The Edi ' - The Leveson Inquiry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

For Distribution to CPs of Practice does not attempt to dupiica~e the law. particutar regard to th~ s are bound by the same legal constraints ~S every freedbm of expressior an ~- and, increasingly, by afew extra, media~specific, literary or artistic matt, into account any relay ors and journalists a~e assumed ~e recognise ~beir Editors’ Code, with its ~ili~ under both ~minal and civil law. The Code extra burden of responsibility On them, beyond the freedom ef e×pressior nts of the usual awe of contempt, defamation, ~ Financial servicae: F discrimination end the rest. w thin the stringent dL~ /den ru e, therefore, When applying any Of the key and Markets Act 2000 ~r ~he Code, is to ask: Is it safe tagalI~ The Code may wou d be totally mpra ore than ~he law, but never less. thS~ead, the Code’~ es a complaint under the C6d~ inhibit legal redress, were supplemented b ants de not sign a legal waiver, but merely undertake guidance 0n the type, sue legal act On concurrently With a PCC investigation. cutup a nante rare y take both the ego and se f- ," route. er, whe the Code does not replace the law, its ~ EU Market Abuse Oil Code are also recogn Securities Regulators is recagnised by the courts in several areas: Abuse Directive. ’roteetior~: An exemption for some journalistic, literary This avoided the n~ directive Was implem~ ~c work in specific circumstances was included in the ’rctection Act 1998. In hearing caseS, judges may take ~t of a number of designated codes Of practice ng the Editors’ Code. ~S÷~ ~,"~}~;’~q~ journa ism best pracfi April 2005. Human Rights: ]’here was a risk as the Human Rights Bill was going through Parliament, tha~ it could become a backdoor privacy law, accessible only to the rich and famous, and undermining the more publtcty accessible PCc. The Bill was amended to include e ctausa requiring judges to pay ~f the PraamP~e embraces the spirit of the Code, then Clause 1 goes to the heart of good practice. The Code does not demand infallibility; it requires that care shou~e be taken. It is about getting the story right in the first place, putting it right if mistakes are made and -- where appropriate saying Sorry This c=ause accounts for the maJority of complaints to the PCC. That will surorise no-one familiar with the :)ace at which newssaDers and magazines are ~roduced but it Should not excuse reckless or SloPpy journalism The PCC has reminded editors that accuracy is particularly important in dealing with emotive topics such as asylum seekers or mental health, where there Is danger of craatl ng fear and hostility not borne out by facts, and where allegations are made, ahead of formal proceedings, suggesting an individual has committed er ~s susoected of -- a criminal offence. The absence of e Public interest exception to justify inaccuracy increases the burden on editers. Se-~, S~:~ion S t:~UD]]:/oi~;r~’~ As with all else in the Code, it is e question of balance. Care must be taken to minimise both errors and their impact. Mistakes may be Inevitable, but it is {m Dortsnt that they are put right swiftly and cleany The Code rules on accuracy break down into two mare areas. covenng pro-publication and pos~-publ~cet~on The Cede ~s careful not to demand perfect accuracy, which would be impessibte t~ achieve. Instead, sub-c{ause II obliges publications te take care not te publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted material, including pictures That is a simple, practical and deliverable requirement, apptying te eli they de ahead of publication. If sufficient care were taken, then that would be a defenca to any subsequent complaint. The tests to apply would include such ssues as: Are there reasonable grounds for believing the p~eca ~s accurate? Have proper checks been made? 52 MUD100036627
Hate likely complainants been given an adequate opportunity to respond? For Distribution to CPs Proving sufficient care: A complaint by the European Commission ~a~m ~ M~il on Sund~,: H~orl 53. 2000~ was rejected because the PCC decided the paper had taken sufficient care to check the accuracy of a story suggesting an EC summit was to discuss a £30a-year levy on telephone Fines Was it significant? The spidt of the Code protects a substantially true story from failing due to a trifling error, The PCC’s commonsense test of significance is simple: How much does it really matter?. Getting a name wrong could be merely irritating -- or wholly fundamental. The context would be crucial. The PCC might need to decide if the alleges error, taken alone, was of consequence, or even if a series of relatively minor errors, taken together, were likely to mislead or distort. .... Firet, the story was based on a report on an official EC webslte whch gave no ndication that it was out of date;second the paper had twice asked the EC press office to comment, but received no In 1998 m ~nt ;J The GuaMdi~n’ R~.#or~ 45 ~9} a man who had wdtten criticallysbout The Guardian, ’ complalncledt~tap~e~:di~aa ’" ’ h d published in response was littered with ins curs los, g response; and third, it had made clear this was a proposal for ~h:;hu:~h:hedh a .^._...,__ ____.^ ._ _ __+,...4,..,.~, ~.PGG decaea the news ,a ernadanen to - g cons deretion which had not been adopted These checks showed " P P nvestigate s cr tic who had made serious allegations against it. In the that the oscar " " had taken sufficient care on a s P nts ¯ . context of the piece all the points were minor ~ except rer * an errsr The case demonstrates that ad tots are not a ways respons b e over VAT repayment. That was s gnif cant, but had already been for potenbally mlsieadmg reports. There can be factors over which ........ corrected by the newspaper, ins compiamz was rejecrea. they can have no control and there can be occe s one when the error is caused by contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. Conversely a complaint against a Sunday tabloid was upheld Was it tree? If the point is significant, the next test Is whether it is because the paper failed to put details of an uncorroborated kiss- true. The PCC will expect from editors supporting evidence for e and-tell story to the subject of the piece prior to publication. The PCC story, wherever possible, demonstratmg that it wasn t maccurete, ruled ~V~rkishif v Sund~3y Spm~-t- ~,÷po*r 5& 2~0~ ,’~ that this misleading or distorted. However, the truth is not always easy to amounted to insufficient caie to establish the truth establish, especially if a newspaper or magazine is relying for its information on a single confidential source, which it has a duty to 3rotect under the Code S~,~ C?aus~- 1A Com’~o~nu~ scmz::~:m. This requires publications to offer a suitable remedy if the story, mcludtng pictures, was significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted. The burden of proof, as always in the PCC system, falls on the editors+/f they wish to claim the story was true, then they will need to demonstrate that there were no significant inaccuracies or distortions and that it was not m~stesemg. Even if the story was not entirely correct, the newspaper would Be exonerated if it could demonstrate that it had taken sufficient care to avoid inaccuracy, or that it had offered a suitable remedy The PCC has no powers of sue-peens, or of veritying unsupported ewoence and n rare cases it has preyed ~mpossible to decide whether a story was accurate or not, In such situations, the ............................ whether it is reasonable for the complainant to be given an opportunity to reply. In 2002 Cabinet Minister Charles Clarke accused a newscaper of inventing a story that he ~ad ’told friends’ he regarded the Speaker of the House of Commons as a liability ~C[#s+¢x~ MP 7/~÷ Tm’~:s 7~.7; ~. t ~+~;~t~.~5~ ~Vt~2 ’~’il’#
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 and 46: CQ ~ten~s E.di~ors" ?ode I F’fat;
Page 47 and 48: For Distribution to CPs major polic
Page 49: For Distribution to CPs aeequate, b
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?