SubScribe
  • Home
  • General Election 2019
    • Random thoughts
    • Guest blog
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • Metro
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
  • Brexit
    • Whitetops immigration
    • Theresa's travels
    • Gove and Trump
    • Theresa May's trousers
    • Brexit blog
    • Events
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Star
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
    • Daily Star Sunday
    • Mail on Sunday
    • The Observer
    • The People
    • Sunday Express
    • Sunday Mirror
    • Sunday Telegraph
    • Sunday Times
    • Sun on Sunday
  • The schedule
  • Blogs
    • Editor's blog
    • Gameoldgirl's Notebook
    • Pictures and spreads
    • Press box
    • General Election
    • Ukraine revolution and the threat to the West >
      • Putin wants more than Crimea, he wants half of Ukraine
      • Putin, the Man of Destiny, and dreams of a Eurasian empire
  • The industry
    • The nationals
    • Press freedom >
      • Attacks on the Press
      • Al Jazeera on trial: why should we care about journalists? >
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Peter Greste
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Abdullah Elshamy
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the court hearings
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the final session
      • RIPA
      • RIPA and the protection of sources
      • RIPA and the Press: guest blog
      • Journalists under surveillance
      • World Press Freedom Day
      • Surrendering press freedom: guest blog
      • Michael Wolff and the free Press
    • Press regulation >
      • From Milly Dowler to Sir Alan Moses
      • Letter to Murdoch
      • Leveson inquiry: an expensive hiding to nothing
      • Press regulation, history, hysteria and hyperbole
      • Parliament, Hacked Off and self-regulation of the Press
    • Journalists in the dock >
      • Too embarrassed to look in the mirror?
      • The tally
      • Operation Elveden
      • Phone hacking
      • Operation Tuleta
      • Journalists on trial 2014 archive
    • Local papers matter >
      • Local newspapers have to change
      • Monty's vision
      • The Full Monty: the Local World vision put into practice
    • Whistle-blowers
    • Journalism shouldn't be for the elite
    • A question of trust
    • News judgment >
      • Daily Star Hallowe'en special
      • Tesco profits scandal
      • Manchester kennels fire
      • Lambing Live
      • Lottery winners separate >
        • Love and the lottery winners, part 2
      • Give us news not puffs
      • April Fool >
        • The giant banjo
        • Deceived or deceptive, the paper must take the rap
      • The art of Sunday editing
    • Peter Oborne quits >
      • Guest blog: Why I resigned from the Telegraph
      • Peter Oborne: The Telegraph strikes back
      • advertising v editorial
    • Award winners >
      • Regional Press Awards 2013
    • Obituary
  • SubScribe commentary
    • Paris terror attacks
    • Mohammed Emwazi and Isis killings >
      • James Foley murdered
      • The murder of Steven Sotloff
      • David Haines and Isis propaganda
    • Charlie Hebdo massacre >
      • Charlie Hebdo aftermath
    • Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls >
      • Nigeria's abducted girls and massacre
    • Ebola
    • Frontline reporting
    • Typhoon Haiyan
    • Obama's selfie
    • It takes all sorts to make a family >
      • This is what a flawed feminist campaign looks like
      • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Kellie Maloney faces the world
      • Women in trouble for getting ahead
      • Pregnant soldiers
    • Ashya King and the force of authority >
      • Stephen's story: did the Press help his cause or take over his life?
      • Colchester cancer scandal
    • Poppymania
    • Cameron's tax cut promise >
      • The blue-rinse bingo Budget
      • Politicians need their holidays too
      • Cameron's reshuffle: bring on the women
    • Brooks Newmark sting
    • Scottish referendum >
      • Scottish referendum: the final editions
      • Scottish referendum miscellany
      • The Queen speaks
    • The European elections audit >
      • Election audit: the last wordle
      • Election audit: Daily Mail
      • Election audit: The Times
      • Election audit: Daily Express
      • Election audit: Daily Mirror
      • Election audit: The Independent
      • Election audit: Guardian
      • Election audit: Daily Telegraph
      • Election audit: The Sun
    • Maria Miller
    • Harman, Hewitt and the paedophiles >
      • Hewitt apologises and the Sun picks up the cudgels
      • Mail v Labour trio, day 6: Harman capitulates and the bully wins
    • Immigration >
      • Katie Hopkins and drowned refugees
      • A year of xenophobia
      • The Express and immigration
    • Prince Charles and the floods >
      • Prince George
    • Food banks
    • Why is football more important than all the news? >
      • Cheerleading
      • Kelly Gallagher beats the world
      • Jenny Jones struggles against Kate and ManU
      • Reading Chronicle and football hooliganism
    • The weather
  • Odds and sods
  • OpEd
    • Oped December >
      • Politics 22-12-15
      • Brexit: 21-12-15
      • Politics 18-12-15
      • Politics 17-12-15
      • Politics 16-12-15
      • EU referendum: 15-12-15
      • Politics 14-12-15
      • Right-wing politicians 11-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 10-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 09-12-15
      • Politics: 08-12-15
      • Politics: 07-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes 04-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 03-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 02-12-15
