Dealing in private information

The Department of Constitutional Affairs has published the responses to its consultation on dealing with private information. The consultation was asking if the penalties for dealing in such information should be increased to include custodial sentences. Those found guilty of buying or selling such information could be jailed. It's a difficult issue. Much information that is presently sold by criminals and others should remain private and there should be severe penalties for those who deal in such information, but there seems to be a strong view that this new legislation should be aimed at journalists and that criminals or others who seek to invade our privacy by hacking into our computers or bank accounts are not the major target. Journalists should be careful when dealing in private information. Only if revealing the information in support of a story that is strongly in the public interest should they consider buying it. However, such stories are, thankfully, published often enough to make sure that there should be strict safeguards to ensure that journalists are not jailed every time someone influential feels that their power is under threat.

Select committee investigates self regulation

The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee has announced it intends inquiring into self regulation and the PCC code of conduct following the jailing of a News of the World reporter for accessing a royal voicemail and the paparazzi harassment of royal girlfriend Kate Middleton. The investigation will look at whether self-regulation of newspapers is working, whether the PCC code needs beefing up and how newspaper websites should be regulated. The PCC leapt into action, announcing that it would be regulating audio and video on newspaper and magazine websites (it already claimed to regulate text on such websites).
The likely message that the committee will hear from most of those who send them evidence is that there's little wrong with the PCC's code that actually applying it rigorously and with penalties wouldn't sort out. Since the Select Committee said much the same itself in 2003, it seems unlikely they will take a different approach now.
The Committee will act quickly with written evidence to be in by February 26th and oral evidence to be heard in March.

Inquiry launched

Pressure continues to build over concerns about media invasions of privacy. The Loreena McKennitt verdict in the Appeal Court has strengthened the use of breach of confidentiality in privacy cases and offers considerable guidance over how to handle intrusion and the direction the courts intend heading.
Meanwhile, MPs have become also become more concerned about privacy invasions and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into Press self regulation to investigate the efficacy of the Press Complaints Commission. These concerns have been triggered by the recent illegal access to voicemail messages (see earlier post) and the treament of public figures by photographers - a clear reference to the paparazzi harassment of Kate Middleton. The inquiry will ask whether self regulation offers sufficent protection over privacy; whether the PCC code needs amending; whether existing law on the disclosure of personal information should be strengthened and what form of regulation (if any) should apply to online news provision. The inquiry will be quick with submissions invited by Feb 26 and oral evidence in early March.
It's difficult to tell at this early stage how significant this inquiry might be, but with the last inquiry only three years ago, the PCC probably wishes that the CMS committee would go back to worrying about gambling.

Jail for Goodman

At a time when the Home Office is struggling with prison places, it seems a little harsh to send Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of The World, to jail for tapping the phone of Prince William. However his four month sentence will be seen by many as a serious warning that unwarranted intrusions into people's privacy are likely to attract punishment from the courts and minimal sympathy from the public.
NoW Editor Andy Coulson later resigned, confirming the view of many that an editor should know what is going on in his paper and should not be condoning, implicitly or explicitly such intrusive journalism; journalism that is in clear breach of the PCC's code of practice.
No doubt some will see this sentence as an attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom of journalists to dig for stories. Of course it is nothing of the sort. Goodman's ethods were underhanded and deceitful, intended to dig out stories that would boost circulation rather than reveal information of public importance.
What may be worrying is that a rising revulsion about the methods employed by some journalists might allow the government to clamp down on freedom of information and to limit access to data that might be in the public interest, all in the name of protecting privacy. It is vital journalists behave professionally to prevent giving government the excuse to cut off access to those stories that matter.

Big Brother row

The big story in Media Ethics today is the Big Brother row. It offers some difficulties to journalists in that reporting it risks repeating some of the material that has already drawn so much criticism. If the material is offensive or likely to spark racial hatred when transmitted by Big Brother, the offence is no less if reported by journalists. Most seem to have coped with this problem by concentrating on the row rather than the detail of what caused it.