Editors' Blog | Journalism.co.uk » High Court

Telegraph: James and Rupert Murdoch to be questioned under oath

Rachel McAthy — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:48:35 +0000

The Telegraph reported yesterday that both James and Rupert Murdoch are to be questioned under oath in the High Court as part of the Lord Leveson inquiry into phone hacking.

According to the paper’s report Lord Leveson is also “keen” for the inquiry to be broadcast live. A Cabinet Office spokesman declined to comment on whether the Murdochs will be questioned, but told Journalism.co.uk live coverage of the inquiry is being looked into. The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is tomorrow, with reportedly “dozens of letters” already having been sent to potential witnesses to ask for their input.

The Murdochs, as well as Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks, both former editors of the News of the World, are likely to be called.

David Cameron and other senior politicians are also likely to be questioned over their links to News International, the parent company of the News of the World.

Today Reuters also reported that lawyers for News International are carrying out “a broad inquiry into reporting practices at all of the company’s UK newspapers”.

Citing sources who have been briefed about the inquiry Reuters reports that lawyers for law firm Linklaters will be “looking for anything that US government investigators might be able to construe as evidence the company violated American law”.

In addition to conducting personal interviews with selected journalists, lawyers will also be looking at email and financial records, said this source.

A News International spokesman confirmed that a review of journalistic standards is underway at News International, which Linklaters is assisting with.

“This is part of a process that started a number of weeks ago and is under the ultimate control of the News Corp board through the independent director Viet Dinh, Joel Klein and the Management and Standards Committee”.Similar Posts:

Independent: John Prescott evidence triggered new inquiry into phone hacking

Rachel McAthy — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:38:39 +0000

The High Court yesterday heard that evidence relating to Lord John Prescott’s claim of phone hacking by the News of the World helped to trigger the new police investigation into phone hacking, the Independent reports today.

This followed news yesterday that Lord Prescott and three other individuals, including Labour MP Chris Bryant, who also allege that the News of the World hacked their phones, have again applied to the High Court for a judicial review into the police inquiry of the matter.

Lord Prescott, Mr Bryant, ex-Met deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick and journalist Brendan Montague want to take judicial proceedings against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Their previous application was rejected in February, the BBC reports.Similar Posts:

Number of libel claims last year highest in a decade, claims law firm

Adam Levitt — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:22:01 +0000

More defamation claims were issued in the high court last year than in any year since 1998, according to London law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.

Figures released yesterday by the firm reveal that 298 claims were issued in 2009, a 15 per cent rise on the 259 in 2008.

The figure for 2009 is also the highest since the introduction of civil prodedure rules in 1999, known as the Woolf reforms, which were designed to reduce the risk of costly disputes and aid pre-court settlements.

Jaron Lewis, media partner at RPC says: “This is the third year in a row where the number of claims has increased, firmly putting to bed the notion that libel law is not a serious challenge for the media. There are now nearly 50 per cent more libel claims each year than there were three years ago.

“Despite efforts to reduce the likelihood of expensive defamation litigation, the number of claims has been creeping up consistently as claimants continue to rely on favourable laws to bring expensive and often unnecessary litigation through the courts.”

RPC points to the increasing number of defamation cases being brought by new law firms, amount of material published on a daily basis, particularly online, and a rise in the number of claims brought relating to allegations of involvement with extremist groups and terrorism.

According to Lewis, the number of claims reaching trial has remained constant, suggesting that more claims are being settled or withdrawn before trial.

Libel reform coverage on Journalism.co.uk Editors’ BlogSimilar Posts:

Cameroon journalist appealing deportation to appear at High Court next week

Rachel McAthy — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:04:42 +0000

Cameroon journalist Charles Atangana will appear at the High Court on Thursday 7 October as part of his application to seek a judicial review of a deportation order, according to a release by the NUJ.

In June this year, Atangana was informed that his application for asylum had been refused, six years after arriving in the UK.

With support from the NUJ, which led a campaign for the reversal of the order, he was awarded a temporary reprieve and six weeks bail last month in order to appeal the decision.

Atangana came to the UK claiming he had been detained and tortured in Cameroon. Following the refusal of his asylum claim, the NUJ called on its members to write in protest to their local MPs and now also urges journalists and other trade union members to join in a demonstration outside the High Court on The Strand in London on Thursday next week.

Last month Journalism.co.uk went to meet Charles at the NUJ offices in London:

Similar Posts:

High court ruling ‘not a complete loss’ for Jon Gaunt, says Liberty

Laura Oliver — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:01:28 +0000

Legal office for human rights group Liberty, who backed Jon Gaunt’s high court appeal against an Ofcom ruling that said he breached the broadcasting code, argues on Index on Censorship that the high court’s decision was not a complete loss for the “shock jock”.

Gaunt lost his appeal against the industry regulator, which censured him last year for calling local councillor Michael Stark a “health nazi” in an interview about children in care.

Corrina Ferguson from Liberty says the high court has laid down some important principles with regards to freedom of expression, but failed to follow its own rules:

It is difficult to understand why calling someone a Nazi once (and in a measured tone) could be deserving of the highest protection as political speech, but saying it again with more force is not protected at all. There are of course limits on free speech and it would be nonsensical to protect absolutely one person’s right to speak freely when it would have a grave impact on the rights of others – incitement to murder being an obvious example. But there is no right not to be offended.

It is very much hoped that this aspect of the judgment will be improved upon in the Court of Appeal. There is a real danger that allowing the regulator to intervene in this type of case will have chilling effect on robust political interviews. The Human Rights Act protects shock jocks as much as flagship political commentators and free speech is no more worthy with extra syllables.

