Who'll fix it now?

So the BBC is – in the words of long-serving correspondent John Simpson – facing its worst crisis in 50 years.

The handling of what someone soon is bound to call ‘Savilegate’ certainly isn’t the corporation’s finest hour and ensures the new Director General, George Entwhistle, is having a particularly rocky start to his time in the job. he's survived today's two-hour grilling by MPs but I wouldn't wager too much on his long-term survival. He is, after all, the editor in chief of the BBC and in an honourable organisation like the corporation that's as far as the buck gets.

I’ll bet, though, that his discomfiture is raising a smile or two on the faces of newspaper journalists who’ve had their own time in the wringer during the Leveson Inquiry and who are still waiting to hear what the noble judge has decided about future regulation of the press. At News International especially there is a sense that the BBC is a smug outfit feather-bedded by the licence fee, so few tears will be shed over its current embarrassment. 

The BBC had a relatively easy ride during Leveson – rightly as it wasn’t implicated at all in ‘phone hacking – but now its culture is under intense scrutiny, again rightly so. I remember a former Deputy Director General telling a group of news editors that the Beeb was always adept at shooting itself in the foot but that its aim was creeping higher. How appropriate those words are to the present ‘crisis’.

Greg Dyke, who stood down as DG over the  ‘sexed up dossier’ affair could hardly hide his own smile as he spoke at the weekend of how telling BBC journalists to stop something like an investigation would be met with resistance. That, at least, says something for the robustness of journalism in the corporation. So, too, does the fact that some Newsnight staff have been prepared to talk to Panorama about their misgivings over the decision to drop the programme’s investigation into Savile or into Surrey Police’s handling of allegations against him depending on whose versions of events you prefer.

It’s not just the BBC, of course, that seems to have ignored reports and rumours over the years that Savile was a sexual predator. What makes it worse for the Beeb, though, is that the Newsnight investigation was shelved and suspicions over why that happened will linger – not least because the press have got their teeth into Auntie and they’re not about to let go.

Peter Rippon is ‘stepping aside’ from his post as Newsnight  editor which is not quite the same as resigning from the post but does indicate some willingness to do the decent thing amid a real mess.  No doubt the BBC will watch the media carefully to see the reaction to that move. Given that a poll of readers of Media Guardian shows more than 60% feel Rippon should have resigned it seems he and employers will face trouble for some time yet……and there’s no chance Jim’ll Fix It.

Old hacks left in need of a lift

So we’ll have to wait a year to learn the fate of former News International executive Rebekah and Andy Coulson, the man who moved from running the News of the World to masterminding Downing Street’s communications for David Cameron. They, and five more former NotW journalists (I hesitate to use the word ‘hacks’ in this context) learned today that the provisional date for their trial on phone hacking charges is September 9th next year.

In the meantime Ms Brooks, her husband Charlie and five other men also face charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The Old Bailey hearing that set the 2013 trial date was told by prosecutors that the hacking allegations could relate to more than 600 victims.

That news came hot on the heels of the revelations just the day before that nearly 300 claims for damages have been filed in the High Court against News International for alleged hacking. The names of people who’ve lodged civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy reads a bit like the invitation list for a not quite A-rated Celebs party. There’s Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, Lorna Hogan, the former girlfriend of Calum Best, a smattering of TV actors and Neil and Glenys Kinnock. From the ranks of past and present Premier League footballers we have Noel Whelan, Chris Kiwomya and Neil Ruddock.

Many of the names, though, are less well known and include relatives of the relatively famous – so we have Davina McCall’s husband – or the families of victims of crime or of accused people. What, I wonder, was to be gained by hacking the phone of the parents of Louise Woodward, the British nanny convicted when she was 19 of the manslaughter of a child in her care in the USA?

What’s clear from the proceedings in both the High Court and the Old Bailey is that we have come a long way from the idea that any illegal hacking was limited to one rogue reporter. The idea, too, that the use of this questionable newsgathering technique was somehow in the public interest is also dead in the murky water.

Of course, by the time the cases against Mr. Coulson, the Brookses and the others have been heard we will know what Lord Leveson has made of the mass of evidence he heard and read during his long-running inquiry into press standards. His report is due soon and he has already given notice to newspaper editors that it will include recommendations on everything from privacy to self-regulation.

Even before his report is published, it’s been suggested that the impact of his inquiry is being felt. No British newspaper published the pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge topless on her French holiday –a situation we might not have seen before the inquiry. But that incident throws up another question. The French have a privacy law and Wills and Kate used it to prevent further publication of the pictures in France but that hasn’t prevented them cropping up in publications elsewhere and on numerous sites on the web (I was shown them on a Nigerian blog). Whatever Lord Leveson recommends and whatever system of media regulation is then put in place will do nothing to stop the spread of information, pictures, damaging gossip, and the rest, through the web and social media. That leaves the thought that our press is not just on a final warning but left punctured on the hard shoulder of the information highway.