      • Labour and Syria: 01-12-15
    • OpEd November >
      • Syrian air strikes: 30-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 27-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 26-11-15
      • Russia in Syria: 25-11-15
      • Comment awards 24-11-15
      • Paris attacks: 23-11-15
      • Politics: 20-11-15
      • Paris attacks 19-11-15
      • Terrorism: 18-11-15
      • Paris attacks 17-11-15
      • Paris attacks 16-11-15
      • Politics: 13-11-15
      • Politics 12-11-15
      • Politics: 11-11-15
      • Britain and Europe: 10-11-15
      • Remembrance: 09-11-15
      • Sinai jet crash: 06-11-15
      • UK politics 05-11-15
      • UK politics: 04-11-15
      • State surveillance: 03-11-15
      • Poliitics: 02-11-15
    • OpEd October >
      • Politics: 30-10-15
      • Tax credits: 29-10-15
      • Tax credits: 28-10-15
      • Tax credits: 27-10-15
      • Lords v Commons: 26-10-15
      • UK politics: 23-10-15
      • Politics: 22-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 21-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 20-10-15
      • China visit: 19-10-15
      • Politics: 16-10-15
      • Politics 15-10-15
      • Politics: 14-10-15
      • EU referendum 13-10-15
      • Europe: 12-10-15
      • Politics 09-10-15
      • Cameron's speech: 08-10-15
      • Conservatives: 07-10-15
      • Conservatives: 06-10-15
      • Conservatives: 05-10-15
      • Politics 02-10-15
      • Labour conference 01-10-15
    • OpEd September >
      • Politics 01-09-15
      • Europe 02-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 03-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 04-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 07-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 08-09-15
      • OpEd: Drone strikes 09-09-15
      • OpEd: Migrant crisis 10-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 11-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 14-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 15-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 16-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 17-09-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-09-15
      • OpEd: "Pig-gate" 22-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 23-09-15
      • OpEd: VW 24-09-15
      • OpEd: Volkswagen 28-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 29-09-15
      • Oped: Labour conference 30-09-15
    • OpEd August >
      • OpEd: Calais 03-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 04-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 05-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 06-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 07-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 10-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 13-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 14-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 17-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 19-08-15
      • OpEd: Student debt 20-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 24-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 26-08-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 27-08-15
      • OpEd: TV shootings 28-08-15
    • OpEd July >
      • OpEd: Grexit 01-07-15
      • OpEd: Heathrow 02-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 03-07-15
      • OpEd: Taxation 06-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 07-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 08-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 09-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 10-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 13-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 14-07-15
      • OpEd: Iran 15-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-07-15
      • OpEd: Boris Johnson and Greece 20-07-15
      • OpEd: counter-terrorism 21-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 22-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 23-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 24-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 27-07-15
      • OpEd: Lord Sewel 28-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 29-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 30-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 31-07-15
    • OpEd June >
      • OpEd: Fifa 01-06-15
      • OpEd: British politics 02-06-15
      • OpEd: Charles Kennedy 03-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 04-06-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 05-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 08-06-15
      • OpEd: Europe 09-06-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 15-06-15
      • OpEd: Social mobility 16-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 19-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 22-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 23-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 24-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 25-06-15
      • OpEd: Brexit 26-06-15
      • OpEd: Tunisia 29-06-15
      • OpEd: Grexit 30-06-15
    • OpEd May >
      • OpEd: Election 01-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 05-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 06-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-05-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 11-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 13-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 14-05-15
      • OpEd: Ukip and Labour 15-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-05-15
      • OpEd: The NHS 19-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 20-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 21-05-15