Full post on Index on Censorship…Similar Posts:

High court ruling imposes new ‘threshold of seriousness’ for defamation

Judith Townend — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:01:08 +0000

An interesting and significant ruling on defamation was yesterday made in the High Court; here’s a quick round-up from the reports.

Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed the claim that part of Lynn Barber’s Daily Telegraph review of ‘Seven Days in the Art World’ by Sarah Thornton (in 2008, but no longer available online) was defamatory.

The Lawyer reports:

Thornton brought the defamation action against The Daily Telegraph after journalist Lynn Barber claimed in a review of Thornton’s book Seven Days in the Art World that the author gave her interviewees copy approval – a practice of which Barber said journalists disapproved.

TMG’s lawyer, David Price Solicitors & Advocates, said that the ruling was a judgement that “raised the threshold” for defamation.

In a statement, the solicitor says:

Solicitor Advocate David Price, acting for the Telegraph Group, successfully argued for a qualification, or threshold of seriousness, to be applied to defamation claims in order to prohibit trivial claims, thereby effectively raising the bar for claimants.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, accepting this argument gave a new definition of what may constitute defamation as follows [para 95 of Tugendhat judgment]:

“the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it [substantially] affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him, or has a tendency so to do”.

Inclusion of the word “substantially” is crucial and is likely to set a higher bar for defamation cases in future.

The Inforrm blog also emphasises this point, stating that a “novel ‘threshold of seriousness’” had been entered into the legal definition of what constitutes a “defamatory” imputation. “The consequences are potentially far reaching,” it continues.

Read Inforrm’s full post and comment at this link…Similar Posts:

High Court does not collect statistics on ‘super injunctions’

Judith Townend — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:54:11 +0000

Statistics about non-reportable injunctions, the so-called secret ‘super injunctions’ are not collected by the High Court, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Bridget Prentice said yesterday, in answer to a written Parliamentary question.

MP Paul Farrelly tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State for Justice ‘if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.’

Bridget Prentice answered that the information requested is not currently available and the High Court has no intention to collate such data:

“The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.”

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Oct 2009

(Hat-tip: @loveandgarbage on Twitter)

Journalism.co.uk coverage of the case involving the Guardian, Trafigura and Carter-Ruck can be found at this link

Similar Posts:

Independent in High Court to challenge closed court cases

Judith Townend — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:11:56 +0000

The Independent reports how its group, Independent News & Media (INM), supported by other media organisations, is currently challenging private hearings for certain cases.

“The cases involve vulnerable people incapable of managing their own affairs, including brain-damaged soldiers, people with Alzheimer’s disease and others lacking mental capacity.

“In a test case before the High Court in London, this newspaper argued that such matters should not be decided in secret by the newly created Court of Public Protection.”

This latest challenge follows the opening up of the family courts earlier this year.

The case will continue at the High Court today.

Independent story at this link…Similar Posts:

Twitter injunction: ‘No such thing as unfettered freedom of speech’ says right-wing blogger

Judith Townend — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:14:57 +0000

Yesterday we noted how the UK High Court served its first order via Twitter, saying that the social website and microblogging service was the best way to reach an anonymous Tweeter who had been impersonating someone.

Solicitors Griffin Law sought the injunction against @blaneysblarney claiming that it was impersonating the solicitor Donal Blaney – the owner of Griffin Law – who uses the name Blaney’s Blarney for his right-wing political blog.

His barrister, Matthew Richardson, is triumphing it as the ‘Blaney’s Blarney order’ – a success in the battle against anonymous abuse online, he said.

But it also raises questions about the threat to freedom of speech caused by such an order. Cynics might also suggest such a high-profile move was simply good PR for Blaney’s firm. Journalism.co.uk put these questions to Donal Blaney this morning:

Bypassing Twitter to court

Blaney said he chose not to contact Twitter but go straight to court, because the microblogging service is like the ‘very worst ISPs were 10 years ago’, who said ‘oh it’s not our fault, we just provide the platform’.

“Well, the court says ‘no chaps. It is your fault’. You are a publisher and you are just as liable as if the Daily Telegraph published something,” argued Blaney.

When he approached the service during another case – his client wanted to have an account removed – he had found Twitter unhelpful: “It took a week for the offending account to be taken down – which is outrageous. Getting hold of Twitter is impossible. They don’t provide a phone number. There is a fax number that no one replied to.”

High risk strategy, but good PR

“Ok yes, I am getting good coverage on this,” Blaney admits. “But equally if it had gone wrong people would have called me a prat.”

Blaney is not convinced it will win him additional clients: “Unfortunately the way the legal profession works, even though I might like to think ‘oh great on the back of this every celeb or sportsperson who is being impersonated is going to come and use my firm’, I know they’re not.

“I was resigned to having to waste a week of my life chasing Twitter to get them to take it down. I thought it was worth giving it a go in court. I’m at risk on damages.”

[Cross-undertaking damages: applicant will be required to pay the damage caused to the defendant arising from the grant of the interim injunction, if it turns out the injunction should not have been ordered in the first place]

Bullying not parody, says Blaney

Blaney said it was not an instance of satire or parody in his view: “The grounds under which I got the order were breach of copyright and passing off.” And the court agreed, he says, or he wouldn’t have got the order.

“It is bullying, that is precisely what it is: to set up an account in someone else’s name. To pass yourself off as them, to contact your friends and pretend to be them. To use your image, to use the name of your blog, to deliberately and maliciously to screw with someone else’s head. That’s bullying: exactly the same concept as flushing someone’s head down a toilet or anything else,” he claimed.

