The proprietor of the Daily Mail also told the joint committee on
privacy and injunctions he had concerns about the coverage of the
parents of Madeleine McCann but denied ever raising them with editors
|
Viscount
Rothermere makes a rare appearance and tells MPs and peers
that the 'no mud slinging' deal 'did not last' |
Viscount Rothermere, chairman of the Daily Mail & General Trust, has
confirmed that there was pact with owner of Express Newspapers Richard
Desmond that there would be "no mud slinging" between the two newspaper
proprietors.
Asked by the joint committee on privacy and injunctions if it was not "a
monstrous example of ownership's interference" and if he was "not a
hypocrite" for influencing editorial, Viscount Rothermere denied this
saying he did not given direction or judgement to editors of the group's
titles, which include the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
In a rare appearance, Viscount Rothermere told the committee of MPs and
peers that former managing director of Associated Newspapers Murdoch
MacLennan "felt it was the wrong thing for the newspaper" to publish
negative stories about Desmond.
"MacLennan had lunch with Desmond and agreed that it was not in the
interest of our newspapers to use them for mud slinging."
Viscount Rothermere confirmed that a conversation had taken place
proposing that the DGMT publications would not publish stories referring
to Desmond as a "pornographer" if the competitor's titles did not refer
to the Rothermere family's "war-time history".
"There was a lunch - not an agreement", demonstrated by the fact the
deal "did not last", Viscount Rothermere told the committee. who
explained how his picture subsequently appeared on the front page of the
Express.
"The editor-in-chief and all editors have complete editorial
independence, which we fiercely protect", Kevin Beatty, chief executive
of A&N Media, part of DGMT, added.
Challenged as to whether there are ever discussions with editors where
the proprietor gives direction or exercises any judgement, Viscount
Rothermere replied that there are not.
In subsequent evidence Peter Wright, editor of the Mail on Sunday,
confirmed he was aware of the lunch meeting but said that he was on no
occasion influenced in his editorial decisions.
"I heard that a meeting had taken place between Mr MacLennan and Mr
Desmond.
Asked then if there was ever "anything off list as it might upset the
proprietor", Wright replied that there was not.
In referring to a comment the chairman of the DGMT made in 2008 that the
"PCC was strong", the committee asked Viscount Rothermere if he still
stood by that statement.
"I think that the PCC has done a good job. It's the opinion of [editor
of the Daily Mail] Paul Dacre and my organisation. I also believe that
as the PCC considers it, and we agree, that there are areas for
improvement.
"I think in the same way the BMA has doctors on its council, the PCC
should have editorial representation at that high level."
On the topic of "the grey area" of privacy, Viscount Rothermere was
asked whether the courts have the correct balance between privacy and
the public interest.
"I do not have the day-to-day experience with having to deal with this.
There is a view that the pendulum may have swung too far in the one
direction ... and become too restrictive."
Liz Hartley, legal head of Associated Newspapers, part of the DGMT, told
the committee that Associated has paid out on "10 matters" of privacy in
two years, with some payments for court costs only and "by in large the
damages have been less that £10,000".
Asked if he was "upset" by the "money coming out your organisation"
Viscount Rothermere replied: "It's difficult to get a perfect record.
One has to accept that from time to time that editors will make
mistakes. As long as they can show they were honestly made and it was
not a flagrant [error], we have to accept that and that they are going
to do a better job in future. We'd be happier with perfection."
Referring to the reporting of Chris Jefferies, the landlord of murdered
landscape architect Joanna Yeates, who won "substantial" libel damages
from several newspapers, including the Daily Mail, Hartley said that
Paul Dacre took legal advice and "they got it wrong".
"The Jefferies article was legalled. We accepted we were wrong and
defamatory."
Member of the committee Paul Farrelly MP compared Hartley with News of
the World legal head Tom Crone and Viscount Rothermere to James Murdoch.
"I do care about standards and I think your comparison with News
International is unfair," Viscount Rothermere replied.
Asked if he had not had concerns about how the Daily Mail intruded into
the lives of the parents of Madeleine McCann, Rothermere said he did
have concerns but denied ever bringing it up with the editor of the
Daily Mail.
"I did not bring it up with him. Editors should be allowed to do the job
they have been hired to do. I think it is our job to stand back and
protect their independence."
Asked if he felt it was wrong to intrude into private grief, he
answered: "I haven't got a qualified opinion on that."
Pressed on the point and with assistance from Hartley he said intruding
into grief is "an infringement on the PCC code and that is what we
adhere to".
He also spoke of the need for a commercially successful press.
"The newspaper industry does a lot of good: it fights a lot of causes,
raises a lot of money for charity and it seeks out and exposes
corruption.
"It makes it fair if it is financially viable." |