The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPs
remind us that there is never room for complacency We must learn and shows how editors can avoid this not just by fo!lowing the Code
by our mistakes. Where there are legitimate public concerns we
must respond to them. indeed, getting that ba ance right is a
but by discretionary measures, too.
constant theme that runs through the Codebook and demonstrates Nerassment is an issue that can also get the media a bed press
mow we have listened to and responded to criticism (though we should never forget there are double standards at work
here and that some celebrities who complain of the media’s attention
On the protection of personst data, for example, the Code actually seek it to promote themse~vas). The media scrum that
Committee has confronted the Information Commissioner’s closed in on Prince William’s girlfriend Kate Middleton when there
concerns about wholesale breaches of the law -- and, indeed, of was speculation on an impending engagement was a subject for
the existing Code. We have strengthened the rules to explicitly ban concern. Although that was resolved very quickly, the Code
hacking into digitally-held private information unless there is a Committee investigated to see ~f it indicated a deeper problem.
demonstrable public interest. We have aiso expressly barred the use We concluded that the Code’s rules on harassment --among the
of agents or intermediaries, such as private detectives, to circumvent strictest in Western Europe -- were wsrkthg well. This is where
the rules
people who do not wish to 3e pursued alert the PCC, which passes
At the same time, the PCC has issued comprehensive guidelines on the request to editors.
and conducted seminars on investigative journalism. The industry As ] have stressed, this Codebook snows that there ~s no cause
too has produced its own guidanca on Data Protection compliance for complacency on the part of the newspapers but, equally it has
and is conducting a survey of the measures-- such as contractual important lessons for our detractors. First, it shows that we are in
obligations on staff and tighter auditing processes--- introduced in- the business of learning -- why else would a constantly revised
house by publishers to combat abuse. To underline the message, Codebo0k exist?. Second, it demonstrates that the self-regulatory
the Codebcok has drawn all these actions together in its own Briefing system is genuinely responsive to public concerns. And third, ] hope
note.
it kills the myth that the balance that we attempt to strike is a shabby
This has been a considerable commitment by all concerned and compromise between individual rights and a self-serving media
it is now imperative that the industry, if it is to safeguard itself from waving the flag of press freecom.
tighter legal penalties, continues to demonstrate its dedication to teceed, the words press freedom appear nowhere in the Editors’
compliance with both the law and the Code
Code of Practice. What is mentJonee is freedom of expression and
the public’s righ~ to know, neither of which is the exclusive preserve
The reporting of suicide was another area that provoked some
of the press. Certainly, the balance between that public right to know,
criticism, aspecla ly following theserias of deaths of young people on the one hand, and the rights of the individual on the other, lead
in South Wales By any standards, this was a tragedy of national to genuine tensions, but they are inherent in any truly free system.
/mportenca and media coverage reflected that. But though it was a A democracy as a whole, not just the media, has to get the
legitimate subject to accrass, issues of insensitivity arose. We have balance right. Go too far In either diractton ant it is members of the
addressed those here in the Codebook, with importan[ new guidance public -- collectively or singly -- who suffer. And constantly at risk is
that highlights press activities that can cause unintentional distress the Open Society itseE
The Press complaints commiss on came nto force n January
1991 as the UK’s new system of press self-regulation. It was a
cultural step-change; it would be founded on conciliation offer more
streamlined investigations and swifter redress than the Press
Council, which it replaced.
Its centrapleca, and the document that gave it a umque authority
within the newspaper and magazine industry, was Britain’s first
universally accepted Code of Practice for the press -- written by the
editers themselves
For the first time, the Code would define the rules spell out the
obligations of the press, and show the public what they were entitled
to expect. It set out to balance the rights of the ins vidual and the
public’s right to know. tt was non-legalistic in tone or approach and
required editors to comply m spirit as wstt as to the lette~
The simple aim then, as now. was to offer a speedy, effective
system for providing remedies to individuals with grievances against
the press, by working to a set of rules which the editors had
themselves created, and could not contest
The Code covers 16 causes of complaint --~nclud~ng accuracy
an0 privacy, protection of vulnerable groups, financial reporting and
the use of clandestine devices. It does not cover taste and decency,
which is regarded as too subjective and could be an interference
with freedorr of expression.
publishers, who co-ordinate and t~Jnd the newspaper and magazine
ndustrys actions on self-regulation. Prassbof comprises
representatives of the Newsoaper Publishers Association, The
Newspaper Society, tl~e Perlodlce Publishers Association, The
Scottish Daily Newspaper Society and the Scottish Newspaper
Publishers Association.
The Press Complaints Commissten, the independent adjudicating
body: ten senior figures from outside the industry, including the
cl~a~rman, and seven editors. The Commission’s rele is to oversee
the system and adjudicate on complaints.
The PCC secretariat, which operates the system, processes
complaints and acts as a conciliator wherever possible to find remedies
for grievances which are acceptable to complainant and editor alike
The Editors’ Coda of Practice Committee, comprises 13 editors
from national and reg~ona~ newspapers and magazines, representing
all parts of the UK. Their job is to write, review and revise the Cede
to ensure it remains relevant and responsive to changing
circumstances, it ensures flexibility: changes that would take many
months or years to introduce m a ~egstistic or stetutery system can
be agreed and implemented within weeks
MOD100036623
48