He said he advised others – and names at least one celebrity currently being mocked in a similar fashion – to think about similar action:

“If it’s a situation where someone’s being parodied this is not the route to pursue; if it’s a situation where someone is being stalked or bullied or harassed, or having their intellectual property rights infringed, I would encourage them to do this.”

Blaney believes harassment ‘trumps’ the right to freedom of speech:

“There are two other things that trump freedom of speech: right to [intellectual] property and infringing copyright,” he argues.

“There is a boundary which gets overtaken – harassment, the malicious causing of harassment and distress. There’s no such thing as unfettered freedom of speech.”

And what next?

The account holder must obey the court order, or will be in contempt of court. But what Blaney’s next step is, he doesn’t know. “Will this person just take the site down and not reveal their identity?” he asks.

If it is closed, that would only solve it ‘up to a point’ he claims, adding ‘but it depends if I can be bothered to go after the individual behind it.’

Journalism.co.uk has attempted to contact @blaneysblarney for further comment (via Twitter.)

What do you think? Was the court correct to issue such an order? What are the implications for online anonymity?Similar Posts:

Journalism Daily: Freelance photographers’ rights, AFP reporters injured and Express rapped by ASA

Laura Oliver — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:16:46 +0000

Journalism.co.uk is trialling a new service via the Editors’ Blog: a daily round-up of all the content published on the Journalism.co.uk site.

We hope you’ll find it useful as a quick digest of what’s gone on during the day (similar to our e-newsletter) and to check that you haven’t missed a posting.

We’ll be testing it out for a couple of weeks, so you can subscribe to the feed for the Journalism Daily here.

Let us know what you think – all feedback much appreciated.

News and features:

Ed’s picks:

Tip of the day:

Working with developers

#FollowJourn:

@adamoxford/freelancer

On the Editors’ blog:

The printing press versus Jesus… what year would you vote for?

Similar Posts:

Independent.co.uk: Online ‘made a mockery of High Court’ in Baby P case

Laura Oliver — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:44:39 +0000

“The rules which should have prevented online publication are governed by an outdated piece of legislation enacted at a time when Parliament could not have comprehended what a website might be, never mind know how one might work in the context of the criminal law,” writes the Independent’s law editor, Robert Verkaik.

Verkaik is referring to the transgression of reporting restrictions, which banned the identification of Baby P’s mother and stepdad, by bloggers, online forum users and Facebook groups. The restrictions were officially lifted this week.

“There then appears to be a double standard at work, where the law is incapable of punishing flagrant breaches of court orders by internet transgressors while imposing draconian sentences on the mainstream media for committing much less serious breaches. The internet was born into a lawless cyberspace and has little respect for the fusty orders of the High Court.”

Full article at this link…Similar Posts:

It’s old-fashioned journalism from the bunker and there’s more to come, says Telegraph

Judith Townend — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:21:37 +0000

So who wants the films rights to MPs’ expenses? It’s on a far less grave subject, but maybe it will be like the 9/11 films; the aftermath still permeating society, when the scripts are sold and production started. The next general election may not even have happened. Gordon Brown could still be Prime Minister. Just.

Or perhaps (Sir? ‘Lord’ is less likely given the target) Will Lewis’ memoirs will have been on sale for a while first, before the 21st century’s equivalent of ‘All the President’s Men’ is released, to allow the dust to settle.

Whichever way, this archetypal British plot is the stuff of a (Working Title, maybe) director’s dream; even if the journalism itself is markedly not Watergate, as most hardened investigative hacks and other journalists at rival titles are quick to point out. The gate of significance in this story is the one at the end of the second home’s garden path. No Deep Throat, just Deep Pockets.

A small group of privileged Telegraph journalists has been embedded from early till late in what’s apparently known as ‘the bunker’ – a room separate from the main newsroom, away from the ‘hub and spokes’, away from the Twitterfall graphic projected on the wall – sifting through the details of thousands upon thousands of supermarket, DIY store and restaurant receipts and other documents.

It’s got all the ingredients for the heroic hack flick: the furtive deal with the middle man and the original whistleblower, for an undisclosed sum (no doubt to be revealed in Lewis’ or possibly Ben Brogan’s memoirs), at one point rumoured to be £300,000.

While this whole expose – the ‘Expenses Files’ as the Telegraph first called it – is most definitely built on a film-like fantasy, it is grounded in career-breaking political change, and last night’s audience at the Frontline Club for a debate on the paper’s handling of the stories, got a little insight into the process; a rare chance, as the paper has mainly been very quiet on just how it’s done it.

The ‘consequences were massively in the public interest,’ argued the Telegraph’s assistant editor, Andrew Pierce, who popped up on BBC Breakfast news this morning as well. “It was brilliant, brilliant old fashioned journalism (…) at its finest.

“It’s so exciting – you were aware you had stuff, it was going to change things, and boy it has…

“Of course it’s been terrific for the circulation – we’re a newspaper and we’re there to make sales.”

According to Pierce, 240 broadsheet pages covering the story have been published so far.

“So far we’ve published one correction: we got a house mixed up. I’d say in terms of journalism that ain’t a bad ratio.”

That was disputed by one member of last night’s panel, Stephen Tall, editor-at-large for the Liberal Democrat Voice website; he’s unlikely to get a cameo as it would rather spoil the plot.

Tall’s complaint was that three stories on Liberal Democrats have been misrepresented in separate stories and received insufficient apology; something Journalism.co.uk will follow up on elsewhere, once we’ve moved on from this romanticised big screen analogy.

Back to the glory: Pierce described how journalists from around the world had been to peek at the unfolding scene of action – they’ve had camera crews from Turkey, Thailand and China, in for visits, he said.

There’s a ‘sense of astonishment’, he added. ‘They thought quaint old Britain’, the mother of all democracies, ‘was squeaky clean.’

The story, Pierce claimed, ‘has reverberated all the way around the world’. “We actually are going to get this sorted out. Were MPs really able to set their own pay levels? Their own expenses levels? And it was all tax free.”

‘Old-fashioned journalism lives on’ has become the war cry of the Telegraph and its champions, in defence of the manner in which it acquired and dealt with the data.

For raw blogging it is not. Any CAR is kept secret in-house. Sharing the process? Pah! This is as far away from a Jarvian vision of journalism built-in-beta as you can imagine. While other news operations – the Telegraph’s own included – increasingly open up the inner workings (former Telegraph editor Martin Newland’s team at The National in Abu Dhabi tweeted live from a significant meeting yesterday morning) not a social media peep comes from the bunker till the paper arrives back from the printers.

There might be little teasers on the site with which to taunt their rivals, but for the full meaty, pictorial evidence it’s paper first, online second. Rivals, Pierce said, have to ‘wait for the second edition before they rip it off’.

Nobody has it confirmed how much they officially coughed up for the story – ‘we don’t use the words bought or paid,’ said Pierce. Though last night’s host, Guardian blogger and journalism professor Roy Greenslade, twice slipped in a speculative reference to £75,000, Pierce refused to be drawn.

“Fleet Street has existed for years on leaks,” said Pierce, as justification. “We will stick to our guns (…) and not discuss whether money changed hands.”

Enter the hard done by heroine of the piece: Heather Brooke. Much lauded and widely respected freedom of information campaigner, she and other journalists – one from the Sunday Telegraph (Ben Leapman); one from the Times (Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas) – did the mind-numbingly boring hours of Freedom of Information requests and tedious legal battles over several years, only to lose the scoop to a chequebook.

Will she get a part in the government-destroyed-by-dodgy-expenses film? If Independent editor, Roger Alton, was casting she certainly would. In fact, she deserves a damehood, he declared last night.

A member of the audience asked whether Alton would have paid for the information himself if he had had the chance. Unlike his last foray to the Frontline, the Independent editor knew he was being filmed this time. A pause for ethical reflection before he answered, then:

“We’ve barely got enough money to cover a football match for Queens Park Rangers. Take a wild guess! Any journalist would cut off their left arm and pickle it in balsamic vinegar!”

That’s a yes then, we presume.

Apparently, Sun editor Rebekah Wade turned it down after being told there wasn’t much chance of a Jacqui Smith style porn revelation or a cabinet resignation. “She asked ‘would this bring down a cabinet minster?’ And she was told it wouldn’t,” claimed Pierce. How wrong the data tout(s) were about their own stuff.

More embarrassing for the Telegraph, though Pierce said he knew nothing of it, was Brooke’s revelation that the Sunday Telegraph had refused to back their man financially, a case which Brooke, Leapman and Ungoed-Thomas finally won in the High Court – the judge ordered disclosure of all receipts and claims of the 14 MPs in original requests, along with the addresses of their second homes.

Update: Ben Leapman responds on Jon Slattery’s blog here: “I never asked my employer to pay for a lawyer because I took the view that journalists ought, in principle, be able to go to FoI tribunals themselves without the barrier of having to pay. I also took the view, probably rather arrogantly, that in this emerging field of law I was perfectly capable of putting the arguments directly without a lawyer.” Leapman was represented by solicitor advocate Simon McKay ‘very ably for no fee’ in the High Court, he writes.

Publication of all MPs’ expense claims are now forthcoming, after redaction (‘a posh word for tippexing out,’ said Pierce.) In July 2008, ‘parliament went against the court by exempting some information – MPs’ addresses – from disclosure,’ the Guardian reported.

Now, for a name for our blockbuster. ‘The Month Before Redaction‘? ‘Bunker on Buckingham Palace Road‘? ‘646 Expense Forms and a Re-shuffle‘? I can predict a more likely tag line at least, the now all too familiar: ‘They said they acted within the rules’.

The ending to this expenses epic is not yet known, but there won’t be many happy endings in Parliament. Pierce promises more stories, with no firm end date, but unsurprisingly, didn’t give any hint of what lies ahead. Could an even bigger scoop be on its way? Who’s left?Similar Posts:

Update: Jacob Zuma still pursuing case against Guardian

Laura Oliver — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:17:16 +0000

Jacob Zuma is continuing his civil case against the Guardian newspaper, despite an apology run by the paper this week for an article about the South African presidential candidate.

The article by Simon Jenkins, which has been removed from the Guardian website, suggested he was guilty of rape.

The reference was the result of an editing error, the paper maintains – Zuma was acquitted of rape charges in 2006, it said in its apology.

After publication Zuma demanded an apology and legal proceedings against the paper for libel have commenced in the High Court, a release from Zuma’s legal firm Schillings said on Monday.

The paper’s statement on April 21 was ‘unacceptable to Mr Zuma’, a spokeswoman on behalf of Zuma told Journalism.co.uk.

“Mr Zuma’s civil claim for damages and an appropriate apology against The Guardian continues,” she said.

“Both legal teams for Mr Zuma and The Guardian are continuing their negotiations about the damages amount that will be payable and how an acceptable apology will be made.

“Should there not be an acceptable out of court resolution, the matter is likely to go to trial.”

