The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
For Distribution to CPs major policy issue, the Commission will publish an adjudication. When ~ complaint is upheld, then the newspaper or magazine must ...... pubiish the ~dverae adjudication. This is one Of the main Sanctions. There are no fines or comPensaiien, Since these would inevitably ]nvo!ve lawyers, making the System iegalistiC, eiow a,d eXpe"eive ~ a,d less acceesibIe to AdVerse adjudications are effeCtiVe. Editors dislike having to Sh them. It mei mistakes are e×posed ~o their own end Often to criiiCism and ridiCUle in the cotUmns of iheir Commercial r , although While the Code has had legal recognition -- under the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts, for example -- it does not attempt to duplicate the taw. The Code and the law are distinct. Compliance with one wi = not guarantee compliance with the ether. Journalists must remember that they remain, as ever, subject to the same legal constraints as every other citizen -- such as the laws of orevious [~wo months although that ~s extended in special defamation, contempt, trespass, harassment and e hundred others. circumstances. The Code wil{ often require more of journalists than that demanded by if the PCC regards the comp aint as raising a possible issue under law, but it will never require less the Code. the editor will be approached and given seven days to formulate an initial response. The PCC Will then try to see if there is a basis for conciliation, acting as a go-between to find a suitable remedy ~: ;~q~Y~ f conciliation fails, or is inappropriate, or if the case mvotves a The con~ bet~ elth~ reso MOD100036624 i~, ~ ~i
Page 1 and 2: For Distribution to CPs EDITORS’
Page 3 and 4: emind us that there is never room f
Page 5 and 6: =’~he Preamble is the key to unde
Page 7 and 8: ! !~’ ij ¸ For Distribution to C
Page 9 and 10: thai they were token during the occ
Page 11 and 12: For Distribution to CPs OF D £~FA~
Page 13 and 14: For Distribution to CPs terms -- th
Page 15 and 16: For Distribution to CPs ~ ~L~ ~L~C
Page 17 and 18: For Distribution to CPs Dunblane, O
Page 19 and 20: For Distribution to CPs tn a simila
Page 21 and 22: hi~{~~ ’~ ~e~t ~ For Distribution
Page 23 and 24: For Distribution to CPs A magazine
Page 25 and 26: For Distribution to CPs the reporte
Page 27 and 28: For Distribution to CPs ~ onsiderat
Page 29 and 30: The use some ma al f journalist’
Page 31 and 32: Perso~sa~ an~ ~s~e~udicec~ For Dist
Page 33 and 34: For Distribution to CPs t is notabl
Page 35 and 36: ! mUI~ii ! late I ! fret: eli I ali
Page 37 and 38: For Distribution to CPs Was a criro
Page 39 and 40: For Distribution to CPs uNic~tien o
Page 41 and 42: The P/ pubtial saarct" da~e o Th~ r
Page 43 and 44: Relatives bereaved, 33, 37 of peopl
Page 45: CQ ~ten~s E.di~ors" ?ode I F’fat;
Page 49 and 50: For Distribution to CPs aeequate, b
Page 51 and 52: Hate likely complainants been given
Page 53 and 54: For Distribution to CPs delay, affe
Page 55 and 56: Priv shot phol rul~ sex the For Dis
Page 57 and 58: For Distribution to CPs Private hea
Page 59 and 60: For Distribution to CPs AA&rd v M~n
Page 61 and 62: For Distribution to CPs i~! ~ Kimbl
Page 63 and 64: For Distribution to CPs the riskof
Page 65 and 66: For Distribution to CPs to bs dons,
Page 67 and 68: For Distribution to CPs victims und
Page 69 and 70: Gudt s~ 8ssoc~aUon For Distribution
Page 71 and 72: For Distribution to CPs deception a
Page 73 and 74: For Distribution to CPs ~ reservati
Page 75 and 76: For Distribution to CPs Id normally
Page 77 and 78: For Distribution to CPs upheld. ,~
Page 79 and 80: notification to the prosecution for
Page 81 and 82: For Distribution to CPs need to dem
Page 83 and 84: i) The Press must take care not to
Page 85 and 86: ~ ~ ~ CLICK ON A PAGE NUMBER TO FIN

The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?