      • Oped: UK politics 22-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-05-15
      • OpEd: Europe 27-05-15
      • OpEd: The Queen's Speech 28-05-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 29-05-15
    • OpEd April >
      • OpEd: Election 01-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 02-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 09-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 10-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 13-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 14-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 15-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 16-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 17-04-15
      • OpEd: SNP 20-04-15
      • OpEd: Refugees 21-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 22-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 23-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 24-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 27-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 28-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 29-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 30-04-15
    • OpEd March >
      • OpEd: Election 31-03-15
      • OpEd: Depression 30-03-15
      • OpEd: Prince Charles 27-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-03-15
      • OpEd: David Cameron 25-03-15
      • OpEd: Singapore 24-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-03-15
      • OpEd: the Budget 19-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-03-15
      • OpEd: race in Britain 17-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-03-15
      • OpEd Jeremy Clarkson 12-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 11-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 10-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-03-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 06-03-15
      • OpEd: Isis 05-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-03-15
      • OpEd: Radicalisation 03-03-15
      • OpEd: Russia 02-03-15
    • OpEd February >
      • OpEd: UK politics 27-02-15
      • OpEd: minority party leaders 26-02-15
      • OpEd: the Greens 25-02-15
      • OpEd: Rifkind and Straw 24-02-15
      • OpEd: world affairs 23-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-02-15
      • OpEd: Chelsea and racism 19-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-02-15
      • OpEd: Copenhagen 16-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 11-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-02-15
      • OpEd: Isis atrocity 05-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 03-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 02-02-15
    • OpEd January >
      • OpEd: rape law 30-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics, 29-01-15
      • OpEd: Greece 27-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 28-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-01-15
      • OpEd: Chilcot inquiry 22-01-15
      • OpEd: Page Three 21-01-15
      • OpEd: anti-semitism 20-01-15
      • OpEd: religion and freedom 19-01-15
      • OpEd: world politics 16-01-15
      • OpEd: election debates 15-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 14-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 13-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 12-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 08-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 09-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 07-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 05-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-01-15
  • You have to laugh
  • Backnumbers
    • Front pages December >
      • Front pages Dec 27-31
      • Front pages Dec 20-26
      • Front pages Dec 6-12
    • Front pages November >
      • Front pages Nov 29-Dec 5
      • Front pages Nov 22-28
      • front pages Nov 15-21
      • Front pages Nov 8-14
      • front pages Nov 1-7
    • Front pages October >
      • Front pages, Oct 25-31
      • Front pages Oct 18-25
      • front pages Oct 11-17
      • Front pages Oct 4-10
    • Front pages September >
      • Front pages Sept 27-Oct 3
      • Front pages Sept 20-26
      • Front pages Sept 13-19
      • Front pages Sept 6-12
      • Front pages Aug 30-Sept 5
    • Front pages August >
      • Front pages August 23-29
      • Front pages Aug 16-22
      • Front pages August 9-15
      • Front pages Aug 2-8
    • Front pages July >
      • Front pages July 26-Aug 1
      • Front pages July 19-25
      • Front pages July 12-18
      • Front pages July 5-11
      • Front pages June 28-July 4
    • Front pages June >
      • Front pages June 21-27
      • Front pages June 14-20
      • Front pages June 7-13
      • Front pages May 31-June 6
    • Front pages May >
      • Front pages May 24-30
      • Front pages May 17-23
      • Front pages May 10-16
    • Front pages April >
      • Front pages May 3-9
      • Front pages April 26-May 2
      • Front pages April 19-26
      • Front pages April 12-18
      • Front pages April 5-11
      • Front pages Mar 29-Apr 4
    • Front pages March >
      • Front pages Mar 22-28
      • Front pages Mar 15-21
      • Front pages Mar 8-14
      • Front pages Mar 1 - 7
    • Front pages February >
      • Front pages Feb 22-28
      • Front pages Feb 16-21
      • Front pages Feb 9-15
      • Front pages Feb 1-8
    • Front pages January >
      • Front pages Jan 25-31
      • Front pages Jan 18-24, 2015
      • Front pages Jan 11-17
      • front pages Jan 4-9, 2015
      • Front pages Dec 29-Jan 3
  • About SubScribe
  • Join the SubScribers
  • Contact us
  • Subscribe to SubScribe