A spokeswoman for the Guardian made no further comment beyond Tuesday’s published apology.Similar Posts:

Rebekah Wade’s first public speech in full

Judith Townend — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:47:56 +0000

If the Wordle and other coverage isn’t enough, here’s the Hugh Cudlipp speech by the editor of the Sun, Rebekah Wade, in full [note: may have differed very slightly in actual delivery]:

The challenging future of national and regional newspapers is now the staple diet of media commentators.

If you have been reading the press writing about the press you’d all be forgiven for questioning your choice of career.

I’m not denying we’re in a tough place – we are.

But I don’t want to use this speech to make grand statements on the future of our industry.

I want to talk to you about journalism.

As students, you will be very familiar with the academic analysis.

So tonight I thought I could share some of my own experiences in this often infuriating but always fascinating profession.

I started out as Eddie Shah’s tea girl and went on to attend this college before starting work at The News of The World.

This educational video, produced in the 1940s by a Professor Twogood, reminded me of my early years.

[shows video]

Fortunately the majority of my colleagues did NOT share Twogood’s view on women in the newsroom.

But there were a few!

When, at the age of 27, I was made deputy editor of the News of the World, some struggled with the concept.

At the corporate golf day, a senior male executive lost the buttons off his shirt.

The editor and I were busy meeting and greeting our high profile guests when suddenly a golf shirt and some buttons were thrust into my hand.

“When you’ve gotta minute darlin’ – sew ‘em back on for me, I’m teeing off in twenty minutes.”

Despite needlework not being my strong point, I did have the shirt ready in time.

And we were all sorry to hear what happened to him.

But trust me, no amount of studying you do here will prepare you for the sheer exhilaration of working in a newsroom.

It’s intoxicating. Because as a journalist, you can make a difference.

And today I hope you will leave this lecture hall more convinced than ever that journalism is the career for you.

I think it’s important that we start by dealing with the doom mongering.

Firstly – newspaper pessimism is age old.

Nearly as old as some of our media commentators I can see in the audience.

In ancient Rome, Julius Caesar produced the Acta Diurna. A daily gazette described by historians as:

‘Hand written journals posted in Rome and the provinces with the intention of feeding the populace information.’

As well as political decisions and military campaigns, I smiled when I read that these newsletters were said to record:

‘Gladiatorial contests, astrological omens, scandals, notable births, deaths and marriages, trials and executions.’

If you think about it not much has changed.

Our newspapers are still full of:

Gladiatorial contests.

We just call it Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Astrological Omens

Our own Mystic Meg

Scandals

Well they did until Justice Eady came along.

Notable Deaths

Obituary pages are still a must read.

Notable births

And trials and executions….well, we do have the Daily Mail.

Even in 59 BC these newsletters caused great debate and later rulers banned them, feeling they had no future.

The first modern newspaper was published to general scepticism in 1609.

But four hundred years later we are still here.

I believe for one reason only:

Journalism.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves.

I am not alone in thinking 2009 will see a seismic change to our national newspapers.

And to understand some of the issues, it’s worth a quick analysis of our industry in 2008.

The ABCs of our national daily newspapers show that last year 382,000 people stopped buying a daily paper.

And if you look at this chart – is it a coincidence that the biggest losses are where we’ve seen the biggest cuts in journalism?

Of course, the answers to our industry problems are more complex than that.

Last year, we gave away over 163 million copies in bulks to maintain these levels.

We listed 270 million foreign sales.

We gave away 120 million free CD’s and DVDs – of questionable quality and at enormous cost – just to rent readers.

We paid our retailers and wholesalers over 800 million pounds in margins that have outstripped RPI.

And while 1,400 corner shops closed, it’s been years since we developed alternative new routes to market.

We saw another increase in the number of free newspapers. In 2008 we distributed 639 million copies.

The huge growth in digital still doesn’t pay for high quality journalism.

We give away our expensive editorial content free online without an economic model that compensates for the loss in traditional revenues.

The rising cost of news and magazine print is in double figures and there is the small matter of the recession.

But despite all these challenges, there are huge positives. Especially if you compare our industry to television.

Despite the credit crunch, 3.5 billion daily newspapers were sold last year with an estimated 1.8 billion pounds in advertising revenue.

Of course like any business in a recession, we have to cut costs and drive revenue to survive.

But cost cutting in this business only works if the savings are reinvested in journalism.

The death knell is already ringing for publishers who have forgotten our reason for being.

And leaving aside state funded and trust supported journalism, those of us struggling to survive in a free market have seen our competitors in the business change dramatically.

At The Sun, our scale means we now view prime time ITV as more of a competitor for advertising revenue than other newspapers.

Ten years ago, 30 TV programmes delivered a larger audience than The Sun. Now there are only three or four on commercial channels that can consistently deliver that scale:

Paid for media undersells itself. So even with our reach and demographics, national newspaper advertising revenues are predicted to be down 12 per cent this year.

As an industry we have perfected the art of beating ourselves up.

Sometimes I think we need a PR.

With these market forces, it’s even more important to remember why we exist:

Journalism.

Newspapers do not have the monopoly.

Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton regularly break stories that we would kill for at The Sun. Sky News, ITN, compete for buy ups and investigations.

And with the growth of citizen journalism the public are competing with news agencies.

In Germany, Bild are even selling their readers digital cameras complete with USB so they can upload their video content directly to the newsdesk. Which I think is very exciting.

Hugh Cudlipp is remembered for his belief in campaigning journalism.

Great press campaigns can change history and shape new laws. They can build a bridge between public opinion and public policy.

But they also require monetary investment and long term commitment.

