DOCSLIB.ORG

Reporting the Newspapers: Evidence of Bias Skew in the Bbc’S Selection of Titles, Stories and Guest Discussants of Newspaper Coverage, 18Th April to 21St May 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reporting the Newspapers: Evidence of Bias Skew in the Bbc’S Selection of Titles, Stories and Guest Discussants of Newspaper Coverage, 18Th April to 21St May 2017 REPORTING THE NEWSPAPERS: EVIDENCE OF BIAS SKEW IN THE BBC’S SELECTION OF TITLES, STORIES AND GUEST DISCUSSANTS OF NEWSPAPER COVERAGE, 18TH APRIL TO 21ST MAY 2017 Professor Adrian Renton, University of East London Dr Justin Schlosberg, Birkbeck, University of London SUMMARY BACKGROUND We are in a General Election Period. The BBC is required by its Charter and Ofcom’s amended Broadcasting Code, to provide high quality and distinctive material to support all audiences in participating in the democratic process as informed citizens. It is also required to treat politics with due accuracy and due impartiality, and during elections to balance coverage against past and current evidence of electoral support. This guidance applies to all of the BBC’s election coverage, including its regular citation and reviews of national newspaper headlines. METHODS The broadcast versions of “The Papers” and web versions of the “Papers Blog” for every day from the General Election Announcement on 18 April to 21st May 2017 were obtained and analysed to assess the number of days on which different newspapers outputs were mentioned, and discussed, and the time given for discussion of each newspaper, on a daily basis. The primary party endorsement which each newspaper gave to Parties at the May 2015 General Election was obtained. Papers were then categorized as Conservative, Labour, Other Party or No Party endorsing. Information provided by the presenter of Guests (name, job, and organisation) invited as discussants on the Broadcast version “the Papers” was recorded. These guests were classified as affiliated with the same categories of Party as above using evidenced methods. The proportional distribution across Party affiliated organisations was calculated and compared across Party categories and the extent to which they were balanced with respect to published voter proportions for each Party in the 2015 General Election was estimated. Confidence estimates were placed on all estimates using standard statistical techniques. RESULTS Across both its daily Broadcast programme “The Papers” and in the “Papers Blog” the BBC is giving between sixty nine and ninety five percent more coverage and discussion to papers supporting the Conservative Party than is balanced, using 2015 election voting as a reference. It is doing this at the expense of other parties who polled similar numbers at that election. Further, in its selection of Guests to discuss the newspaper outputs in its broadcasts, it is giving almost twice as much airtime to Guests affiliated as individuals of from organisations linked with the Conservative Party. No trade unionists or charity representatives were featured in the sample, and no politicians except from the Conservative party. The statistical probability that this could occur by chance if the BBC were 1 genuinely fulfilling its criteria to achieve balance on 2015 voting is across our measures less than one in ten thousand (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION The findings of this study provide strong evidence suggesting that the BBC, during the course of a General Election, is violating its Charter and sections 5 and 6 of the amended Broadcasting Code1, by the way it re-disseminates selected facts, events and opinions published by an already imbalanced spectrum of national newspapers. It is failing to give due weight to the coverage of parties during the election period by not taking account of evidence of past and current electoral support, as proscribed by Ofcom’s amended guidelines. Finally, through the selection of Guest discussants of newspaper coverage the BBC is failing to represent proportionate and diverse political perspectives, taking due account of the particular funding sources and editorial stance of organisations represented. 2 BACKGROUND The BBC’s mission and purposes under its Royal Charter2 include acting in the public interest in delivering news which is duly impartial, high-quality and distinctive and which builds people’s understanding. It should offer analysis and content not widely available from other UK news providers, so that all audiences can engage fully with major issues and participate in the democratic process, as active and informed citizens. The BBC is also required by Ofcom to treat all matters of politics with due accuracy and due impartiality in news and other output and to give due weight to the coverage of parties during elections, based on evidence of past and current electoral support. Further, The BBC’s Election Guidelines for the June 2017 General Election3 state that the Corporation needs to take all reasonable steps to be sure and that they have taken account of how organisations are funded. They also state that in reporting on press coverage of the campaign and in newspaper reviews, they should also take account of any relevant subjective editorial stance. Ofcom Data suggest that newspapers remain (just below the internet (40% vs 41%)) as an important source of news and information to the voting age population in the UK, with greater use by older age groups and among those not in employment4. There is also good evidence that the party people vote for is strongly associated with the political endorsements of the papers that they read, although it is not clear which direction (if any) the causality might operate5. Research on coverage of the 2015 General Election demonstrated the sensitivity of broadcasters to an issue agenda shaped largely by a Conservative-leaning national press.6 There has also been a considerable amount of concern about the impartiality of the BBC news coverage in relation to the Labour Party, since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.7 