Bouquets and brickbats

21/2/2015

1 Comment

 
What is the point of an editor? To set policy, steer the ship, provide leadership, go out to lunch. 
Who should an editor serve? The proprietor, the staff, the reader.
All of those. But the key concern in all of this is the reader. Start there and everything else will flow naturally. Understand what concerns the reader - and that means telling them what they need to know as well as what they want to hear - and you shouldn't go far wrong.


This week we have seen a prime example of what can be achieved by an effective editor. And a prime example of what can happen without an effective editor.
The Home Office minister Karen Bradley has told MPs that interim measures will be put before Parliament in the next couple of months to stop police and HMRC looking into journalists' phone and email records to try to identify whistleblowers unless they convince a judge that it right to do so.
press gazette
This important move to protect journalistic sources is a direct result of the campaign started by Press Gazette when it learnt that police had gone through Tom Newton Dunn's phone bills to find out who had leaked the Plebgate story to the Sun. 
That story was written on September 2 last year.

Press Gazette soon learnt that this was not an isolated incident and that some forces were using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to "spy" or "snoop" on journalists. The choice of verb may have been melodramatic, but this behaviour was clearly counter to the freedom of expression provisions enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention.

Press Gazette wrote to police forces asking about their practices and was rebuffed by many, who said it was too costly to answer such questions. A petition was started asking the Interception of Communications Commissioner to act, attracting more than 1,600 signatures.
The acting commissioner did, indeed, act even before the petition was presented to him. He, too, wrote to every force in the country and they answered. It later turned out that the Act had been used to obtain information about the phone records of 82 journalists.  
The Mail on Sunday reported that its journalists' phone records had been trawled to reveal sources of the Chris Huhne speeding ticket story - sources that a judge had specifically ordered should remain anonymous. Liberal Democrats made the overhaul of RIPA party policy, the Home Office promised to review the guidelines for its use. 
All of that happened within six weeks of that first Tom Newton Dunn story. 
But when the guidelines were reviewed the draft changes suggested only that a special note should be made where the records to be examined involved people in sensitive professions involving confidentiality - journalists, lawyers, doctors, for example. 
Press Gazette attacked the issue with renewed vigour, encouraging people to respond to the draft before the consultation period ran out. 
The Metropolitan Police were meanwhile refusing to engage with PG, rejecting a Freedom of Information request as "annoying and vexatious" because the website had had the temerity to ask six questions on the subject.
This month the interceptions commissioner submitted his report  to the Prime Minister. He found that  police were not paying attention to Article 10, that they should be told to do so and, as belt and braces, judges should have to approve warrants to look at data in the hope of finding journalists' sources. David Cameron and Theresa May accepted the recommendations, but it was still not clear that action would be taken before the election.
Until today.

Karen Bradley's promise comes just 24 weeks after that first story - an astonishingly speedy and successful outcome for Press Gazette under the leadership of Dominic Ponsford.
Ponsford and his news editor Will Turvill have been nominated for two big campaigning awards for their efforts. They are up against stiff opposition and may not emerge triumphant. But their industry should make some special effort to acknowledge their work - some recognition at the Press Awards would be appropriate - on behalf of their readers: the journalists in this country.
Ponsford is, you see, an editor who understands his readership. He set up the British Journalism Awards to recognise public interest journalism, ethical journalism that makes a difference. He has never condoned bad practice, but he has defended those he feels are being ill-used or made scapegoats by the machines of the state or their employers. 
This is what an editor should be doing.

Telegraph page 10
We can also see what an editor should be doing when we look at the Daily Telegraph. 
The paper's response to Peter Oborne's explosive account of life on the paper since the sacking of Tony Gallagher was at first limp, then pathetic and has now scraped the bottom of the barrel. To use the deaths of two people to smear a rival shows such an extraordinary lack of compassion, sense of proportion and basic news judgment as to beggar belief. Did whoever put today's paper together really believe that this was an issue of such importance that it should appear on the front page? Did they really believe that this was a matter of interest to the readers? Why should the Telegraph's audience be remotely concerned with the working environment of another newspaper group? Or that the Guardian may or may not have changed one headline last July? 
The Telegraph may genuinely have believed that the HSBC story was old, but once a story has traction you can't just ignore it. If the Telegraph thought that the BBC and the Guardian (it's unclear how the Times became included in its triumvirate of 'leftwing Labour soulmates') were rehashing old news for political reasons, it could have written a piece pointing out its own previous coverage of this story. If there were indeed a story to refer back to. Instead it just ignored it for two days and then presented it as one where the villains were HMRC, Miliband, the man in the moon - anyone but HSBC.

Private Eye had written much about the absent coverage before the Telegraph's former chief political commentator and writer of editorials called the paper to account.
Oborne's blog led to appearances on television and radio and was well covered by the Guardian, Independent and Times. The Telegraph wrote nothing. Readers who didn't listen to the Today programme or watch Channel 4 News must, therefore, have been bemused when they encountered a lamentable full-length leader scattering accusations at all and sundry and bleating about the lack of attention everyone had paid to its MPs' expenses scoop. 
Funny that. I didn't notice rival papers scoffing at that story. I do remember everyone scrambling for the Telegraph the moment the first editions came up to see the next instalment and rushing to catch up. I do remember the then deputy editor of the Times, which of course turned down this gem, describing it as "the gift that keeps on giving". I do remember everyone crediting the Telegraph in their coverage. I do remember the industry recognising its work with a shower of awards.
The Telegraph is so confident in its defence of itself that the "news" stories today about the Guardian and Times carry no bylines. Buzzfeed reports that the author of the front-page suicide story was seen arguing with the newsdesk about it. The comment buttons on the website are absent from the stories and from the leader - although readers were able to comment on previous editorials this week on such subjects as Brian the horse and Putin in Ukraine. Does this mean the Telegraph doesn't think readers would have anything to say on the matter (in which case why publish the stories?) or is it afraid that they may not approve of what has been written and how it has behaved?
Peter Oborne accused the Telegraph of a fraud against its readers. Its response this week reinforces the perception that the readers are the last people it is concerned about.  
A strong editor would never have found himself in such troubled waters. But instead of steering this once-great ship to safety, whoever was at the helm ploughed on through the ice floes and straight into the iceberg.  
The Telegraph under Murdoch MacLennan and Jason Seiken has done away with traditional titles in favour of directors of content. Chris Evans is the weekday editor, Ian MacGregor in charge of weekends. We have heard from none of these four men this week.
So the question remains: who is editing the Telegraph?