The Times under Thomas Barnes campaigned brilliantly and relentlessly for the introduction of the Reform Act of 1832 which set this country on the road to universal suffrage.

The Sunday Times uncovered the scandal of Thalidomide victims in the 70s and five years later provided thousands of children with much needed compensation.

The Daily Mail’s Stephen Lawrence campaign for justice pioneered brave and uncharted waters for newspapers as did the Daily Mirrorr’s fight for the ‘Bridgewater Four’.

All these campaigns and hundreds more have made a huge difference to the lives of ordinary people in this country.

Whether it is The Guardian’s call to Free Our Data or The Telegraphs fight for savers, The Independent’s battle for Fair Pay or The Mail’s ban on plastic bags.

They are all valuable ways of connecting with your readership above and beyond any marketing or promotional strategy.

Every newspaper, has in its history, causes for pride.

However, to make this point, I will have to use my own experiences to demonstrate how this connection, this collective power between a newspaper and it’s readers can be a force for good.

Last November on a visit to Afghanistan I found myself wandering around camp Bastian in search of a missing page three girl, (as you do) when I was apprehended by an angry sergeant major.

With clear contempt for my blue press flak jacket and out of bounds location, he sneered as he demanded to know what media outlet I was from.

The Sun, I said. Hoping this was the right answer.

Well, it was as if I had told him he was coming back home to Brise Norton with us that night.

A broad smile. A big handshake. A thank you for all the Sun readers support. A shout to his colleagues, more thanks, everyone wearing our Help for Heroes band.

Their pride in our pride for them.

And Becky, 22, from Bromley was safely returned.

But the serious aspect of my trip was to see for myself the result and the importance of our Help For Heroes campaign.

Travelling from Kabul to the farthest forward operating bases in Helmand I discovered that their gratitude for any support is overwhelming.

The hostile public opinion to the war in Iraq had led to creeping anti troop sentiment throughout the UK.

This meant desolate parades for homecoming regiments, uniformed soldiers being jeered at in the streets, a lack of support, understanding and sympathy for all they were going through in theatre and a feeling of neglect on their return.

When Bryn and Emma parry set up this charity for the war wounded in 2007 they approached us for help.

Our campaign began with this page one splash and eighteen months later Sun readers have raised millions for state of the art rehabilitation facilities.

We’ve had a number one song from X-Factor.

Prince Charles hosted the first ever Royal Military Awards.

The Prime Minister committed to more funding and the opposition agreed to do the same.

But most importantly the campaign moved the dial on the public’s attitude to the military.

Right now in Helmand, British troops are engaged in some of the fiercest fighting they’ve encountered so far.

Many of our young soldiers have died in this latest push into Taliban strongholds. Others will return physically or psychologically damaged for life.

But if you look at some of the newspapers you’d be forgiven for being totally unaware of this latest battle.

There is now great public awareness and support for the daily heroism displayed by our Armed Forces.

It is up to all of us to report it.

Sarah’s law was one of the more controversial campaigns of my career.

I’ve never really talked about it but in some ways it represents one of my points about campaigning journalism.

Listening to your readers.

The entire nation grieved over the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne and like everyone else I was deeply moved by this terrible tragedy.

I had just joined the News of the World as editor and after the daily pace of The Sun, I was frustrated by the waiting room atmosphere of a Sunday paper newsroom on a Tuesday.

So I took a chance and drove down to see Mike and Sara Payne who were still staying with Sarah’s grandparents. The press pack who were outside waiting for the next police conference, were more than a little surprised when I turned up on the doorstep.

I introduced myself to the Family Liaison officer and I told him I was the editor of the News of the World and I would like to offer my help and support to the Payne family.

Inexplicably Mike and Sara agreed to see me and repercussions of that meeting started the campaign you now know as Sarah’s Law.

It was immediately evident that Sara Payne was an incredible woman. Despite being racked with grief she was determined to get justice for daughter.

She told me that the police already had a suspect. He was a local convicted paedophile whose modus operandi fitted the crime.

He had previous of abusing and abducting and yet he was living near Sarah’s grandparents, unmonitored by any authorities, left ready to strike again.

Roy Whiting it turned out, was one of 110,000 convicted paedophiles living in the community.

The huge inconsistencies and loop holes in the 1997 Sex Offenders Act meant that there were tragedies like Sarah waiting to happen and that all the relevant agencies including the NSPCC had fought for three years to correct this legislation.

But nothing had been done.

From that first meeting, Sara and I spoke nearly every day. We were determined to change the law in Sarah’s memory.

Since then, Sara has lobbied at least five home secretaries and debated the rights and wrongs of the campaign up and down the country with great success.

Naming and shaming was my responsibility.

It was a blunt and contentious way of informing the public of these gaps in policy.

Hard lessons were learnt but I don’t regret the campaign for one minute:

Because in the end it was a simple truth.

As a parent, would you like to know if there was a convicted paedophile living next door?

The answer was always yes.

Parts of the media went on the attack with a blatant disregard for the facts of the campaign or more importantly their readers’ opinions on the matter.

After we published the first list, a group of mothers from an impoverished housing estate in Portsmouth, took to the streets to protest.

The BBC described them as ‘an angry lynch mob’.

What the BBC did not report was that the mothers had just discovered that Victor Burnett, a paedophile with 14 convictions for raping and abusing young boys between the ages of four and nine, had been re-housed amongst them unmonitored by the authorities.

Totally unaware of his background, the residents had complained for years about Burnett’s inappropriate behaviour towards their children but their voices, until then, had remained unheard.

This lack of control and supervision outraged the public. Weak sentencing, the incredible high rate of recidivism and the lack of clear and strong legislation meant there were predators all over the country.