Studies of the EU referendum have also demonstrated over representation of the Conservative Party in broadcasting coverage.8 . The credibility of these findings is significantly enhanced by the astonishing broadcast of comments made by Sir Michael Lyons, previously Chairman of the BBC’s highest body, the BBC Trust. On 12th May 2016 he said on the World at One: “I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that the BBC has sought to hedge its bets of late. There have been some quite extraordinary attacks on the elected leader of the Labour Party. I mean quite extraordinary. I can understand why people are worried about whether some of the most senior editorial voices at the BBC have lost their impartiality in this”. The Democratic process relies on a legitimate election system. But it also relies on those voting having a balanced view of the issues at stake, and on the position of the Parties on those issues. By any measure the British national press remains highly concentrated, both in terms of ownership and partisan editorial stance. Clearly the BBC as a public services broadcaster has a role to play in balancing the potential disinformation, at both the narrative and factual level, which may be communicated to the voting public by this lack of plurality. Aside from the influence newspapers are said to wield on the BBC’s overall news agenda, fixed slot airtime is devoted to reviewing national newspapers on a number of its flagship and peak time news programmes. These include the Andrew Marr Show on BBC One, the Today Programme on Radio 4, and Radio 5 Live. In addition, the BBC presents a daily blog (The Papers Blog) on its website devoted to re-disseminating headlines from national newspapers. This study aims to provide reliable quantitative empirical evidence of the coverage of “The Papers” daily broadcasts as well as the “Papers Blog” since the announcement of the current General Election as well as the affiliations of the individuals invited onto the “The Papers Programme” and to consider whether these findings are consistent with the BBC’s Royal Charter, its current election guidelines, and the requirements of the Broadcasting Code. 3 METHODS OVERVIEW The broadcast versions of “The Papers” and the Papers Blog” were downloaded from the BBC Iplayer website9 and the BBC Blog site10 on a daily basis between the 18 April and 21 May 2017. The primary endorsements to Political Parties provided by each paper at the May 2015 General Election was obtained from the Wikipedia website11. References provided in support of endorsements were checked in the references cited on the page to confirm validity. Papers were then categorized as Conservative, Labour, Other Party, or No-Party endorsing. DATA COLLECTION “THE PAPERS” BROADCAST For each day the broadcast episode(s) were carefully reviewed and the following information was recorded: a) whether each paper was mentioned (Paper Mentioned); b) whether each paper was discussed (Paper Discussed); c) for how long each paper was discussed (Time Discussed); and d) the name of each guest and the presenter’s description of the guest’s role and organisational affiliation. For each episode the procedure for collecting these data was as follows. At the beginning (introduction) of the programme there is a screening of images of the front page of several papers, with the Presenter stating (usually rereading) the paper’s name and restating or rereading the main headline for 10 seconds or so. For each paper image screened, named and headline read or restated, a binary number (0,1) (variable Paper Mentioned) was recorded against the paper name. Generally the next occurrence is the Presenter introducing Guests by their names and their organisational affiliations; or as a commentator or freelancer with no organisational affiliation stated. Next, the Presenter chooses a headlines from one of the papers for discussion; and a discussion commences. The time this occurred was recorded as Discussion Start Time and allocated to the paper, At some point the presenter draws the discussion of this headline/paper to a close. This time was recorded as Discussion End Time and allocated to the paper). The Presenter then moves on to raise a new discussion. This point is again recorded as Discussion Start Time and allocated.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Swansea Bay City Deal 1.1 Overview
    Swansea Bay City Deal Communications and Marketing Plan Greg Jones Swansea Bay City Deal Communications and Marketing Officer 1.1 Overview Signed by the Prime Minister in March 2017, the Swansea Bay City Deal is an unprecedented investment of up to £1.3 billion in the Swansea Bay City Region, which is made up of Carmarthenshire, Neath Port Talbot, Pembrokeshire and Swansea. The City Deal consists of a portfolio of transformational programmes and projects which, subject to business case approvals, will be funded by the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the public sector and the private sector. A 15-year portfolio, the City Deal will transform the City Region into a centre of excellence for a number of sectors, including renewable/low carbon energy, life science and well-being, smart manufacturing and economic acceleration. A regional economic boost of at least £1.8 billion is projected over the lifespan of the portfolio, with the creation of over 9,000 jobs. City Deal projects include the Pentre Awel development in Llanelli; a life science, well-being and sport campuses scheme in Swansea; a city and waterfront digital district in Swansea; a low carbon programme in Neath Port Talbot featuring a specialist facility to support the steel and metals industry; and an off-shore testing area and associated facilities for marine energy technologies in Pembrokeshire. A homes as power stations project is also planned across the region, along with major digital infrastructure improvements and a skills and talent initiative that will give local people a pathway to access the employment opportunities being created.