Also on this subject:
Peter Oborne quits
The Telegraph strikes back
A layman's guide to the relationship between editorial and advertising
Blurred lines in the native advertising newsroom


1 Comment

Commissioner is protecting sources, not journalists

5/2/2015

0 Comments

 
Dominic Ponsford
.
Save Our Sources logo
Press Gazette and its editor Dominic Ponsford, above, have played an absolute blinder with their Save Our Sources campaign, which called for judicial oversight of police checks on journalists' phone and email records.
They now have the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Culture Secretary on side and the promise of action in response to the Interception of Communications Commissioner's report yesterday.
That report found that police chiefs signing off applications to look at journalists' data had not paid sufficient attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to freedom of expression and sets out the special circumstances in which that right might be curbed.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - the only law under which police may look at these sorts of records - stipulates that for an application to be granted, it needs to show that access to the data is necessary and proportional. That means the prospective public benefit needs to be greater than the potential damage caused by the intrusion.
The commissioner's report states that in most of the cases involving journalists' records over the past three years, those criteria were not met. The report suggests that that may have been because neither Home Office nor  ACPO guidance on the subject addressed the question of Article 10. In other words, nobody thought about it properly.
That is unsatisfactory, troubling even, but there is no suggestion in the report that the police were abusing their powers under the Act. On the contrary, the report says: 

Picture
Police forces are not randomly trawling communications data relating to journalists in order to identify their sources. The applications examined in the main related to investigations where public officials were suspected of criminal conduct or where a media organisation had voluntarily disclosed information to the police relating to what they believed to be criminal conduct for investigation.
The report lays heavy emphasis on the importance of freedom of speech and its various safeguards in domestic and international law. There is abundant recognition of the "chilling effect" that the disclosure of sources can have on people's willingness to speak out in the public interest, a recognition of the journalist's role, and an acknowledgement that data secured legitimately for other purposes might be used to uncover sources who should remain anonymous.
But this is no love letter to the Press. One of the grounds for seeking access to data is for the "prevention or detection of crime", and the report underscores the point: "The Act does not restrict the acquisition of communications data to serious crime which is defined at section 81(2) and (3) of the Act."
It continues:
Picture
It is therefore unhelpful when the reports in the media misinform the public by stating the use of powers to acquire communications data for crimes, not deemed to be of a serious nature under the Act, are inappropriate. It is also wrong for the reports in the media to cite the Act as a terrorist law and infer that its use for non-terrorist related matters is inappropriate.
RIPA was passed by Tony Blair's Government in response to a perceived terrorist threat, so it is inevitable that it will be described as an anti-terror law. As to whether crimes need to be deemed serious, this is relevant with regard to journalists because while RIPA may not require that the crime under investigation is serious, CPS guidance in relation to Article 10 does. As the commissioner's report states:
Picture
According to the CPS...in cases which rely on the disclosure of journalistic sources or on covert techniques which involve or amount to the revealing of a source's identity, the prosecution will have to satisfy the court that the admission of evidence that reveals the identity of a journalistic source is exceptionally required by a pressing social need and that it is proportionate in the circumstances of the case. This can be done... but the prosecution will have to rebut the presumption that it is always prima facie contrary to the public interest that press sources should be disclosed. Expressed another way, there is an underlying assumption that it is not in the public interest to identify a journalist’s source. 
The report goes on to quote the CPS guidelines:
Picture
Very important factors will be required to outweigh the general right of a journalist to keep sources confidential. It is therefore important that offences are not investigated in ways which are contrary to Principle 6 [of Article 10], unless the circumstances are sufficiently serious and vital to warrant this. 
The commissioner's report regards this as an indication that "prosecution, or even a criminal investigation, should be seen as a last resort reserved for the most serious cases".
So how wrong it it of the media to talk about serious crime?

The key concern for the commissioner was clearly the protection of sources, not of journalists. It was also, presumably, the key issue for Press Gazette, since it labelled its campaign Save Our Sources.
There has been celebration today of the recommendation that a judge should approve applications relating to journalists - but most reports have omitted the caveat in the second half of the sentence from their intros. Here it is in full (my underscore):
Picture
Judicial authorisation must be obtained in cases where communications data is sought to determine the source of journalistic information. 
Even under the commission's formula, journalists could still have their phone and email records examined by the police on the say-so of a senior officer for other purposes - for example, if they are victims or suspects of crime - although a second recommendation says that the officer considering the application should consider "collateral intrusion" and "unintended consequences"
Why shouldn't they? some might ask. No similar protection is proposed for lawyers, doctors, priests and their confidential dealings with clients, patients or parishioners. Perhaps their respective trade journals should kick up a fuss as Press Gazette did.

