clean and start afresh it would be an ideal
model to have a level playing field and provide clarity for members of the public to go to
one body and provide continuity of approach, but unfortunately we have a system where
statutory regulation for broadcasters is very well established. It was originally set up under
the Broadcasting Act 1990. It is very well understood and has a good cultural ethos behind
it. Viewers understand the basic principles of television regulation. Television comes into
your living room in a way papers do not, and due impartiality obligations cover our news
coverage in a way that does not apply to newspapers. It is a different type of product. I think
that members of the public are much more forgiving in many ways about the content of
newspapers. They know the difference between broadsheets and tabloids. As to the
173