Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

The Leveson Inquiry

251 replies

bananaistheanswer · 22/11/2011 13:58

I know there is a thread on Hugh Grant, but wanted to start one to discuss the bits and bobs that's been happening. Might be worth having one thread to cover this? Ignore if you disagree!

Anyway, was interested in a couple of things that have happened today. Diane Watson's parents giving evidence, not directly linked to phone hacking, but as general evidence regarding the PCC's toothless, spineless dealings with complaints about the press and their intrusions. Interesting and compelling evidence. Particularly as they have been campaigning on the issue for years, long before the whole phone hacking thing blew up. This is what the BBC have said they have been doing over the years because of their experience of the press at large -

The submission added that Mr and Mrs Watson had:

direct contact with the newspaper and the magazine (publications that they felt were wrong on what they wrote about their daughter)

complained to the Press Complaints Commission

contacted their own MP and MEP

engaged in correspondence with the Scottish and Home Offices, the Scottish Parliament Committee's Justice Committees and the European Commission of Human Rights

and lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament on 10 May, 2002, regarding wider policy issues.

Their son committed suicide, with clippings of press articles written about his sister, found in his hand.

Moving onto Gary Flitcroft - had 2 affairs, tried to get the stories snuffed out, was refused and then was hounded by the press. He blames is father's suicide some years later on the publicity given to his affairs, resulting in a man who already suffered from depression, losing interest in watching his son play football because of the publicity his affairs got in the press, and then the chanting at football grounds which were too much for him.

Then, there was Elle Macpherson's assistant, accused of speaking to journalists on her private life/crumbling relationship, who was forced to go to rehab for 'alcoholism' as Elle felt she wouldn't have betrayed her trust if it wasn't for her alcoholism. She went to rehab, but then got sacked afterwards anyway. She wrote to the police on realising that her phone could have been hacked, but wasn't answered. Bizarre story.

The various QCs or whoever, commenting on the fact the Mail on Sunday have now attacked Hugh Grant on a personal level, because of his evidence yesterday, when it was supposedly agreed no attacks would follow anyone who gave evidence.

It's mental so far, the picture being painted (granted by those on the receiving end of the press intrusion) is just awful. Watched some ex NOTW journo on sky trying to justify the Mail's reaction, with a Daily Star Journo actually backing Grant in his stance re his daughter's mother etc.

It's all pretty gripping stuff.

So far, we have had 2 people mentioned as having committed suicide, which their families believe were linked to the press coverage of the stories linked to them. I am genuinely wondering how many more stories we'll hear along those lines.

OP posts:
limitedperiodonly · 24/11/2011 16:08

I tend to agree with you sis. Or rather, I want to.

I used to work in women's weeklies where the requirement was for an 'emotional' read.

This meant replacing eloquent, intelligent and moving quotes from interview subjects with cliches - 'I was devastated', 'it was like being in a horror film', 'I felt so betrayed' - because senior staff felt that interviewees who expressed themselves in dignified ways were 'cold' and the readers wouldn't like them.

It was like working for aliens who'd taken a correspondence course in Human Emotion.

I'm not sure all readers did want it - at least not before every women's magazine was written in that style and it became normal.

I used to dread the hurt phone calls from people who'd invited me into their homes and told me their stories over two or three hours only to find I'd put them through the Random Cliched Shit Generator back at the office.

Anyway, I left.

NormanTebbit · 24/11/2011 16:23

Perhaps it is a case of the 'public want what the public get,' but I can't help thinking that these days we read public displays of emotion as sincerity some kind of 'truth.' and when someone hasn't read the 'XFactor emotion script - such as Kate McCann who avoided public demonstrations of grief - they are described as cold and are thus suspect.

But yes I take your point sis and limitedI think perhaps the tabloid media is rather contemptuous of its readership.

sis · 24/11/2011 17:12

limited that sounds awful - glad you were able to leave! Your experience illustrates my point in that 'they' (senior editors?) decide what the readers want and then provide it then claim that it is what we demanded.

bananaistheanswer · 24/11/2011 20:28

So, there will be a break tomorrow and it'll resume on monday. Monday's witnesses are:-

Charlotte Church

Anne Diamond

Ian Hurst

Chris Jefferies

Jane Winter

Tuesday (which I think will be really interesting):-

Richard Peppiatt, former Daily Star journalist

Nick Davies, Guardian investigative journalist who broke the phone-hacking story

Paul McMullan, former features editor at the News of the World

If anyone has watched Paul McMullan on Newsnight, or read Hugh Grant's article in the New Statesman about him, i'll be glued to the TV to hear what he has to say on this whole issue. Wonder if he'll wear his beige suite...Hmm?

OP posts:
PastGrace · 24/11/2011 21:07

Norman sorry I probably didn't make myself clear. In English common law the reference is to the "ethics of journalism" which is now understood to be "responsible journalism". It's developed since (as you are no doubt aware) there cannot be a code of conduct such as one might create for the medical profession because in medicine there is (generally) a clear answer - or at least a clear wrong answer. This doesn't exist in journalism since journalists are objective and at best operate with general principles. One of the reasons there is so much litigation is because "responsible journalism" is so vague, and is obviously dependent on who is interpreting it (for example I probably have a different interpretation to you, and a judge probably has a third interpretation).

Is that not what you found? I suppose this isn't an issue until, like you say, you get into legal difficulties. I suppose if you are a normal person you find that you come within the standards just by behaving sensibly.

banana I'm really excited for Tuesday - I'm going to try and go to the afternoon hearing I think

NormanTebbit · 24/11/2011 21:17

In my experience the test of responsible journalism is 'Can we get away with it?'
Ethics is a county east of London.

Obviously there are bastions of responsible journalism such as The Guardian or BBC but they will take copy from (low paid) agency reporters whose methods may not be squeaky clean. But that is the nature of the job I suppose.

follyfoot · 24/11/2011 21:19

Very pleased the Daily Mail/MOS is being dragged into this. I hear there will be more difficulties to come for them.

LePruneDeMaTante · 24/11/2011 21:25

Good.

bananaistheanswer · 24/11/2011 21:26

Pastgrace I'm Envy that you get to go in person. I don't work tuesdays so instead of doing my usual domestic chores I'll be glued to the TV/Internet to see what will be said. I can almost imagine the kind of reaction from McMullan given his appearances on the likes of Newsnight when this whole story went nuclear. And I am 98% certain he'll be wearing that bloody beige suit Grin.

OP posts:
limitedperiodonly · 24/11/2011 21:35

sis and norman I think we broadly agree with each other. But I most definitely don't want this to come over as a St Paul-type conversion.

I'm proud of being a journalist. It's all I ever wanted to do and I am a good one. I don't feel the need to defend lazy, greedy or incompetent ones, who far outweigh the criminal ones, but mistakes get made and I've made them too. I've attempted to make amends within the legal and face-saving system. Sometimes that can't happen.

As it happens I drifted into celeb journalism from women's interest. The celebs that you meet can take your breath away in their greed, delusion and sense of entitlement. But then so can some 'ordinary' people who lie or renege on contracts and are stupid enough to think they can get away with it.

I've interviewed Steve Coogan. Personally I don't care about his private life but in an interview situation I liked it when he spilled his guts. I didn't force him or use any special technique. I just think he can't shut the fuck up.

And it was for the News of the World in order for him to sell the maximum number of tickets for a stage tour so he is either a fibber or forgetful when he says he doesn't do anything like that.

My advice to him would be to stop giving interviews. He is needy of affirmation and he's not going to get that in the press. The press does not exist to promote his projects, it exists only if it can interest readers.

If he's going to carry on talking he should stop whingeing. And it might be a good idea for him to stop lecturing neutral journalists and behaving as if they are idiots. It got my back up to be told what I thought when he didn't know me at all. Ironic seeing as that's what he accuses journalists of doing to him.

Never met Hugh Grant. Thought he performed well and am willing to forgive his ignoring of the soap opera stuff with Liz Hurley immediately after the Divine Brown thing because he needed to protect his career and I think that's fair enough.

