Nicholas Jones Offering payment for exclusive stories continues to be an everyday transaction in some newsrooms. Readers of the Sun 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 Phone hacking and for the Daily Mirror: ‘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 Leveson Inquiry 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 I 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 News of the World 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 Rupert Murdoch’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 David Beckham, 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 Andy Coulson 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 the Guardian 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 Channel 4 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 Metropolitan Police during the phone-hacking touch of the Pulitzers?’ was the provocative investigation but who was not charged by the headline in the Observer 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.