    [Show full text]
  • Daily Mail Letters Email Address
    Daily Mail Letters Email Address statistically.Anurag is quadruplicate If arboraceous and or eff fatuous casually Stevie as optional usually Wardenoverheard follow-through his boscages desultorily overglancing and glancinglyedulcorating or barbotinereclimbing so anxiously ruggedly! and chaffingly, how sterile is Dietrich? Involved Mort profiling some jovialness and saints his Part of the same ads hint, our service was not being reported in favour of corporations own words, daily mail letters Make are to confident the changes. What really my mailing address? When you recall an announcement or just news release, both are acting as a reporter. Senior managers have responsibility for key businesses or functions within this Group. Editing is non existent. ITV show but confessed that maintaining her gym almost resulted in family arguments. ID email yesterday or today. All six months away the royal mail limited evidence of the daily mail letters are responding to do you! Very self to navigate by no pop up adverts! Writers retain rights to stress work after publication. Dial the above number and report in case you ensure not receive three scratch card along with now Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday. Class Package International Service. The editorial staff have be contacted for printing new title or latest news. Letters become the property probably The Times and team be edited for publication. Such coverage would quickly cover to approximate in Parliament who are petrified both of Brexit and of legislation seen to brazen it. Always be cautious about search you befriend and what you word on social media. Both forms are show through UH Postal Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Material for Chapter 2: Press Regulation Section Numbers from the Book Are Used When Relevant
    Dodd & Hanna: McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, 24th edition Additional Material for Chapter 2: Press regulation Section numbers from the book are used when relevant. Its content provides fuller explanations and context. 2.1.1 Fragmentation of press regulation A deep concern among the ‘mainstream’ press organisations and many journalists was that Leveson’s proposed regulatory system included an overseeing ‘recognition body’, to be created by statute (and therefore in a form decided by politicians). Leveson’s aim was that this body would decide whether to approve (‘recognise’) any regulator funded by the press, and therefore how the regulator would operate. The idea was that - if recognition was granted - there would be periodic reviews of the regulator’s effectiveness, in terms of promoting standards in journalism, to check if its recognised status remained merited. Leveson did not recommend that such recognition should be compulsory for any regulator the press established. But, as explained below, he designed a legal framework which could financially penalise press organisations – potentially very heavily - if they did not sign up to a ‘recognised’ regulator. Critics of the recognition concept say it offers potential for future governments to interfere with press freedom, by exercising influence through the role of, or powers granted to, the recognition body—for example, by giving it powers to insist that a regulator, to retain recognition, impose tighter rules on the press, with harsh penalties for breaching them. Supporters say that such ‘recognition’ oversight can help ensure that a recognised regulator is completely independent, in its decisions on complaints against the press, of any press group funding it.
    [Show full text]
  • Print Journalism: a Critical Introduction
    Print Journalism A critical introduction Print Journalism: A critical introduction provides a unique and thorough insight into the skills required to work within the newspaper, magazine and online journalism industries. Among the many highlighted are: sourcing the news interviewing sub-editing feature writing and editing reviewing designing pages pitching features In addition, separate chapters focus on ethics, reporting courts, covering politics and copyright whilst others look at the history of newspapers and magazines, the structure of the UK print industry (including its financial organisation) and the development of journalism education in the UK, helping to place the coverage of skills within a broader, critical context. All contributors are experienced practising journalists as well as journalism educators from a broad range of UK universities. Contributors: Rod Allen, Peter Cole, Martin Conboy, Chris Frost, Tony Harcup, Tim Holmes, Susan Jones, Richard Keeble, Sarah Niblock, Richard Orange, Iain Stevenson, Neil Thurman, Jane Taylor and Sharon Wheeler. Richard Keeble is Professor of Journalism at Lincoln University and former director of undergraduate studies in the Journalism Department at City University, London. He is the author of Ethics for Journalists (2001) and The Newspapers Handbook, now in its fourth edition (2005). Print Journalism A critical introduction Edited by Richard Keeble First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX9 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Selection and editorial matter © 2005 Richard Keeble; individual chapters © 2005 the contributors All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Alison Phillips Editor, Daily Mirror Media Masters – September 26, 2018 Listen to the Podcast Online, Visit
    Alison Phillips Editor, Daily Mirror Media Masters – September 26, 2018 Listen to the podcast online, visit www.mediamasters.fm Welcome to Media Masters, a series of one to one interviews with people at the top of the media game. Today, I’m here in Canary Wharf, London, and at the offices of the Daily Mirror, joined by their editor in chief, Alison Phillips. Previously in charge of the Sunday Mirror and Sunday People, she was also launch editor of New Day, the short-lived newspaper, in 2016. She also leads on addressing gender imbalance at Mirror publisher Reach, heading up their Women Together network, and is this year’s Society of Editor’s popular columnist of the year. Alison, thank you for joining me. Hi. Alison, you were appointed in March. It must have been an incredibly proud moment for you, how is it going? It’s going really well, I think. I hope. It’s been a busy few months, because obviously Reach has bought the Express as well, so there have been a lot of issues going on. But in terms of the actual paper at the Mirror, I hope, I feel, that we’re reaching a point of sustained confidence, which is so important for a paper. We’ve had some real success on campaigns, which I think is really our lifeblood. And I think we’re managing to energise the staff, which is absolutely essential for a well-functioning newspaper. Is it more managerial at the moment with the organisational challenges that you’ve been dealing with? Because you must, as the leader of the business, as the editor, you’ve got so many things you could be doing, you’ve got to choose, having to prioritise.
    [Show full text]
  • In Europe—Health Dimension Through the Lens of the UK Daily Mail and Statistical Facts
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article “East” in Europe—Health Dimension through the Lens of the UK Daily Mail and Statistical Facts Izabella Lecka 1,*, Viktoriya Pantyley 2,*, Liudmila Fakeyeva 3,* and Alexandrina Cruceanu 4 1 Centre for Health Care Management, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, 02-678 Warsaw, Poland 2 Institute of Socio-Economic Geography and Spatial Management, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin, 20-031 Lublin, Poland 3 University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh EH8 9JS, UK 4 Faculty of History and Geography ¸Stefancel Mare, University of Suceava, 720229 Suceava, Romania; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (I.L.); [email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (L.F.) Abstract: The study concerns the relationship between health and geopolitics in the United Kingdom (UK). To demonstrate this relationship, we examined the subject and tone of articles published in the popular media (on the example of tabloid the Daily Mail) in 2006–2020 concerning health and medical care, and the health and health care practice of Eastern European immigrants belonging to and not belonging to the European Union (EU). There was an increase in media criticism of the behaviour of immigrants in the years 2014–2017, in the period around the referendum in favour of the UK leaving the EU (Brexit). Attention was drawn to the media’s use of a Belief in a Zero-Sum Game (BZSG) narrative at that time. On both sides, “hosts” and the “guests”, a progressive anomy Citation: Lecka, I.; Pantyley, V.; process was observed, degrading the behaviour of individuals and social groups.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Irish Sunday Newspaper
    1 The Irish Sunday newspaper: its role, character and history JOE BREEN & MARK O’BRIEN In his foreword to his 1967 edited volume, Your Sunday Paper, the British culture critic, Richard Hoggart, noted that ‘though a great deal has been written on the press in general, there is relatively little on the Sunday press in itself’.1 Many more words and volumes have addressed the general topic of newspapers since 1967, but, peculiarly, there remains something of a lacuna regarding study of the history of the Sunday press in Britain or in Ireland. Kevin Williams echoes that sentiment when he notes that the ‘role of Sunday is often neglected in standard histories of the British press, where they appear in a secondary role to the exploits of the daily newspaper’ while Brake, Kaul and Turner argue that the history of press scholarship privileges ‘daily press above all else’.2 This lack of critical scrutiny is all the more surprising when the Sundays have long lorded over their daily competitors in circulation and, some might argue, in influence. In Ireland, for instance, data at the Newsbrands website show that, for the period July to December 2017, daily newspapers in Ireland sold an average of 399,731 copies a day while Sundays recorded 567,600 sales.3 Williams notes that the earliest Sunday newspapers were serious publications and that it was ‘the format of sex, gossip and crime developed by papers such as the News of the World, Reynolds News and Lloyd’s Weekly News which enabled the Sundays to become Britain’s best-selling newspapers from the mid-nineteenth century’.4 He also records that the News of the World reached its sales peak in 1950 when it was calculated that 8.44 million people bought the paper; the highest daily sale recorded was 5.27 million for the Daily Mirror in 1967.5 The oldest Sunday newspaper in these islands, and possibly in the world, is The Observer which was first published in London in December 1791 and was, ‘in varying degrees a scurrilous gossip sheet, government propaganda rag and provocative thorn-in-the- side of the establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Lazy, Stupid, Inaccurate – the Mail on Sunday on E-Cigarettes
    Lazy, stupid, inaccurate – the Mail on Sunday on e-cigarettes Victory! 19 April 2013… Press Complaints Commission notice issued. News! 19 March 2013… Marie Claire agrees to publish response from me (to come). News! 3 March 2013… Correction issued by Mail on Sunday see here… Initial post: 27 January 2013 A particularly shoddy and irritating story in today’s Mail on Sunday. It is so bad that I was moved to complain to the Press Complaints Commission via the PCC online complaint facility. The article: E-cigarette ‘can cause more harm than smoking’, experts say is just total rubbish and completely irresponsible. There is no kinder way to put it. The PCC’s Editors’ Code of Practice requires: 1.Accuracy: i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. The story is online and at p25 in the Mail on Sunday Review ‘Health’ section. There are many excellent and devastatingcomments on the online version. My complaint and comment are below. I’ll let you know how the PCC responds. Complaint regarding Mail on Sunday article 27 January 2013: E-cigarettes ‘can cause more harm than smoking’, experts say 1. The headline and premise of the story is completely inaccurate – there are no circumstances in which e-cigarettes cause more harm than smoking. In reality they are almost harmless – probably at least 99% less risky than cigarette smoking. No expert would say this and none has. 2. There is no fact or argument in the article to support the headline or its main premise.
    [Show full text]
  • Application Pursuant to Paragraph 62 of Schedule 18 to The
    Non-confidential version NEWS CORP UK & IRELAND LIMITED Application pursuant to paragraph 62 of Schedule 18 to the Communications Act 2003 for acceptance of undertakings in place of conditions imposed under the Fair Trading Act 1973 1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This application is made on behalf of News Corp UK & Ireland Limited (News UK) in relation to the conditions attached by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to his consent to the transfer of the of The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers to News UK (then called News International Limited) (the Transfer) on 27 January 1981 (the Conditions). Pursuant to paragraph 62 of Schedule 18 to the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003), News UK seeks that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (the Secretary of State) accepts proposed undertakings (the 1 Proposed Undertakings) in place of the Conditions, in the form attached at Annex 1. 1.2 The Conditions include provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors (INDs) of Times Newspapers Holdings Limited (TNHL), and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of The Times and The Sunday Times. 1.3 The variation sought by News UK in the Proposed Undertakings relates solely to the sections of the Conditions which stipulate that ultimate control over the resources, including journalists, available to each title is kept separately with the editor of each newspaper.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Reach Annual Report 2020 Highlights1 in This Report