Let's rediscover the welcome mat for overseas students

I’m currently on my sixth visit to India, partly to do some teaching as Birmingham City University seeks to strengthen the links it has established with partner institutions in Bangalore and Chennai and partly to recruit students to come to Birmingham to study.  

I have no problem with the ‘sales pitch’. It’s a good university with some very strong courses – not least in my own bit, Birmingham School of Media (you don’t have to take my word for that there are various independent measures that show it to be the case).

What I have been wondering, however, is why a student from India or any similar country should choose to study in the UK? I know all the arguments about the quality of the education they get at British universities and I know there’s still a lingering sense of attachment for Indians, at least, in opting for a UK qualification. There are, though, many factors that militate against choosing ‘us’ rather than Canada, say, or Australia.

There is no doubt that our Government was right to root out bogus colleges that were offering back door entry to the country, making offers for courses that barely existed on ‘campuses’ that were little more than a few rooms above a shop. But this much tougher approach to student visa applications has made life harder for thousands of genuine students applying for proper courses at genuine universities and that can’t be right.

Surely the bogus college racket was a form of fraud, in which case it – and those behind it – could and should properly have been dealt with by a concerted use of the criminal law. Genuine students with offers of places at recognised institutions need help and support through the application process and not to be given a sense that they are unwelcome.

While we are on the subject of a more humane and common sense approach to this, isn’t it time to rethink the restrictions on students being prevented from staying in the UK to work for a finite period – a year or two – after the successful completion of their studies. Students pay large sums to come to the UK to study; sums that are an important contribution to our economy. Many of them, and their families, take out loans to meet the cost of the course and/or the cost of living in the UK. Giving them some opportunity to earn and so to begin paying off this debt is important. Many other countries recognise this and are as a result attracting more students.

Meanwhile, the removal in Britain of these post study work arrangements is leading to a drop in the number of students who choose the UK – but more importantly it’s sending a message about our country that we may learn to regret. The students of today are the leaders of business, education and government of the future.  When they make decisions in years to come about partnerships, investment plans and collaboration are they likely to look kindly on the country that had mislaid the welcome mat when they were making choices about studying overseas?

There is no doubt that our Government was right to root out bogus colleges that were offering back door entry to the country, making offers for courses that barely existed on ‘campuses’ that were little more than a few rooms above a shop. But this much tougher approach to student visa applications has made life harder for thousands of genuine students applying for proper courses at genuine universities and that can’t be right.

Surely the bogus college racket was a form of fraud, in which case it – and those behind it – could and should properly have been dealt with by a concerted use of the criminal law. Genuine students with offers of places at recognised institutions need help and support through the application process and not to be given a sense that they are unwelcome.

While we are on the subject of a more humane and common sense approach to this, isn’t it time to rethink the restrictions on students being prevented from staying in the UK to work for a finite period – a year or two – after the successful completion of their studies. Students pay large sums to come to the UK to study; sums that are an important contribution to our economy. Many of them, and their families, take out loans to meet the cost of the course and/or the cost of living in the UK. Giving them some opportunity to earn and so to begin paying off this debt is important. Many other countries recognise this and are as a result attracting more students.

Meanwhile, the removal in Britain of these post study work arrangements is leading to a drop in the number of students who choose the UK – but more importantly it’s sending a message about our country that we may learn to regret. The students of today are the leaders of business, education and government of the future.  When they make decisions in years to come about partnerships, investment plans and collaboration are they likely to look kindly on the country that had mislaid the welcome mat when they were making choices about studying overseas?

The only way is ethics - even in India

There was something of an irony about spending a morning in Chennai exploring the issue of journalistic ethics with students at Anna University and then to learn after the session that Rebekha Brooks had been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Every teacher has an element of the show pony and being able to drop that piece of fresh information into the workshop would have been a good moment – if only to underline the irony of a UK journalist talking to students anywhere about ethics at a time when the behavior of our profession is under close public scrutiny.

As it was, while phone hacking, Leveson, the Murdochs et al played a part in the discussion, they remained just one element of a presentation designed to look at ethics from a practical point of view. What I wanted the students to think about was how we can practice ethical journalism day by day in busy newsrooms. How do ethics fare in a world where competition is fierce and the ‘if we don’t do it they will’ argument is a strong one?  Then there’s the explosion of news sources - viewers’ footage shot on a mobile phone, Twitter messages from the scene of an incident, blogs posted by those caught up in news events.