Eight years later, just last month, Sara Payne was awarded a well deserved MBE for her tireless work and for the fourteen new pieces of legislation that form part of Sarah’s Law.

She rightly thanked the general public, in particular the News of the World readers, as without their collective power, nothing would have changed.

But campaigns can also be a lot of fun.

Years ago, an agency filed a story that villagers in a remote corner of Spain were going to celebrate a festival by pushing a donkey off a cliff to it’s death.

Blackie, was to be the sacrificial ass.

The affinity the population have with animals meant they were up in arms at this barbaric cruelty.

In turn, this reaction sparked a Fleet street dash to rescue Blackie and return him to a donkey sanctuary back in England. The victor would surely gain the publics gratitude and lets not forget – an uplift in sales.

The Sun, first on the scene, convinced the farmer to sell us Blackie and with the deal done, went off to celebrate their scoop.

Fatal error.

The Daily Star, arrived, kidnapped Blackie and drove him a hundred miles away to a ‘safe field’ and reaped all the glory.

Similarly, the Tamworth Two – five month old piglets who escaped from a lorry as they were being unloaded at a slaughterhouse – captured the publics imagination.

The search was on for the missing pair Butch and Sundance and once located, the pigs found themselves at the centre of a media auction to save their bacon.

£15,000 later, making them the most expensive pork in history, the Daily Mail had their scoop.

The fight between The Sun and The Mirror to return the 1966 football to Geoff Hurst is legendry newspaper tale.

The story broke that one of the German players, Helmut Haller had kept the winning ball after our world cup victory and thirty years later was now trying to sell it.

Our football loving nation demanded it back.

And Fleet Street was happy to oblige.

At least ten reporters and almost as many photographers descended on some sleepy German village all determined to get the ball which was not much more than a deflated bit of old leather.

£120,000 later, Helmut looked like he’d actually won the world cup and The Mirror were victorious.

These light hearted campaigns are often dismissed by ‘worthy’ sorts. They clearly forget that the readership have a whole gamut of emotions including a sense of humour.

Campaigns provide a unique connection to the public especially when the subject matter is of a serious nature.

For me, nothing can illustrate this connection better than our recent Baby P campaign.

The public outcry was deafening. And we began our fight for justice with a determination to expose the lack of accountability and responsibility for Baby P’s brutal death.

We delivered 1.5 million signatures to Downing Street and the collective power worked.

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls was forced to use emergency legislation to ensure that those responsible were held to account.

We received many many thousands of letters at The Sun about our Baby P coverage. I’d like to read you one:

‘I have never been a huge fan of The Sun, however I thank you for the coverage of Baby P. I am so grateful for the campaign. This is not a modern day witch-hunt but a petition for justice. Please, please do not relent.

In contrast, I’d like to quote from an article in…. ‘The Guardian.’

“Full of fury and repellent hysteria isn’t that part of the game? This is less about the creation of public emotion and more about its manipulation.

This knee-jerk tabloid kicking reaction is just dull.

But total disregard and respect for public opinion never ceases to amaze me.

They demanded accountability.

And as a result of the campaign, some, just some, of those responsible were removed from office without compensation.

Or as this Sun reader wrote:

‘The tabloid press, which the arty-farty press like to look down on so much, has shown that it prides morality over political correctness.’

There is nothing more rewarding than setting the news agenda with your own story.

Every newspaper editor, every journalist, lives for a great scoop.

The newsroom needs journalists who have great contacts, the reporters who can break the news not just report it, the photographers that can bring in the exclusives.

Great investigations, like yesterdays Sunday Times expose of The Labour Lords are lifeblood to newsapers.

I read an article a few weeks ago about The Penny Trumpet that began in 1841. The slogan for this single sheet, one penny publication was ‘quality not quantity’.

A phrase now over used but still a lesson to us all.

The quality of our journalism will make or break our industry not the recession.

Our ancient craft is to tell many people what few people know.

The sheer thrill of disclosure motivates the best journalists.

And as an industry, we should use our collective power to campaign for the freedom to do so.

This country is full of regulators, lawyers and politicians eager to frame and implement legislation that would constrain freedoms hard won over centuries.

We are already losing those freedoms. Privacy legislation is being created by the drip, drip of case law in the High Court without any reference to parliament.

Sometimes I suspect most of the media commentariat are suffering from Munchausen syndrome.

They are certainly making us suffer unnecessarily!

Only journalism allows us to exist. Yet they often decry it’s existence.

And it’s the epitome of self-flagellation when The Guardian publishes Max Mosley’s views on press freedom.

The relentless negativity, this almost morbid fascination with our own demise, must stop.

News International, Associated Newspapers and The Telegraph Group are battling to change the restrictive and prohibitively expensive Conditional Fee Arrangements.

But we need the rest of the industry to win this fight.

The silence is sometimes deafening.

The new distinguished chair of the Press Complaints Commission, Peta Buscombe certainly has her work cut out.

You would understand if the public were interested in our naval gazing. But they are not.

No one really lives in the bubble world of media-metroville.

And every successful business needs to know it’s customer.

Every year, my editorial team go on vacation with Sun readers either at a caravan park or holiday camp.

This year we are off to Sunny Blackpool for four nights as part of our £9.50 holiday promotion .

In 2008 nearly 2.5 million people took up the offer. It makes The Sun the biggest short haul travel firm in the UK.

The holiday is invaluable time with our readership and there are often some surreal moments.

On one such weekend at Butlins in Bognor – we were in the Sun and Moon pub having a few drinks, when one reader decided to make a speech.

