Thank God for the NHS – but when things go wrong, the public has a right to know about it

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 20 April 2011 at 11:11
Tags: Law, Press freedom

Few stories are as emotive as those involving medical malpractice. Nearly everyone will put their life in the hands of doctors and nurses at some point.

On more than one occasion I personally have had occasion to thank God (and Tony Blair) for the phenomenal standard of care offered by the NHS.

But when things go wrong patients and taxpayers have a right to know about it. So continuing moves to make doctors’ and nurses’ disciplinary hearings more secret are a terribly retrograde step.

The General Medical Council in particular needs to recognise that such moves would be self-defeating because openness is ultimately the best way to guard against corruption and promote best practice.

Today’s national newspapers are packed with coverage about the threat to press freedom posed by the increasing number of injunctions brought out to protect the privacy – and the lucrative public images – of the rich and famous.

I would argue that moves to make doctors (and nurses) disciplinary hearings more secret are an even more serious threat to press freedom and openness in the UK.

PG comment: Despite ‘tough treatment’ from press Gordon Brown has helped journalists

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 5 May 2010 at 11:20
Tags: Gordon Brown, Journalism, Journalists, Press freedom

Gordon Brown goes into this election with only the backing of the Mirror among the national newspapers.

Yesterday in an interview in the Evening Standard he noted: “I’ve had a tough two years from the press. I’m not complaining because basically at the end of the day the people will make up their mind. A number of newspapers are trying to run the election, they are trying to dictate the election. I think they have made a mistake.”

In one sense Brown has a right to feel hard done by. In terms of standing up for the interests of journalists, he has had a pretty good record as Prime Minister.

In April 2007, then prime minister-in-waiting Brown personally sanctioned a move to shelve proposals which would have drastically watered down the Freedom of Information Act. Press Gazette had launched a high profile campaign against changes which would have allowed government departments to reject out of hand FoI requests which cost more than £600 to answer. It would have neutered an Act which has been the single biggest advancement in UK press freedom for a generation.

And in October 2007, Prime Minister Brown revealed that he would not just safeguard FoI he would look at extending it, he also revealed a review of the 30-year-rule and rejected Tony Blair’s call for statutory regulation of the press and proposals to limit media access to coroner’s courts.

As promised, in February this year the 30-year-rule for the release of secret government documents became the 20-year-rule.

And in April the Freedom of Information Act was extended to include the Universities and Colleges Admission Service, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The Brown administration has also made clear that it has taken on board media concerns about the lopsided libel system by introducing widespread libel reforms , which ran out of parliamentary time following the calling of the election.

And it has taken seriously concerns about the future of regional news, and the abandonment of regional public service broadcasting by ITV, with Digital Britain proposals to use the £130m of BBC licence fee allocated towards digital switch-over to help pay for new local news consortia.

Brown upset journalists early on by giving Andrew Marr’s BBC1 show an exclusive revealing in October 2007 that his proposed snap general election had been called off. And he hasn’t helped his cause with incidents like the “bigotgate” scoop for Sky News which all journalists, regardless of political bias, recognised as a great story.

But despite his problems with presentation, Brown has a pretty solid track record of achievement when it comes to standing up for press freedom and the interests of journalists.

Ethical debate sparked by BNP ads in Newsquest weeklies

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 19 May 2009 at 09:38
Tags: BNP, Press freedom, regional newspapers

With the European elections fast approaching a perennial ethical issue has cropped up again for local media – whether or not they should take advertising from the British National Party.

While journalists on papers often abhor the disruptive influence the BNP has in the communities they serve, commercial departments will argue that it is not their job to make ethical judgments about the people who advertise provided the ads themselves are within guidelines.

Last year there was a row at Archant’s London titles, including the Ham & High, over their taking adverts from the BNP ahead of the local elections.

This time Jon Slattery has highlighted the fact that Newsquest is taking BNP ads on many of its local newspaper websites in and around London.

One Newsquest journalist has spoken out against the ad placements, telling Slattery: “It’s difficult enough keeping the extremists off your messageboards with our policy to only remove comments when reported – allowing the BNP an even more legitimate platform like this undermines the credibility of the paper.
“There’s already calls to boycott Newsquest papers on Twitter.”

But the editorial director of The Echo in Essex, Martin McNeill, has robustly defended taking the BNP’s cash, saying:

“The Echo has consistently opposed the BNP in our Comment column and will continue to do so. As editor, I have twice been taken to court, unsuccessfully, by a BNP activist who did not like my editorial stance. I also regularly receive BNP hate mail.

“Despite this, I feel I must defend the right of all parties to take out paid-for advertising in support of their election candidates.”

The problem is highlighted by this story in the Newsquest-owned Kidderminster Shuttle:

Which was juxtaposed with this advert:

This is a case where journalists are justified in getting involved with a commercial decision. They are the ones with their feet on the ground in the communities they serve and have to make a call on whether taking such adverts damages the good name of their newspaper title.

While I sympathise with Martin McNeill’s free speech argument, I would argue that it is not worth taking the BNP’s money for the damage it does your newspaper’s image.

Having a BNP advert appearing alongside journalism which highlights the damage they do to communities does not look good.

Local newspapers are about binding communities together and the BNP, with its policy of repatriating foreign immigrants, stands for the opposite of that.

Damian Green inquiry reveals one law for MPs and another for journalists

Posted by Dominic Ponsford on 17 December 2008 at 10:46
Tags: Press freedom, Sally Murrer

A report by assistant police commissioner Bob Quick into the arrest MP Damian Green is expected to criticise police for being “heavy handed”, call into question the “proportionality” of the operation and call for charges against the MP to be dropped.

What a difference from the way journalist Sally Murrer was treated after being wrongly subjected to far worse treatment by Thames Valley police after being arrested under the same charge of “aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office”.

She was put through 19 months of hell after police doggedly refused to back down until a crown court judge eventually ruled last month that they had driven a cart and horses through human rights legislation by tracking and bugging her to discover the sources for what she said were “run of the mill local paper stories”.

Let’s compare the cases of Murrer and Green for a moment.

• Green, the shadow immigration spokesman, was arrested and held by the Metropolitan Police for nine hours earlier this month. His offices in Kent and in the Houses of Parliament and his home were also searched.

• Local newspaper journalist Sally Murrer was arrested under the same charge as part of a Thames Valley leak inquiry in May 2007. She was held by police for 30 hours, her home was searched as was her office, her bank accounts were probed and her notepads, contacts book, computer and mobile phone all seized (yet to be returned).

• During interrogation police repeatedly warned her she could be jailed for life for the offence she was accused of (something which bizarrely is true).
• Five weeks later she appeared at Banbury Police station again. This time time she strip searched and then subjected to another six hours of interrogation.

Thames Valley Police’s response to the fact that its £1 million plus investigation against Murrer and her alleged police source had been thrown out was to issue a statement last month stating that it had behaved “entirely properly”.

One shudders to think what Thames Valley Police officers would consider improper behaviour.

It would seem that there is one law for those in power, like Damian Green, and another law for more ordinary folk like local paper reporter Murrer.

MPs are important and what happened to Green was a scandal.

But journalists are equally important to the functioning of society and also need support when the police over-reach their powers undermining the very freedoms they are charged with protecting.

Surely there must be an equally robust inquiry into the treatment of Murrer.

Questions need to be answered by Thames Valley Police because the reputations of all its officers are being traduced by the actions of a few.

Remember this is the force which authorised the bugging of MP Sadiq Khan. What else has it been up to?

Press Gazette will be asking more questions on this.

Click here to read all Press Gazette’s reports on the Sally Murrer saga.