We need look no further than ‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ for an example of how some basic principles of professionalism – like ensuing you’re interviewing a real person – could have given the lie to that apparently authentic take on the Arab Spring. Then there was the ‘user generated’ picture of the Polar Bear on an English beach used by an ITV regional newsroom – until they learned it was a cow. A few simple checks – and a dose of journalistic cynicism – might have prevented that embarrassment and stopped an untruth getting on air. (Interestingly, the students who saw the picture all immediately identified it as a Polar Bear.)

You might begin to see that what I believe we should consider is that ethical behavior and professional practice go hand in hand. The Leveson inquiry was created in the wake of the scandal of journalists employed by a Murdoch newspaper hacking mobile telephones to get information, only a tiny part of which could be deemed to be in the public interest. Leave aside the fact that hacking is illegal – it is poor journalism. That’s not just my view but the one Rupert Murdoch himself set out at the inquiry. It was, he said, lazy. For lazy, I contend, read ‘unprofessional’.

Since there is nothing more stomach turning than a journalist pontificating about the behavior of other journalists, let me offer a confession. One example of unethical behavior I shared with the students was from my own work. As I explained, I didn’t set out to paint a false picture of an event but by allowing my need to hurry to override my normal professional approach, that is what I did. In the global scheme of things it was a small error but one which had a disproportionate impact on a family. Since for them – and their circle – it damaged the reputation of my newspaper and, by association, of journalists, I regret it deeply even many years later.

There is an important task for us as educators of aspiring journalists. We need to explore with them what they see as the factors that might prevent them ‘doing the right thing’ and we need to offer them strategies to build their confidence when the pressure is on. They need a thorough understanding of law and regulation, including those laws involving electronic communication that we perhaps haven’t seen in the past as directly relevant.  They need help, too, to develop a clear understanding of the public interest and some personal skills to help them through difficult decisions.

Please Lord Levenson help us grow up

So Rupert Mudoch has got through the first day of his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry - albeit a shortened session and so far the most shocking thing we've learned is that he's really called Keith.

Perhaps it was the big build up (who didn't love Evgeny Lebedev's Tweet looking forward to Rupert 'bringing down the Government'?) but the session seemed a little flat, particularly given the firework crackle of son James's testimony yesterday. That left the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt having to defend himself to MPs this lunchtime and cost his special advisor Adam Smith his job.There is, of course, still the second day of Mr. Murdoch's evidence to come and this extraordinary story still has plenty of scope for twists and turns to surprise us. So far what began as 'one rogue reporter' hacking telephones has grown into a beast that has cost the jobs of senior journalists, like Rebeka Brooks, senior police officers and now a political advisor. I'm not betting yet against a political figure joining that list


What Rupert gave us was more low key, though an equally assured performance. He sought to dismiss suggestions that he and his media empire exercise undue influence over our politicians. He'd liked Tony Blair, thought Gordon Brown was unhinged when he declared war on the Murdoch media but had , he said, never asked a Prime Minister for anything. Then as the astute Robert Jay, Counsel for the Inquiry, pointed out he would never have been so cackhanded as to be that blunt in his approach.

Even though there was nothing to cause immediate fright to any politician, there was nothing in phase one of his testimony that dismissed the sense that there was an unhealthy closeness between our elected representatives and the media - Rupert's and beyond. We have seen an unsavoury element of political life being peeled like an onion. First, the Daily Telegraph e-mail promising support to David Cameron and pledging not to be just a fairweather friend (The PM may be reflecting on that in the light of some of the paper's post-Budget coverage); then James Murdoch revealed how many times he had met Mr. Cameron for dinner or breakfast and how things were discussed in passing, and then today Murdoch senior, even as he told us the perception of his influence over politicians irritated him, revealed how he liked meeting political leaders.

It would be naieve to believe that people like Rupert Murdoch don't expect access to senior political figures but the extent to which it happens will surprise many voters. After the MPs' expenses scandal none of us expects too much of them, but the idea that they may be scurrying around after media owners and editors for endorsement is at best unedifying and at worst a betrayal of the relationship between us ordinary folk and those we elect to serve us. 

There is an important role here for the Lord Justice Leveson. He has to come up with recommendations for the future regulation of the press. Regulations clear and strong enough to prevent - or punish - illegal activity such as 'phone hacking but which also preserve the ability of journalists to hold public figures to account and expose wrongdoing and hypocrisy. After the evidence of the last few days it is also clear those regulations need to be built on a new, much more mature relationship between the media and our political leaders. We need a strong, independent media free to keep us informed so we can make well-grounded decisions at election times and we need politicians brave enough to move away from the apron strings of nanny press baron to leave us to make those judgements even if they may not like the outcome. Let's all be grown ups!

