Informed 05


DISTRIB UTE D WITH THE JOURNALIS T ISSUE:


AUGUST 2012


NUJ NEWS


What about the morality of offshore, foreign-domiciled billionaires who dominate our national newspapers, or the ethics of these men marking their own homework? Or the cynicism of the owners of our national newspapers going into hysterical overdrive, predicting the end of press freedom as we know it when it is their own corporate and personal influence they are hellbent on maintaining – why was the same outpouring not plastered over pages of copy when the Investigatory Powers Bill worked its way through parliament, giving the state unprecedented access to snoop on our sources? Why were they silent when News


International, as they were then, meekly handed over millions of pieces of data to the Metropolitan Police, in a cynical act of selling out sources and their own reporters rather than risk corporate charges over phone hacking. Or when Trinity Mirror followed suit? More damage has been done to journalism and press freedom by this massive betrayal of whistleblowers and sources that led to lost livelihoods and


Closing statement on behalf of The National Union of Journalists WWW.NUJ.ORG.UK


costs when vexatious litigants initiate action. If partial implementation was


Leveson: press, union & ethics F


irstly, I would like to express my gratitude to Lord Justice Leveson and the Inquiry team for granting the NUJ core participant status in


this inquiry and ensuring that the voice of journalists was heard throughout. In particular, the work done to ensure that


those journalists who were too scared to give evidence to the Inquiry directly for fear of the professional consequences were able to give evidence through me, is greatly appreciated by the NUJ and all those journalists who gave testimony in this way.


Culture, Practices & Ethics of the Press – the Working Reality At the outset of this Inquiry I made it clear that there were broad issues to


1


be considered when examining the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Understanding the reality of life in many newsrooms and the daily pressures journalists can face is critical in considering the problems as well as the solutions. It has been clearly demonstrated that


a culture of bullying exists in some workplaces, resulting in unacceptable pressure on journalists to deliver the goods, even if that means producing


secured, one outcome might be that the operation of inexpensive arbitration will begin to look atractive to a broader range of publications. Tat would make significantly less likely that legal actions could put publications out of business, as nearly happened with Gay News in 1977 and the New Statesman in 1993. Te consultation also called for views for the implementation of the second


Journalists were scapegoated in the aſtermath of hacking and we now know deals were done with the police to protect the companies responsible.


interests with most to lose. If Section 40 were fully implemented


now, it would potentially mean most newspapers and magazines in the UK would face paying both sides costs from legal actions, whether they won or lost. Te potential impact on the quality, investigative, campaigning journalism we fight for every day is clear. At a time


It is untenable for any newspaper or magazine to face bearing both sides’ costs when vexatious litigants initiate action.


liberty, than any spat over regulation. And in the seething mass of press


reaction, in which column aſter column warned that the regulation envisaged by the government was the stuff of dictators, Nazis and Orwellian dystopias, none of them appeared to notice that their own publication’s Irish editions all support the Irish Press Council and that country’s Press Ombudsman – the system closest to that which the NUJ would favour. Te Irish editor of the Mirror even sits on the Press Council’s board. As an organisation capable of seeing the full picture, however, it was clear to the NUJ that there was more to consider about the implementation of Section 40 than the cynicism driving the vested


when parts of the industry are struggling – in many cases because of the failings of companies whose business model has moved ever further from protecting quality journalism – the risks that this poses are grave. Terefore the NUJ’s position - now endorsed by the NEC without challenge and welcomed by the couple of branches that have had a chance to consider the issue – was to call for partial implementation of Section 40. In our view, publications who have signed up to a system which facilitates cheap and accessible arbitration can only be a good thing. Te punitive elements of Section 40, however, must be held back. It is untenable for any newspaper or magazine to face bearing both sides’


part of the Leveson inquiry. Tis should be a no-brainer. Te government commited to investigate the relationship between some newspapers and the police. It must now do so if it is to deliver on its promises to scores of victims, journalists among them, who have an understandable desire for the truth to be uncovered. Journalists were scapegoated in the


aſtermath of hacking and we now know deals were done with the police to protect the companies responsible. Another move is in play for the


Murdochs to get their hands on BSkyB. Te prospect of that deal geting green-lighted before a meaningful investigation into what really went on should be untenable for anyone who cares about journalism.


NUJ ethics


Members are entitled to advice and support from the ethics council. To contact the council email: ethics@nuj.org.uk or call the NUJ ethics hotline on 0845 450 0864 NUJ website: www.nuj.org.uk/tags/ethics


INQUIRY SPECIAL LEVESON


ALL PHOTOS: MARK THOMAS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12