Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Martin Clarke, publisher, Mail Online, Edward Roussel, Digital Editor, Telegraph Media
Group, and Philip Webster, editor, Times Online—Oral evidence (QQ 1306–1383)
Q1562 Martin Horwood: If it did not exist, would you feel the need to invent it
in cyberspace? Is it something that cyberspace is inevitably going to do without?
Martin Clarke: No. This is a very difficult hypothetical scenario to picture.
Internet news is probably not big enough or aggressive enough, if you like, to have fallen foul
of some of the things the PCC was set up to rectify. We are more than happy to be part of
it; we are more than happy to abide by its existing Code. Occasionally it can cause us some
irritations and can mean that we are not quite on a level playing field with our competition,
but we hope our skill and talent will overcome that. So no, I do not have any problem with
that.
Q1563 Martin Horwood: Just to paint a credible scenario, if there was something
a bit like The Huffington Post—an online brand that seriously challenged your businesses—and
five to 10 years ahead it was the main source of news rather than something with a
paper-based brand, would you still be equally happy for them to be completely outside the
PCC regulations?
Martin Clarke: If the restrictions placed on us by being part of the PCC remain
roughly as they are at the moment, then no; that would not be a problem. While that rogue
organisation might be able to do the odd thing that we could not, overall it would probably
not be enough to matter. But if we were placed at a significant disadvantage, then yes, that
would create very big problems: if we had, say, some outside organisation coming here—
maybe it would not be the HuffPo; maybe it would be some company not even set up yet—
that decided, “Well, you know what? These British websites are all a bit hamstrung now and
there are all these great stories in Britain going untold.” They do not even need to be here.
They can have their servers anywhere in the world and can target British users with content
that the British papers cannot publish. If there was enough of that, then that would
obviously be a problem, and I do not see what anyone could do about it. The general public
are quite happy for the internet to block porn sites, because there is clearly a public interest
for that sort of content to be blocked, but I think if you are saying, “Well, this stuff is true.
We are not saying it is not true; we are not saying it is bad for you; we just”—for whatever
reason—“do not want you to read it, so we are going to block that website”, I think people
would have an issue with that.
Q1564 Martin Horwood: Do you not think even the technical gatekeepers—the
domain name holders or the internet service providers—could have any role in that?
Martin Clarke: I do not think you would have any joy with them outside this
country.
Q1565 Martin Horwood: So it is game over, is it, for regulating the internet?
Martin Clarke: I do not want to be negative, but we, as an industry—along with the
music, film and even the insurance industry—have had to accept a new technical reality. We
have had to accept that the world has moved on. I am sure that many people in my business
wish that there was no such thing as the internet and we could carry on selling newspapers
the way that we have done for decades, but that world has gone. We have had to wake up,
deal with and embrace a new reality and make the best of it.
570