‘I love The Sun’, he said, ‘it’s the best. But the editor should be fired.’

Much laughter from my merry team,

He went on to explain the reason for my demise:

‘I couldn’t believe it the other day, I picked up the paper to find that Yasser Arafat’s death got less coverage than Wayne Rooney’s car crash. I mean what’s the world come to?

My political editor George Pascoe Watson was thrilled. Clearly in vino veritas, George stands up and announces: ‘old chap, I’d just like to say on behalf of the political team at The Sun, I totally agree with your sentiments.

‘To be honest mate’ replied the reader. ‘I’m not sure why they employ you either. No one’s interested in that Westminster claptrap you write.’

But the upside of really knowing who your readers are is worth it.

And knowing who your future readers are – is the holy grail.

Tesco’s boss Sir Terry Leahy regularly operates the check out in one of his stores and he even gets his executives to live with Tesco customers for a week to really understand their wants.

As an industry our data collection is traditionally poor. New media has made that more effective but we still trail behind companies like Tesco.

Obama’s election campaign can teach us a lot. The data he already has on his supporters is immense.

We need new ways of engagement – to find out everything about our supporters.

So we can understand their buying habits and provided them with the relevant content, promotions, offers and services they require.

I said, at the beginning, I wasn’t here to give an obituary on our industry, far from it.

Despite our ‘internal’ disagreements, the depth of quality and diversity in our national newspapers will be our salvation.

But it’s important to be prepared for the challenges ahead.

Investment in journalism is the key to long term prosperity yet cost cutting is inevitable.

Journalism needs a free press to thrive yet under the threat of censorship the industry remains divided.

We’ve been masters of the written word for centuries yet we fear a future beyond print.

An independent media is imperative to a democracy yet the recession will hurt all but state funded journalism.

Our traditional business model is still profitable yet we need new ways to connect with our readers to stop the decline.

These contradictions are subject to deep thought in most newspaper companies.

I am optimistic.

And as an industry, we owe it to you, students of our trade, to rise to these challenges.

We need to ask ourselves:

Can we unite to fight against a privacy law that has no place in a democracy ?

Can we agree that self-regulation is the best way to deal with the occasional excesses of a free press?

Can we have a press that has the courage and commitment to listen to and fight for its readers?

Can we survive this economic climate if we keep investment in journalism at the heart of what we do?

I suggest to you tonight: in the words of Bob The Builder, plagiarised by Barak Obama.

Yes. We. Can.

Thank you.Similar Posts:

BNP members list leak gathers pace online – to link or not to link?

Laura Oliver — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:08:54 +0000

Removing the original online posting of the leaked list of members of the British National Party (BNP) has failed to contain the spread of the information online.

The list and reactions to it are being avidly Twittered, as a search for BNP on Twitter search engine Summize shows, while the document has made its way onto Wikileaks.

According to the party’s website, the blog that posted the ‘outdated’ list was removed from Blogger ‘after urgent legal action was instituted by the BNP leadership’.

In a Guardian.co.uk article, BNP leader Nick Griffin has admitted that the party is relying on the Human Rights Act, which it opposes, to help protect its members’ privacy.

Meanwhile reporting on the incident has raised questions of linking, as this blog post from TimesOnline suggests:

“The Times decided not to link to the list, even though we often do link to material without taking that as some kind of endorsement.

“There were various reasons for the decision, most of them expressed in other comments on our various online reports. Firstly, BNP members have as much right to privacy as anyone else. Secondly, last time we checked it was still a free country: there is no law against membership of the BNP.

“The list is out there now, even if a Google search no longer throws it up. The anti-fascist campaigners and phone-prankers are having a field day. We don’t need to help them.”

Blogger Craig McGill adds the following observation on the list’s travels online:

“I see the list has appeared on file sharing outlets? Will social crusaders claim this is a good use for P2P which is normally associated with piracy?”

Similarly a Google Maps mashup has also been created, though, as TechCrunchUK warns, it’s dangerously inaccurate and has the potential to aid vigilantes – while I write the map was taken down because of inaccuracies.

McGill also suggests that this story was broken first by mainstream media, despite being an online story – is this the case? If so, for an online leak, this could be a good sign of ‘traditional’ outlets upping their game when it comes to online news tracking.

Blogger Matt Waldman suggests the story of the leaked list was broken by the Lancaster Unity blog, while TheRegister.co.uk posted a report on the leak at 2:31pm (GMT) on Tuesday – also citing the Lancaster Unity post. MSM not quite first past the post then.

Waldman goes on to discuss the potential legal implications of linking to it:

“Links to material that is alleged to be defamatory (e.g. reports about Nadhmi Auchi preserved on Wikileaks) is part of the basis for the objections that the law firm Carter-Ruck have put to the New Statesman that have caused them to take down articles about Nadhmi Auchi by Martin Bright. No determination has yet been made whether that will stick under English Libel Law, but if the New Statesman and their legal advisers are taking it seriously I wouldn’t go the other way at this point. You will be relying on not being sued, which is your call.”

I haven’t linked to it in this post (though it’s easy enough to find with or without the directions given) for the reasons cited by both Wardman and the Times’ blog post.

The UK’s national newspaper websites aren’t linking either, though Mail Online posts both a screengrab of the list and pictures of alleged members and individual articles are being posted about ‘members’, their identies and any action taken by employers.

Debate on the blogs also focuses on how the list can be used – both journalistically and otherwise. The list was posted despite an injunction granted by the High Court in earlier this year banning its publication, so how will journalists (and the police and employers) act on it when it has been obtained in this way?Similar Posts: