Editor’s Code of Practice
Importantly, the Code of Practice is not a legal document, so it is
evolving with the developments in technology, communication and social issues.
Since its inception,
there have been nearly 30 changes in it since its first publication in 1991.
Here are the most significant recent changes…
December 1996
Following concerns expressed at the time of the trial of
Rosemary West, when a number of witnesses sold their stories to newspapers,
Clause 16 (Payment for articles) was amended. The Code now distinguished
between payments to criminals and payments to witnesses, and introduced
transparency into such payments by requiring that they be disclosed to both
prosecution and defence.
January 1998
Following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in
September 1997, there were numerous calls for revisions to be made to the Code
particularly as it related to privacy and harassment. The most substantial
rewriting of the Code in its six year history took place over the next three
months and the new Code was ratified by the Commission in time for it to become
operational from January 1998.
Clause 1 (Accuracy) was extended to deal with photo
manipulation. It also absorbed the clause relating to comment, conjecture and
fact.
The new wording for the privacy clause, which became Clause
3, was for the first time drawn largely from the European Convention on Human
Rights, which the government had by this time pledged to incorporate into
British law. It also significantly altered the definition of a private place,
which now included both public and private places ‘where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy’. There had been concern that the previous Code had been
far too tight in its definition of privacy and would not have protected someone
from intrusion who was, for example, in a church or at a discreet table in a
restaurant.
One of the chief concerns at the time of Princess Diana’s
death was about the role of the paparazzi and the manner in which some
photographs were sought. To address this concern, the provisions on Harassment
which became Clause 4 were revised to include a ban on information or pictures
obtained through ‘persistent pursuit’. The new Clause 4 also made explicit an
editor’s responsibility not to publish material that had been obtained in
breach of this clause regardless of whether the material had been obtained by
the newspaper’s staff or by freelancers.
One of the strictest clauses in the Code was introduced to
protect the rights of children to privacy. The new clause number 6 in the
revised Code extended the protection of the Code to children while they are at
school. Previously it had referred only to the under 16s. It also added two new
elements a ban on payments to minors or the parents or guardians of children for
information involving the welfare of the child (unless demonstrably in the
child’s interest) and a requirement that there had to be a justification for
the publication of information about the private life of a child other than the
fame, notoriety or position of his or her parents or guardian.
The clause on intrusion into grief and shock had previously
related only to enquiries made by journalists at such times. The Code Committee
took the opportunity to extend this to include publication. The following
sentence was therefore added:
Publication must be handled sensitively at such times, but
this should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial
proceedings.
Throughout the entire Code, the phrase ‘should not’ was
replaced by ‘must not’. In addition, the section on the public interest which
details occasions when an editor might argue that a breach of the Code was
justified in order to protect the public’s right to know was turned into a
separate section without a clause number. It included a key addition: that in
cases involving children the editor must demonstrate an exceptional public
interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of the child.
June 2004
In accordance with a proposal made by Sir Christopher Meyer,
as part of his programme of 'permanent evolution' for the PCC, it was decided
that the Code Committee should conduct an annual 'audit' or 'health check' of
the Code. Following submissions made during the first part of 2004 by - amongst
others - the industry, members of the public and the Commission itself, the
Code Committee released its first annual revision of the Code to take effect on
1st June 2004.
Throughout, the wording of the Code was comprehensively
subbed in order to make it shorter, crisper and ultimately more accessible. At
the same time its provisions were broadened in important areas.
The preamble to the Code was expanded in order to
re-emphasise that editors and publishers have the ultimate duty of care to
implement the Code; to stress that its rules apply to all editorial
contributors, including non-journalists; to make clear that it covers online
versions of publications as well as printed copies; and to insist that
publications which are criticised in adverse adjudications include a reference
to the PCC in the headline. The preamble now read as follows:
All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest
professional standards. This Code sets the benchmark for those ethical
standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right
to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the
industry has made a binding commitment.
It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to
the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as
to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so
broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of
expression or prevents publication in the public interest.
It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to
implement the Code and they should take care to ensure it is observed
rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including
non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.
Editors should co-operate swiftly with the PCC in the
resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must
print the adjudication in full and with due prominence, including headline
reference to the PCC.
Perhaps the most notable amendment to the Code itself
reflected the need for it to respond to changes in technology. Clause 3
(Privacy) was amended to state that 'everyone is entitled to respect for his or
her private…correspondence, including digital communications'. The Clause was
further tightened to prevent all photography of people in private places,
irrespective of whether a long-lens had been used.
Clause 8 (Listening Devices) of the previous Code was
subsumed into the previous Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) and its provisions
expanded to prevent the interception of 'private or mobile telephone calls,
messages or emails'. The Clause - which became Clause 10 (Clandestine devices
and subterfuge) - read:
10. * Clandestine devices and subterfuge
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material
acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by
intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the
unauthorised removal of documents or photographs.
ii) 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.
Other Clauses were tightened in order to allow them better
to respond to the particular ethical issues at their heart. Clause 9 (Reporting
of Crime) now made specific the central point that relatives or friends of
persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified,
'unless they are genuinely relevant to the story'.
May 2005
Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code was expanded to cover
discriminatory press reporting of transgender people. While the Commission had
always considered that the Discrimination clause, in its previous form, gave
protection to trans individuals, it was accepted that - following the Gender
Recognition Act of 2004 - more specific cover should be given.
It was decided that the word 'gender' would replace 'sex' in
sub-clause 12i, thus widening its scope to include transgender individuals. It
now read:
12i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any
physical or mental illness or disability.
August 2006
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Code was
expanded to cover the way in which suicide is reported. The new sub-clause
reads:
*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid
excessive detail about the method used.
October 2009
Clause 3 (Privacy) was amended to make clear that the PCC
will take into account relevant previous disclosures made by the complainant:
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private
places without their consent.
Clause 4 (Harassment) was revised to require journalists in situations
where harassment could become an issue to identify themselves if requested to
do so:
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment
or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning,
pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on their
property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must
identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by
those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from
other sources.
The public interest section has been amended to make clear
that, when the public interest is invoked, editors will be required to
demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or
journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the
public interest:
