News

Press bosses try to have their cake and eat it

20/12/2013

Brian Cathcart

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

Having lost the public argument about press self-regulation, the big newspaper companies are now trying to get their way by other means.

Letters published online show that over the past month press bosses have tried to strong-arm the official responsible for the first step in appointing the Royal Charter body that will inspect future press self-regulators.

Leading this shabby exercise has been David Newell, who is director of both the Newspaper Publishers’ Association, the club of big firms dominated by the Murdoch, Mail and Telegraph papers, and the Newspaper Society, which claims to represent the interests of the regional and local press.

Newell has written two long letters attempting to cast doubt on the legal authority of Sir David Normington, the Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPA), to act under the Royal Charter. The first letter alleged:

  • that the CPA’s involvement with the Charter represented ‘government control’ of the process;
  • that it would mean the CPA was acting beyond his legal powers;
  • that the CPA had covered this up.

Newell also demanded answers to no fewer than 19 questions, ending with what appears to be a hint to the CPA that he might face legal challenge over these matters: ‘Will you be publishing any legal advice which you receive?’

Sir David Normington wrote back, calmly pointing out that the entire process was above board and in keeping with his routine function of making sure that public appointments are fair and free of political patronage.

He also pointed out that the newspaper body PressBoF (of which Newell is a senior member, and which was condemned on many counts in the Leveson Report) had applied for its own royal charter only months ago in terms which would have required the CPA to do the same things that the real Royal Charter asks. In other words, though he was too polite to say so in terms, the CPA exposed Newell’s complaints as outright hypocrisy.

Unabashed, Newell came back, again asserting that the CPA was in danger of acting beyond his powers and repeating a demand for information about his funding. This the CPA was able to deal with easily .All of this expensive legal guerrilla activity is proof of the desperate desire of Newell and his PressBoF friends to obstruct the Royal Charter by any means they can find. So, just as newspaper editors squeal about threats to freedom of speech while refusing to publish any opinions on this but their own, Newell does not think twice about challenging the authority of the CPA to do a job which he knows PressBoF itself envisaged the same CPA would do.

In fact Newell’s hypocrisy is even more flagrant, for PressBoF clearly still wants him to do that job, since it is about to go back to court to seek permission to appeal against the decision not allow it to appeal against the rejection of its own non-Leveson charter scheme.

Of course, just like IPSO, PressBoF’s scheme for another toothless poodle to replace the PCC mark 2, the PressBoF draft charter would throw open the door to political interference over press self-regulation. Where the real Royal Charter bans involvement by serving politicians, PressBoF’s scheme always allow a role for peers such as Lord Black and Lord Hunt – active party politicians – to hold powerful positions.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

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
When media abuse of academics becomes the norm in HE
Following the death of Jason Arday, Corinne Fowler writes on the toll of media abuse on academics and what universities must do to protect their staff.
8/19/26
News
IPSO ties itself in knots over Telegraph complaint
Media lawyer Jonathan Coad complained to IPSO about a Telegraph article claiming Hacked Off wants "state control" of the press. IPSO's response contradicted itself within the space of a few paragraphs.
8/14/26
News