sign in sign up
<<
Home , Neil Wallis, Rebecca Loos, The Press Awards

Nicholas Jones Offering payment for exclusive stories continues to be an everyday transaction in some newsrooms. Readers of are reminded in each edition: ‘We pay for your stories.’ Telephone numbers are listed for calls and texts to the Sun’s London and Manchester newsrooms; the email address is exclusive@the- sun.co.uk. No Sun reader is left in any doubt: ‘We are always after good stories – and we pay big money for them every day. Celebrity, a human interest story, scandal or anything else that you think the good people of Britain would want to read about.’ The same goes and for the : ‘We pay for news and bribery: Justice and information. Call us free. You can send mobile phone pictures to us.’ journalism both on Notwithstanding today’s advertisements and trial the amounts which may or may not be on offer, the level of payments referred to by the At the Old Bailey trial which began in late Octo- prosecution at the Old Bailey trial into phone ber 2013 into phone hacking and the alleged hacking and the bribing of public officials bribery of public officials there were repeated served as a salutary reminder of the failure of references to payments which were said to the to probe the custom and have been made to contacts and sources who practice behind what for most reporters is supplied information to the Sun and the News usually a no-go area; even among colleagues of the World. This paper explores the culture of there are few if any journalists who would ever paying cash to get facts to support a reporter’s reveal the precise nature of their relationship story line – a practice which splits journalistic with their individual sources or contacts. opinion

The failure of Leveson the ‘fact finder’? Keywords: phone hacking, bribery, journalism If those journalists who insist they have never on trial, Leveson paid for information are put on the spot, and asked if they really would turn down a story Once the prosecution began to present its in the public interest, some do hedge their evidence in the phone hacking trial at the bets; and thanks to the Leveson Inquiry, the Old Bailey, it became increasingly clear that Crown Prosecution Service has issued clearer not only was British justice on trial but also guidance on how prosecutors should deal with journalism itself. The size and frequency of cases of law-breaking by journalists that might the cash payments referred to by prosecuting be outweighed – and thus be justified in the counsel Andrew Edis QC highlighted the kind public interest – by the ‘overall criminality’ they of financial transactions which have been reveal. commonplace for many years in certain sections of the tabloid press. Paying cash for information Even so consider Lord Justice Leveson and his to get the facts to justify a reporter’s story legal team did not fulfil their remit: they were line remains the norm today among some of asked to ‘examine the culture, practices and Britain’s leading popular newspapers but it is a ethics of the press’. When he gave evidence practice which splits journalistic opinion. to a House of Commons Select Committee in October 2013, Leveson insisted the advantage Indeed, there could hardly be a clearer dividing of having a judge-led inquiry like his was his line: some reporters are prepared to pay for experience as a ‘fact finder’ of past events.1 information and defend their conduct on the grounds that sometimes this may be the only But in the event, during their lengthy evidence- way to stand up stories which are in the public taking sessions, the judge and his legal counsel interest. But on the other hand there are those skirted around one of the great unmentionables journalists who say they have never offered of journalism, and what is perhaps one of the money to informants – and never would – and most troubling characteristics of British tabloid who insist they would always try to rely on journalism, the tradition of paying cash for journalistic endeavour rather than a cheque exclusives, especially when those stories are book or cash.

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 25 Nicholas Jones based on illicitly-gathered information. Time decades: in 1969 his very first front-page splash and again the judge and the inquiry’s lead in the was based on the counsel Robert Jay QC failed to drill down into memoirs of Christine Keeler for which he paid the roots of cheque-book journalism and the £21,000. More than any other proprietor of lengths to which ’s newspapers British newspapers, he had created a market had gone to stand up ‘kiss-and-tells’ and place in private and personal information; he other headline-grabbing ‘exclusives’ since his had driven a wedge between his journalists and purchase of the News of the World in 1969. the thousands who had never paid for a story.

Why did the red-tops become so dependent on Rupert Murdoch’s great escape hiring middlemen as sleuths to hunt for sleaze? To my great disappointment the ‘fact finder’ Were staff cuts to blame? Were journalists Lord Justice Leveson had a blind spot when finding they had less and less time to do their it came to inquiring into what I consider has own investigative work and, as a result, were been one of the most corrosive influences they being encouraged to buy in stories? Did of recent years. During the two days he their editors think the cheque book was the gave evidence to the inquiry in April 2012, only answer to fierce competition and falling Murdoch was not challenged over his role in circulations? Readers knew little of the bidding encouraging and in financing the purchase of war that drove journalists to take ever greater private information. He admitted failings in risks and sadly they were none the wiser after his corporate governance of the News of the the Leveson Inquiry published its report. World; he told the judge that paying police officers for information was ‘wrong’ but at no ‘We pay big money for big stories’ point was he asked about the culture and ethics The 2005 British Press Awards were probably of offering cash for stories or challenged as to the high-water mark of paid-for journalism. why his tabloid newspapers had come to rely The News of the World was named Newspaper increasingly on paid-for journalism when it was of the Year and also won Scoop of the Year frowned upon in so much of the quality press.5 for its 2004 exclusives on the secret affairs of the footballer , the ex-England Subsequently, in a secretly-recorded manager Sven-Goran Eriksson and the former conversation he had with Sun journalists in Home Secretary David Blunkett. March 2013, Murdoch defended custom and practice at News International and claimed In a rare interview after receiving his awards, that payments to police officers were made by the then-editor claimed the News ‘every newspaper’ in Fleet Street. ‘Absolutely it of the World had broken ‘important stories with was the culture of Fleet Street ... We’re talking far-reaching consequences’. He defended the about payments for news tips from cops. That’s way his journalists worked: ‘We know the law, been going on a hundred years, absolutely. we know the Press Complaints Commission, and You didn’t instigate it.’6 Murdoch’s assertion we work within it.’2 His chief reporter Neville was challenged by Peter Preston in his Observer Thurlbeck, who broke the Beckham scoop after column: ‘Was he right to say that editors pay Rebecca Loos was paid a reported £300,000 for informants on all papers? That was never true her story, was equally upfront: ‘To be brutally on and surely is not on many honest, we pay big money for big stories. On more.’7 every single story we sit down and discuss the privacy issue. But very often ... we have to spend Jon Snow, the News presenter, a lot of time beavering away to prove things.’3 was equally categorical when interviewing Neil Wallis, a former executive editor at the The 2005 awards led to an outcry within the News of the World who was arrested by the newspaper industry. ‘Shag of the Year, or during the phone-hacking touch of the Pulitzers?’ was the provocative investigation but who was not charged by the headline in over the weekly Crown Prosecution Service. Snow insisted there media column of Peter Preston, former editor were no circumstances under which he would of the Guardian.4 Eleven editors condemned ever pay for information. ‘I have never paid for the News of the World’s success as a ‘triumph stories, I never would.’ But Wallis asked how only for the cheque book’ and they called for Snow would respond if an informant asked a boycott of the press awards. But instead of for £500 to reveal something about a cabinet it being an ethical turning point, journalistic minister. ‘I would say (to this person) you are malpractice went on unchecked. Murdoch’s a squalid individual, get stuffed. I would find cheque book had reigned supreme for four another way of doing it.’8

26 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL was trying to achieve outweigh the overall When public interest justifies law breaking criminality, taking into account the nature Although I too have never paid for information of the lead, how much information there for my stories – and I am from a family of four was, what they were trying to uncover etc?9 generations of journalists who I am sure would all say the same – I do recognise there might Clearly news outlets have to think carefully be exceptions. For example, I support the Daily before authorising potential law breaking; Telegraph’s decision in 2009 to pay £110,000 journalists and their editors have to be for the stolen computer disk which allowed its prepared to face the consequences, especially journalists to examine one and a half million when purchasing illicit data. While the legal receipts for MPs’ expenses. Four MPs and two boundaries are clearer for journalists as a result peers ended up in prison on fraud charges and of the guidance to prosecutors, the same cannot few if any journalists or members of the public be said when it comes to the ethical dilemma would question the Telegraph’s ethics. Both over whether to pay cash to an informant. CONFERENCE the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution PAPERS Service took no action over what so patently As in the case of and MPs’ was an example of investigative journalism in expenses, national newspapers do sometimes the public interest. face difficult decisions when pursuing campaigns which they believe are in the Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service took public interest. In 1968, won no action after it was revealed a Sky News compensation for British victims of thalidomide, reporter had hacked into emails between a drug given to pregnant women for morning Anne Darwin and her husband John who were sickness. Sir Harold Evans, the then-editor, led both sent to prison for fraud after he faked his the campaign to get financial compensation death by disappearing in a canoe in 2002 and for children with birth defects. He has since she claimed £250,000 in insurance and pension acknowledged that his newspaper did have to payments. , the broadcasting regulator, pay to get some of the information it needed also agreed to take no action but said that the when conducting its investigation. conduct of Sky News in hacking the Darwins’ emails had been at the ‘boundaries of what is ‘How much? What’s it worth?’ appropriate’. Leveson refused to volunteer an opinion on the dilemma of whether or not to pay for stories To his credit Lord Justice Leveson did urge when he was challenged during his evidence legal clarification so that journalists would to the Select Committee on Media, Culture and know when they could cross the line; he Sport. In view of the continuing promotion by suggested clearer guidance for prosecutors to the Sun and Daily Mirror of phone numbers and indicate where the public interest was served email addresses, the Conservative MP Tracey by journalistic investigations that might break Crouch asked Leveson what he thought of the the law. New guidelines were issued by Keir tactics of those newspapers which ‘advertise Starmer QC, the outgoing Director of Public openly to pay for stories’. Did he think there Prosecutions, who shortly before stepping down were circumstances where ‘payment for gave a robust defence of journalists who broke a story is justified?’ Leveson stood by his the law when pursuing investigations that had earlier declaration to the committee that he a genuine public interest. In an interview with considered the inquiry’s report his final word the Guardian in October 2013, he declared on the subject of the culture and ethics of the it would be ‘very unhealthy’ if journalists felt press: ‘I am not commenting on any current they needed to go to their lawyer before they investigations or procedures.’10 pursued any lead or asked any question. What is Murdoch’s legacy? He certainly drove There are lots of examples of journalists up the going-rate for purchasing exclusive who, on the face of it, may have broken stories, and as Leveson observed ‘large parts of the criminal law but have obviously pursued the press had been engaged in a widespread a greater good in doing so. That is why trade in private and confidential information’.11 we wanted to issue guidelines, and our By encouraging and sustaining a market place approach is very clear: first we look to see for the sale of stories, private and personal if an offence has been committed; well, data, snatch photographs and the like, if not, that’s obviously the end of it. If an Murdoch has, in my view, been poisoning the offence has been committed, we then say: well of British journalism. Unhappily for my did the public interest in what the journalist generation of reporters who trained on local

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 27 Nicholas Jones evening and weekly newspapers in the heyday Note on the contributor of the provincial press, we are hearing from our After starting as an editorial assistant on trade newspapers in 1959, Nicholas Jones signed a four-year indentured apprenticeship with successors how this insidious culture of paying the News, Portsmouth, in 1961. He was awarded the proficiency for information has had a deleterious effect certificate and diploma of the National Council for the Training of on local newsgathering. There is a widespread Journalists. In 1966 he was appointed local government correspon- notion that even journalists on local newspapers dent of the Oxford Mail; joined as a parliamentary and political correspondent in 1968; and in 1972 became a news pro- and radio stations have a budget to pay for ducer at BBC Radio Leicester, the start of a thirty-year career with stories. It is commonplace for local reporters, BBC radio and television. when seeking information or interviews, to be asked: ‘How much? What’s it worth?’

In my day, supplying information to a local newspaper was never considered a financial transaction. Most of my contacts were only too happy to talk to a local reporter and usually on-the-record. They took pride in being quoted in the local press and were keen to fulfil their role in ensuring the fullest possible reporting of local affairs.

Notes 1 Leveson, Sir Brian: evidence to House of Commons Select Commit- tee on Media, Culture and Sport, 10 October 2013. Available online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/ cmcumeds/uc143-iv/uc14301.htm, accessed on 15 November 2013

2 Coulson, Andy: interview, London Evening Standard, 3 March 2005

3 Thurlbeck, Neville: interview, London Evening Standard, 3 March 2005

4 Preston, Peter: media column, Observer, 20 March 2005. Available online at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/mar/20/pres- sandpublishing.business1, accessed on 12 November 2013

5 Murdoch, Rupert: witness statement and evidence, Leveson Inqui- ry, 25 April 2012. Available online at http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/evidence/evidence-thursday-1-january-1970-afternoon-460/, accessed on 15 November 2013

6 Murdoch, Rupert: news report of secret recording, Channel 4 News, 3 July 2013, transcript at investigative website www.exarone- ws.com

7 Preston, Peter: media column, ‘From risky exposés to setting up a regular: The press can do both’, Observer, 14 July 2013. Available online at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/14/press- regulator-risky-expose-murdoch, accessed on 15 November 2013

8 Snow, Jon: discussion, Channel 4 News, 4 July 2013

9 Starmer, Keir: interview by Zoe Williams, Guardian, 18 October 2013. Available online at http://www.theguardian.com/theguard- ian/2013/oct/18/keir-starmer-potential-change-criminal-justice, accessed on 12 November 2013

10 Leveson, Sir Brian: evidence to House of Commons Select Com- mittee on Media, Culture and Sport, 10 October 2013. Available online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/ cmselect/cmcumeds/uc143-iv/uc14301.htm, accessed on 15 Novem- ber 2013

11 Leveson Report, executive summary, page 7. Available online at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/ hc07/0779/0779.asp, accessed on 12 November 2013

28 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL