Committee briefing: Culture, media and sport

---

ePolitix.com reports on Tuesday's culture, media and sport committee in which MPs quizzed newspaper editors about press standards, privacy and libel.

Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Press Standards, Privacy and Libel

Witnesses
i. Colin Myler, editor, News of the World
ii. Tom Crone, legal manager, News Group Newspapers
iii. Ian Hislop, editor, Private Eye
iv. Alan Rusbridger, editor, The Guardian

The editor of the News of the World said that he makes "no apologies" for publishing a story that falsley suggested Max Mosley had participated in a "sick Nazi orgy".

Colin Myler told the Commons culture, media and sport committee that he was surprised that Mosley had chosen to sue the newspaper.

"We are who we are and I make no apologies for publishing that story," Myler told MPs in a session on press standards.

"To go to court and have a trial was surprising.

"Mr Mosley made, I think, quite a case that he never sought publicity. He was, he believed, a private person. I disagree with that fundamentally."

And defending his decision to publish the controversial story, Myler stated: "It was a very good story. You only have to look at the manner in which it was followed up."

But Philip Davies (Con, Shipley) suggested that Mosley's sexual activities were "behind closed doors" and bore no responsibility to his public role.

Myler replied that he was an elected president of the FIA and had regulations on how to conduct his life.

"I don't believe that the conduct that Mr Mosley engaged in can be dismissed as unconventional because I believe it was far more serious," he told MPs.

He confirmed that the cost to the News of the World of publishing the story on March 30 was about £1m. But he denied that the splash gave the Sunday paper a commercial advantage.

"Rarely in these situations are there any commercial advantages, despite what many people think," Myler said.

He also rejected an assertion that the resulting Mosley trial had a "chilling effect" for the paper. But he accepted that it had "a practical effect".

I now spend an equal time talking to lawyers as well as journalists, Myler said.

Adrian Sanders (Lib Dem, Torbay) hit out at the newspaper editor for setting himself up as "a moral guardian".

And Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) stated: "It was only your act of publication that brought the FIA into disrepute."

But Myler replied that the MPs were "shooting the messenger".

"If you put your trust in five prostitutes, you are being reckless," he said.

The News of the World editor also strongly refuted suggestions that allowing the courts to decide on editorial discretion was suitable.

"In what way would a judge be able to sit in neutrality to decide whether a newspaper story should be published or not," he said.

"You cannot sack a judge. You can sack an editor.

"I think we need a little bit of transparency and honesty here. People who fall on their swords are few and far between. Editors do and have. Some ministers haven't when they should have done."

And Tom Crone, legal manager for News Group Newspapers, stated that the burden of proof on newspapers was "too great".

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, warned the committee about the "chill wind" of introducing privacy laws.

He told MPs that he had received a letter from law firm Schillings, with a legal warning from the head of an NHS IT project manager.

The law firm had argued that journalistic inquiries had been made into the manager's "confidential" business life.

"He is a legitimate target of inquiry for journalists," Hislop told MPs.

"I just give it to you as proof positive that the idea that privacy law is only indulged in by frothy celebrities and needn't concern anyone involved in proper journalism, it isn't true," he said.

He also illustrated the dangers of injunctions on freedom of the press, explaining that he had been sitting on a public interest story for four months.

"We attempted to run a story in January, we still haven't been able to run it," he said.

"The journalist put it to the person involved, there was an immediate injunction. Essentially it's censorship by judicial process. It takes so long, it costs so much.

"That is a real problem and it means four months later I'm sitting on a very good story - a proper public interest story - which I cannot run and it would have been in the public domain if I hadn't tried to act responsibly."

Editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, also warned MPs that the cost of making mistakes or libel can run to "hundreds of thousands of pounds".

He highlighted the newspaper's recent run-in with Tesco over a tax avoidance story.

In response, the paper has spent £90,000 on legal advice in advance of a further series of articles on tax avoidance.

Rusbridger explained: "There is a feeling that if you hit newspapers in this way [through libel], they will simply not write on it.

"Nobody was writing about [tax avoidance] because it was too risky. The burden of proof should be switched."

The Guardian editor also called for a relaxation of the 'Reynolds defence' of responsible journalism in libel cases.

Hislop also expressed a problem with the "huge figures" involved in "dangerous" libel cases.

"There is less libel about but it is much more dangerous," he said.

"I think a privacy law has evolved and I think it has largely been determined by the judges."

The Private Eye editor said that he receives around one injunction a fortnight. And he warned that lawyers were "blurring lines" between privacy and confidence.

"The privacy law is upon us. It is time to say, 'What is it?'"

Myler, Hislop and Rusbridger all expressed opinions on the Press Complaints Commission.

Myler stated that the News of the World took PCC judgements "very seriously".

He added: "The dialogue with the PCC never stops. Their advice is invaluable and sometimes is incredibly wise."

Rusbridger described the PCC code as "pretty good".

But he said that the body's main problem was that it was not a "conventional" regulator.

"It is quite opaque in its appointment processes," he said. He called for the PCC to take a view on privacy laws.

And Hislop suggested that Private Eye should not be included under the umbrella of the PCC because of the publication's scrutiny of the press.

"I always thought it was better for the Eye to be out of it," Hislop said.