    Reach plc Annual ReportAnnual 2020 Transforming Reach Annual Report 2020 Highlights1 In this report Revenue (£m) Digital revenue (£m) Strategic Report 1 £600.2m -14.6% £118.3m +10.6% Introduction 1 2020 . 2020 . Chairman’s statement 2 Engaging with our stakeholders 4 2019 . 2019 . Engaging with our readers 6 2018 . 2018 . Our business and the value 8 2017 . 2017 . we create 2016 . 2016 . Our brands 10 Our influence 11 1 1 Opportunities and challenges 12 Adjusted operating profit (£m) Adjusted earnings per share – basic (p) facing our industry £133.8m -12.8% 34.4p -12.7% Chief Executive’s Q&A 14 The Reach Wire 17 Statutory: £7.6m Statutory: loss 8.6p Chief Executive’s review 18 Margin Our strategic pillars 21 2020 . 2020 . Key performance indicators 27 2019 . 2019 . Financial review 28 2018 . 2018 . Managing our resources 33 2017 . 2017 . and relationships 2016 . 2016 . Risk management 43 Risks and uncertainties 46 Earnings per share for 2016 to 2019 have been restated following the bonus issue to shareholders in October 2020. Section 172 statement 50 Dividend per share (p) Net cash/(debt) (£m) Governance 51 Board leadership and 52 4.26p £42.0m +£21.6m Company purpose Division of responsibilities 56 2020 . 2020 . Composition, succession 61 2019 . 2019 . and evaluation 2018 . 2018 (.) Audit, risk and internal controls 64 2017 . 2017 (.) Remuneration report 71 2016 . 2016 (.) Directors’ report 89 The final dividend proposed for 2019 of 4.05 pence per share was withdrawn by the directors. On 28 September 2020, the Board recommended a non-cash bonus issue of Financial Statements 94 shares to shareholders, in lieu of and with a value equivalent Independent auditor’s report 95 to an interim dividend of 2.63 pence per share, which was subsequently approved by shareholders in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Associated Newspapers
    ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS Annual statement to the Independent Press Standards Organisation 2019 1. Factual information 1.1 Overview A division of Daily Mail and General Trust, Associated Newspapers is one of the largest publishers of national newspapers and news websites in the UK, its titles including the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, MailOnline, Metro and Metro.co.uk. The company also publishes the Irish Daily Mail, Irish Mail on Sunday and evoke.ie website in the Irish Republic. MailOnline is a global news website with independent editorial operations in the USA and Australia. 1.2 List of Titles The Associated Newspapers titles regulated by IPSO are: • Daily Mail (Circulation area England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Average circulation including Scotland and Ireland December 2019: 1.09 million) • The Mail on Sunday (Circulation area England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Average circulation including Scotland and Ireland December 2019: 0.88 million) • Scottish Daily Mail (Circulation area Scotland. Average circulation December 2019: 67,900) • The Scottish Mail on Sunday (Circulation area Scotland. Average circulation December 2019 57,800) • Metro (Distribution in major cities and suburban areas in England, Scotland and Wales. Average circulation December 2019: 1.42 million) • MailOnline (all content relating to news events in the UK) (Global audience. Global monthly unique visitors December 2019: 207 million) • Metro.co.uk (Global audience. Global monthly unique visitors December 2019: 60 million) 1.3 Responsible person Associated Newspapers’ responsible person is Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus. 2 Editorial standards 2.1 Overview. Associated Newspapers has always been committed to upholding the editorial standards enshrined in the Editors’ Code of Practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy, Probity and Public Interest Whittle and Cooper Cover Image © Reuters © Image Cover , –7 the Independent
    Whittle and Cooper cover C:Layout 1 01/07/2009 15:43 Page 1 RISJ REUTERS REUTERS CHALLENGES INSTITUTE for the STUDY of INSTITUTE for the JOURNALISM CHALLENGES STUDY of JOURNALISM | Privacy, probity and public interest probity Privacy, “'Privacy, Probity and Public Interest' shows how privacy has come Privacy, probity and to be both better protected by the courts and more widely ignored: big questions, riveting examples and sharp analysis.” Baroness Onora O'Neill, President of the British Academy and public interest Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University “is report is from the frontline. Although it contains an admirable survey of the law and the stance of the regulators, it does much more. It gives interested parties a voice. e authors provide their own thoughtful commentary; they do not shirk the difficult questions. Stephen Whittle and Glenda Cooper Everyone should be interested in this debate, and I wholeheartedly commend this report to anyone who is.” Andrew Caldecott, QC, Specialist in Media Law “An erudite and compelling exposition of one of the most important ethical dilemmas facing British Journalism in the internet era. e authors identify a route towards a new journalism that can respect privacy without compromising its democratic obligation to hold power to account.” Tim Luckhurst Professor of Journalism, University of Kent Stephen Whittle is a journalist and was the BBC's Controller of Editorial Policy (2001–2006). As Controller, he was involved in some of the most high profile BBC investigations such as The Secret Policeman, Licence To Kill, and Panoramas on the Olympics and care of the elderly.
    [Show full text]