Leveson inquiry: embarrassed tabloids pass the buck in their coverage

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade

Leveson inquiry: embarrassed tabloids pass the buck in their coverage




Tabloids are unused to practising self-criticism so their coverage of the Leveson inquiry hearings has resulted in fascinating buck-passing exercises. Every other paper dunnit except us, your honour.

The reports have been given proportionately little space or promotion, and there were obvious sins of omission.

Just as pertinently, in the face of evidence about collective misconduct, each title has found a way of damning rivals while conveniently overlooking most of the accusations specifically levelled at their own misbehaviour.

For example, the Daily Mail managed to carry an item about Max Mosley without mentioning his widely reported contention that its editor, Paul Dacre, was obsessed with schoolboy smut.

It did find room, however, for a piece attributing sinister implications to a gathering of Leveson witnesses at a Soho club where, allegedly, they ate and drank "into the night." Gosh.

The Mail, in its report on the evidence presented by Kate and Gerry McCann, pointed out that the Daily Express and Daily Star were the "worst offenders" while noting that it had "settled out of court." Was that meant to make the Mail seem more virtuous?

The Express's report acknowledged that it had published a front page apology "in which it admitted it was at fault." This was to its credit.

The Daily Mirror devoted a spread to the McCanns, with a large picture, while The Sun not only down-played it - placing it on a left-hand page, 14 - but also failed to record the key part of their statement about trickery by the News of the World and the furious phone call from its editor, Colin Myler.

That was some oversight. Why the reticence? Clearly it wasn't a News International instruction because The Times gave the incident full measure.

A Mail report on Steve Coogan's evidence carried his extensive criticism of the Mirror. By contrast, the Mirror made only a passing reference to it.

But the Mirror did graciously mention the fact that Sienna Miller had sued it for falsely claiming she was drunk. Predictably, The Sun and Daily Star delightedly reported that too.

Day after day, you could sense the tabloids' conflict. Though these papers thrive on the activities (and pictures) of celebrities, it was embarrassing to have to report their criticisms of an out-of-control press.

What was increasingly clear from the celebrities' tales of woe was their intense upset about the disgraceful behaviour of the photographic pack, the paparazzi. (See Dan Sabbagh on this too).

I hope that when editors appear before Leveson, the inquiry's counsel questions them about the market they provide for this band of out-of-control stalkers with cameras who operate outside the remit of the editors' code of practice.

Many of the most heinous anecdotes about intrusion and harassment - told by the McCanns, JK Rowling, Max Mosley and Sienna Miller - concerned the paps.

Most of these freelance, non-unionised photographers care nothing for ethics. They exist only because the papers pay them for their dirty work.

The problem is that editors too rarely question the provenance of the pictures that appear on their screens. Because these images are sent by supposedly legitimate agencies they are prepared to publish them.

If there are later complaints about how the pictures were obtained, editors shrug... nothing to do with us, old boy. Try the agency that sent them to us.

And which one was that? Sorry, can't tell you that because it's a confidential matter. How much did you pay? Sorry, that's a commercial secret. In other words, it's another case of buck-passing.

Over several years, I have tried to track back the route of certain controversial pictures. On most occasions, having finally identified the agency, I have come up against a brick wall.

Agencies exist outside the remit of the Press Complaints Commission. Many of them are not more than "fronts" for a couple of photographers.

Some photographs pass through several hands - for example, from pap to agency one and on to agency two, maybe even three - before reaching a newspaper's picture editor.

Leveson will need to get to grips with this process, which provides editors with a built-in deniability. It's not us, guv.

The inquiry could, I suppose, call in some of the people who own agencies. However, many are no more than two-man operations.

One way or another, as the PCC has often conceded down the years, the stalkerazzi are a major cause for concern by celebrities and anyone (like the McCanns) suddenly plunged into the spotlight, and a key reason for the loathing of "the press."
Posted by Roy Greenslade 08.45 GMT