.

Not hacked off yet

Little did I realise when I was first asked to comment in our regional media on the News International 'phone hacking allegations that I would still be at it all these months later. More to the point, it struck me after my most recent appearance on BBC WM last night that there is, so far, no end in sight and it's possible 'we ain't seen nothin' yet'. 

I was there (at very short notice as it happens) to make a brief comment on the resignation of James Murdoch as BSkyB chairman. In his statement announcing the move, Murdoch said: "As attention continues to be paid to past events at News International, I am determined that the interests of BSkyB should not be undermined by matters outside the scope of this company." He went on: "I am aware that my role as Chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation."

Surely that misses the point. Isn't the reason for his resignation the very fact that there has been 'conflation with events at a separate organisation’? This is a man widely regarded as having done a good job with BSkyB but so tainted by what went on at 'a separate organisation' that he cannot continue. Just having been involved with News International and the old News of the World is enough to raise question over someone's fitness to chair the broadcaster - and being called Murdoch just helps to pile up the doubts. 

From the outset the Murdochs don't seem to have played this with their usual surefooted aplomb. First they insisted 'hackgate' was the misdemeanour of one rogue journalist (a view the police, let's not forget, seemed to be happy to go along with at the time) then they were forced to close the News of the World in an attempt to draw a line under the affair. When that failed, James was forced to leave his post as chair of News International in another diversionary move that clearly hasn't worked (hence yesterday's decision). 

Who is going to buy the idea that cutting off the lightning rod is going to stop the bolt striking the building. And why should a sideways shuffle prevent one bit of the Murdoch empire taking a hit for the actions of 'a separate organisation' when that organisation's behaviour has damaged the reputation of a whole profession. 

This scandal - and the ensuing Leveson Inquiry  - has already led to high-profile resignations in News International and in the Metropolitan Police. In the next phase of hearings Lord Leveson will turn his attention to the relationship between the press and politicians. Where, as my old gran used to say, will it all end?

Leveson's Day In The Sun

Lord Leveson's inquiry is back on track after the Christmas and New Year break and like the unseasonable weather the hearings have brought a burst of Sun. Former editor Kelvin MacKenzie and the current editor, Dominic Mohan, were among six people from the paper giving evidence yesterday.

Kelvin had sensibly used his Daily Mail column to apologise to the judge for earlier comments about his legal prowess in relation to the prosecution of Ken Dodd which we should, perhaps, have taken as a sign of the more mellow post-Sun MacKenzie which he presented (is he now Dagenham Lite?). Either way Kelvin was, as always, a good value turn. Even without the impression of former Prime Minister John Major there was much to savour in his evidence.

It was no surprise that he told the inquiry that as editor his view was that most things should be published and that a story feeling 'right' was more of a test for him than certainty about its accuracy. That was the 'bullish' (his word) Kelvin we remember. He was equally tough when dismissing broadcaster Anne Diamond as a discredited witness but when Lord Leveson comes to weigh all he's heard it may well be that it's another of the former Sun editor's comments that will take on greater importance.

Kelvin MacKenzie said: " 'In the end newspapers are commercial animals. They try and make money. I would be in favour of fines and heavy fines for newspapers that don’t disclose the truth to the Press Complaints Commission," and he went on: "They were lied to by News International and that was quite wrong and they should pay a commercial penalty for doing that. I think you will discover a commercial constraint – the threat of a financial penalty – will have a straightforward effect on newspapers.

No editor, no managing editor, no proprietor would dream of lying under those circumstances."

If Lord Leveson's task is to point a way forward for a new system of press regulation that will be seen as having some clout it might just be that Kelvin MacKenzie has given him a clear signpost to the future.

I think his evidence also raised an issue to which I and other educators of journalists need to give real thought. Asked directly by Lord Leveson about about checking facts before publication, he acknowledged this was important but said: "Both law and journalism are in the uncertainty business," and added: "There is no absolute truth in any newspaper and there is no absolute truth in any court." There is truth in what he says but we have to hold to the line that accuracy in reporting is paramount. That presents us with a challenge. Simply ensuring that future journalists know about ethical questions isn't enough. Yes, we can point them to the countless books on the subject setting media ethics in the context of moral philosophy, but our real job is to ensure they have the knowledge - and more importantly the confidence - to operate  in the real newsrooms with their commercial pressures, tyrannical deadlines and dangerous adrenalin buzz of getting the story fast and first.

We need to talk about Kelvin.