And how about all the other people whose personal data are scrutinised? About half a million applications are made by public authoirities every year for the right to access phone and email records. The commissioner learnt that 608 applications over the past three years (0.1% of the total authorised by the police) related to journalists' links with public officials - and not all of those involved looking at the journalists' data. In 24 of the 34 investigations, journalists' records were not examined. 
There is also the Wapping effect. Eighty per cent of the applications came from officers working on Operation Elveden, which looked into alleged illegal payment of public officials by journalists. And remember News International's Management and Standards Committee voluntarily handed over masses of material, so the cops would presumably in many cases have been asking permission to look at what they had in their hands.
Exclude Elveden and the total number of applications relating to journalists' data was equivalent to less than one per force per year. Put that way, as it is by the commissioner, it seems modest. Put another way, as it is by Ponsford in his Press Gazette blog, there were still 124 RIPA applications for telecoms records of journalists who were not suspected of any crime. 

That isn't right. And it is right for the trade magazine to highlight this. It is also right to ask the circumstances of these applications and, at the very least, for the targeted journalists to be informed.
Legitimate concerns have been raised about the use of RIPA to uncover the sources of the Plebgate and Chris Huhne stories. The CPS declined to prosecute the Plebgate whistleblowers, saying: "We have concluded that a jury is likely to decide that it was in the public interest for the events at the gate to be made public." In the Huhne case, a judge specifically ruled that the source should not be identified, yet the police continued their pursuit.
It is therefore in the public interest for the police to have to explain their actions in other non-Elveden cases. 
But this business of police looking at people's metadata without having to consult an outside authority is not a worry exclusive to journalists. We are a speck on this landscape. 
This morning's papers reported the proposed change in the law as a triumph for the freedom of the Press, proof that vindictive police had been abusing their powers:
Times
Guardian
Mail
This last is from the Mail, which also carried a leader on the subject. Its news story started:
Picture
David Cameron has performed a U-turn over Press freedom after insisting a judge must sign off police snooping into journalists’ phone records. In a significant victory for the Press, he promised safeguards to prevent forces abusing anti-terror powers to expose potentially-embarrassing confidential sources who blow the whistle to reporters.

It is an important moment for our industry. But at a time when journalists are too often seen as self-serving and self-important, would it not have been good at least to avoid the very language criticised in the commission's report?
And even better to have paid some attention to the other one and a half million people whose privacy was invaded under this act over those three years?

0 Comments
    Liz Gerard

    Liz Gerard

    New year, new face: it's time to come out from behind that Beryl Cook mask. 
    I'm Liz Gerard, and after four decades dedicated to hard news, I now live by the motto "Those who can do, those who can't write blogs". 
    These are my musings on our national newspapers. Some of them may have value.

