News

FT editor: PCC failed to enforce code during phone hacking scandal

10/01/2012

Financial Times editor Lionel Barber has said the PCC failed to enforce its code during the phone hacking scandal.

Barber, appointed as editor in 2005, was questioned over the code and internal Financial Times standards at the Leveson Inquiry.

He went on to say that the code must be seen to be credible and in the case of phone-hacking this clearly had not happened – and it was a matter to be discussed between editors. He added the code needs to be “enforced before it is substantially amended”.

Barber was also asked about internal procedure within the Financial Times and explained how staff must confirm they have read the FT code and sign an investment register.

He said that it was “fundamental” that the paper upheld the “highest standards” of journalism to maintain the trust of readers, firmly stating: “Financial Times journalists do not break the law”. He added: “We are making sure that we are not in any way conflicted or behaving unethically.”

Barber explained that although the Financial Times is focused on business and finance news, it was also interested in the “private lives” of others. He referenced a story broken by the paper last year that exposed António Horta-Osório, Lloyds Banking Group CEO, as suffering from stress.

The editor has worked for the Financial Times for over 26 years and has held several positions during this time including U.S. managing editor and Washington correspondent.

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News