Use of subterfuge by journalists is closely controlled

Published on Monday 25 June 2007 01:35

THERE are some times when newspapers have to lie.

We dress it up in the far nicer title of subterfuge, but there are times when it has to be done. In some cases, reporters pretending to be somebody else or just not saying they are reporters is the only way to get a story that is in the public interest. However, since the conviction for phone message tapping of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, both of whom worked for the News of the World, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has tightened up on exactly what newspapers can do. It said this was "vitally important", and it was probably right.

Goodman was a journalist and Mulcaire was an investigative agent who was on a retainer (a not insubstantial 104,988 per annum), not an employee of the paper or the parent company.

The pair had speculatively tapped into private mobile phone messages and used the information they discovered for stories in the News of the World.

Mulcaire and Goodman were sentenced to six and four months in prison respectively. Andy Coulson, the editor of the News of the World, resigned.

The PCC said: "This type of snooping has no place in journalism."

But the PCC also recognised that some forms of subterfuge by the media are necessary, so the task it had before it was to clearly delineate exactly what was and what was not acceptable.

In a statement, it said that "the Commission has also been concerned not to obscure or undermine the legitimate role of subterfuge in journalism that is in the public interest".

It wanted to "ensure that lessons have been learned from this incident, so that British journalism is not brought into similar disrepute in the future".

Weighty stuff.

The case raised very interesting issues about the employment of investigators and about the Data Protection Act.

The arrests coincided with a campaign by the Information Commissioner in England to raise awareness of the terms of the Data Protection Act, which applies to journalists but which also contains an exemption for some journalistic activity. The Information Commissioner was concerned that information provided to journalists by inquiry agents had been obtained by "blagging" or bribery in breach of the Act.

The Code of Practice on subterfuge states: "Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means."

The Commission was also worried that " the employment of Mr Mulcaire represented an attempt to circumvent the provisions of the Code by sub-contracting investigative work to a third party".

As a result of this inquiry, the Commission made a number of specific recommendations, drawn from the News of the World episode and best practice:

It said:

• Contracts with external contributors should contain an explicit requirement to abide by the Code of Practice;

• A similar reference to the Data Protection Act should be included in contracts of employment;

• Publications should review internal practice to ensure they have an effective and fully understood "subterfuge protocol" for staff journalists, which includes who should be consulted for advice about whether the public interest is sufficient to justify subterfuge;

• Although contractual compliance with the Code for staff journalists is widespread, it should without delay become universal across the industry;

• There should be regular internal training and briefing on developments on privacy cases and compliance with the law;

• There should be rigorous audit controls for cash payments, where these are unavoidable.

I think that these guidelines should provide the very necessary reassurance that the public needs. The Scotsman has only very rarely used investigative agents for very particular inquiries, and always the editor is the person fully informed and makes all the decisions.

As the Commission recognised, there is a need for subterfuge, but that has to be exercised with responsibility, and what the Goodman case highlighted was that managers have a responsibility to know what is being undertaken on their behalf.

If you have a complaint about editorial in The Scotsman contact Ian Stewart at [e-mail] or at 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS or on 0131-620 8633.