    Archives

    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    May 2013

    Virtual cat

    Categories

    All
    Adam Ward
    Adoption
    Advertising
    Ageism
    Alan Rusbridger
    Alison Parker
    Amol Rajan
    Andreas Lubitz
    Andy Coulson
    Andy Murray
    Angelina Jolie
    Anglo American
    Anthony France
    Armistice Day
    Art
    Assad
    Australian Maddie
    Baftas
    Baher Mohamed
    Bank Holiday
    Battle Of Britain
    Beatles
    Benedict Cumberbatch
    Big Brother
    Bill Gates
    Birmingham
    BMDs
    Bob Bird
    Booker Prize
    Brazil V Germany
    Brooks Newmark
    Business News
    Cambridge News
    Carla Powell
    Charlie Hebdo
    Chloe Campbell
    Chris Martin
    Christian Horner
    Christmas Appeal
    Christopher Columbus
    Climate Change
    Counting Dead Women
    CPJ
    Daily Express
    Daily Mail
    Daily Mirror
    Daily Star
    Daily Telegraph
    David Mitchell
    David Montgomery
    David Moyes
    Depression
    Digital
    Domestic Violence
    Dominic Ponsford
    Duchess Of Cambridge
    Duke Of York
    Eddie Adams
    Eddie Redmayne
    Ed Miliband
    Edward Snowden
    Elveden
    Evan Harris
    Family Court
    First World War
    Floods
    Flower Memorial
    Foreign Reporting
    Fossil Fuels
    Front Pages
    Gates Foundation
    GCHQ
    Gemma Aldridge
    General Election
    George Clooney
    George Osborne
    Geri Halliwell
    Germanwings
    Gillian Wearing
    Google
    Grammar
    Grammar Schools
    Grandparents
    Graphic Images
    Guardian
    Guy Adams
    Hacked Off
    Handling Stolen Goods
    Harriet Green
    Headlines
    Headline Writing
    Helen McCrory
    HSBC
    Immigration
    Independent
    Independent On Sunday
    INSI
    Internet
    Iraq
    Isis
    James Foley
    James Harding
    James Murdoch
    Jason Seiken
    Jeffrey Epstein
    Jennifer Lawrence
    Jeremy Corbyn
    Jeremy Farrar
    Jessica Ennis-Hill
    John Cantlie
    John Oliver
    Jonathan Krohn
    Jon Swaine
    Jon Venables
    Josie Cunningham
    Journalists In Danger
    Journalists On Trial
    Justice
    Karen Ingala Smith
    Keep It In The Ground
    Kenji Goto
    Killing The Messenger
    Labour
    Leveson
    Liverpool Echo
    Local Papers
    Local World
    Lufthansa
    Luis Suarez
    Madeleine Mccann
    Mail On Sunday
    Manchester United
    Maria Miller
    Mental Health
    Mercury Prize
    Michael Foot
    Middle Class
    Mike Darcey
    Miliband
    Milly Dowler
    Miracles
    Mirror
    Misconduct In Public Office
    Missing Children
    Mohamed Fahmy
    MPs' Expenses
    National Anthem
    Native Advertising
    News International
    News Judgment
    News Of The World
    News UK
    Nick Parker
    Nigel Evans
    North
    NSA Files
    Operation Elveden
    Operation Golding
    Operation Rubicon
    Oscar Pistorius
    Paddington Bear
    Page 3
    Parliament
    Paul McCartney
    Paying Contacts
    Peaches Geldof
    Peter Greste
    Peter Oborne
    Phone Hacking
    Photography
    Picture Editing
    Police
    Police Corruption
    Poppies
    Press Freedom
    Press Gazette
    Press Regulation
    Press Uncuffed
    Prince William
    Privacy
    Protecting Sources
    Puffs
    Pulitzer Prize
    Real Birmingham Family
    Rebekah Brooks
    Redundancies
    Reeva Steenkamp
    Remembrance
    Renee Zellwegger
    Richard Attenborough
    Richard Desmond
    Richard Littlejohn
    RIPA
    Roy Greenslade
    Rupert Murdoch
    Russell Brand
    Saigon Execution
    Santa Maria
    Scottish Referendum
    Sex Abuse
    Shakespeare
    Simon Cowell
    Socialist Worker
    Southend Council
    Southend Echo
    Sport
    Statins
    Subs
    Suicide
    Sunday Mirror
    Sunday People
    Sunday Telegraph
    Surveillance Laws
    Syria
    The Arts
    The Guardian
    The I
    The Sun
    The Times
    Thomas Cook
    Tiffanie Darke
    Tommy Sheridan
    Tower Of London
    Tower Of London Poppies
    Victoria Coren
    Virginia Roberts
    Virginia Shootings
    Weather
    Wellcome Trust
    Wimbledon
    Women In The Boardroom
    Working Mothers
    World Cup

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.