PastGrace · 24/11/2011 21:44

banana I probably won't get in!

Also Blush at generally poor grammar/construction of my last comment

chipstick10 · 24/11/2011 22:17

I feel desperately sorry for the Dowlers but my heart doesnt bleed for Coogan or Grant tbh.

Nancy66 · 24/11/2011 23:25

A few points. EVERY newspaper has been dragged into the hacking scandal - including the Guardian who aren't blameless either - in fact The Guardian had to issue a grovelling apology to The Sun this week for wrongly claiming that their reporters had been harrassing one of the Levenson lawyers.

Follyfoot - I'd be very surprised if there is anything worse to come for the Mail and Mail on Sunday. Certainly not what I hear.

You honestly think tabloids give their readers something they don't demand? Rubbish.

Oh, and the BBC being held up as one of the last great bastions of truth and responsible journalism? Good lord.

bkgirl · 24/11/2011 23:44

Nancy the Guardian cannot be compared to the utter sewer trawling of Murdochs papers...it's not perfect but crikey it is in a different and ultimately respectable league.
I wonder what stable this journalist comes from.....then again I bet everyone can guess
www.journalism.co.uk/news/police-make-first-computer-hacking-arrest/s2/a546886/

LucaBrasi · 24/11/2011 23:48

Yes clearly Nancy666 they are all the same

The Sun had their lawyers on track for any mistake from the Guardian.

The poor (famous or not) fuckers might not have the resources.

The public want what the public get. Not what they demand.

Nancy66 · 24/11/2011 23:49

It is in a different league - it doesn't depend on breaking stories for its sales and revenue

bkgirl · 24/11/2011 23:58

I appreciate there are many great journalists working for not so great titles because they have to earn a living - fair enough. However, there is no need to slag off respectable work.As for breaking stories, I thought journos just spooned off the Eye ...months later;

Nancy66 · 25/11/2011 00:04

I work for my title because it's a brilliant newspaper.
I don't slag off respectable work - I see it every day - just not in The guardian.

bkgirl · 25/11/2011 00:10

Glad to hear it Nancy....just getting VERY disillusioned and Leveson isn't helping.

Nancy66 · 25/11/2011 00:11

You should be disillusioned about an enquiry and investigation that will end up costing over £20million.....

bkgirl · 25/11/2011 00:20

I do think 20 mill is an awful lot of dosh, perhaps Murdoch can be fined it for his hacking? The enquiry itself is much needed and overdue, about time people like the Watsons and the Dowlers got to tell us what really they endured at the hands of the press and maybe someone will introduce safeguards to stop anything happening like this again.
As for the celebs, these people have families and I don't agree that they sign away all privacy. True the public salivates over the dodgy stuff but do we always have to sink to the lowest levels these days?Surely not.

bananaistheanswer · 25/11/2011 00:22

Just curious Nancy, do you think this Inquiry is a waste of time/money? Is there any useful purpose in your view? Or do you simply see it as an attack on your profession?

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 25/11/2011 00:26

The enquiry isn't needed.
In trying to rap one group over the knuckles (the press) another will leap on the band wagon for their own selfish reasons. You honestly think Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan or Max Moseley have anybody's interests other than their own at the heart of their actions/involvement? They are people with a LOT to hide...believe me.

As for the politicians - they can't believe their luck. They've already made changes to privacy laws - so much so that if the story about their expenses fiddling were to break today no newspaper would be allowed to run it.

There always have been laws in place to prevent hacking - it's an illegal practice.

bkgirl · 25/11/2011 00:29

What about the Watsons and Dowlers. Can you justify their treatment too?

At least politicians are elected...Murdoch isn't.

Nancy66 · 25/11/2011 00:32

You don't pay Murdoch's wages.....

I honestly had never even heard of the Watson story before this week.
The Dowlers? No, absolutely unforgiveable. I don't know a single journalist that wasn't appalled by that.
I am convinced it was a foolish action carried out by a very junior reporter, desperate to get a story who simply didn't appreciate the gravity of what he/she was doing.