Fact and Comment at Leveson: A plot line couched in fiction

The Leveson Inquiry failed to understand the reality that fact and comment can never be kept separate in news reporting.

In the same way that doctors scoff at representation of the medial profession in Holby City, many journalists scoffed at the way their industry was represented at the Leveson inquiry. It's easy to see why: Some of the plot lines were ill considered and unrealistic.

That would be fine for a midweek television drama but for an inquiry that could have serious consequences for journalism, it's dangerous.

One line of questioning was particularly lazy and superficial. It was about the issue of newspapers conflating fact and opinion - a subject the Inquiry singularly failed to grasp.

The Press Complaints Commission Code

The relevant clause in the PCC Code of Practice is Clause 1(iii) [1]. It provides: ‘The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.’

Lord Justice Leveson said that Clause 1(iii) of the PCC Code was ‘very, very distant’ from the realities of journalism [2]. He was simply wrong. A search of the PCC case adjudication archive reveals that an astonishingly small number of complaints under this clause have been upheld (only five since 2007). The suggestion that there has been a widespread breach of this clause is therefore a myth.


The Distinction between Inaccuracy and Bias

The PCC recognises a key distinction between (a) reports that use inaccurate facts in support of comment, and (b) reports that merely use particular (but accurate) facts to convey an opinion. The PCC will uphold complaints in relation to the former, for example when a publication ‘misled’, [3] got its facts ‘wrong' [4] or ‘misleadingly presented… extremely serious allegations' [5], because the report will have been inaccurate. However, the PCC will not uphold complaints in relation to articles which merely presented a ‘partisan view’. [6].

This distinction may seem obvious. Beefing-up comment pieces with made-up facts is clearly wrong. But presenting a partisan view with true facts is not - it is an art of persuasion and a skill which lawyers practice every day. Andrew Marr told the inquiry how accurate reporting does not necessarily mean neutrality in reporting:

‘I can report on a court event or a Parliamentary event. The words I use, the words I report, will be accurate. The account of where it happened and what was said may be accurate. But the choice - the way I balance that story and push that story will almost certainly be with an idea in my head about what these [readers] are going to want.  The Independent and the Daily Express going to the same event may produce stories which are factually correct and well reported, but have very, very different emotional or political implications.' [7]


The Inquiry's Failings

Sadly, the inquiry singularly failed to grasp this distinction. Worse, the Inquiry dealt with the issue on the footing that any time a newspaper presents a partisan view, it is conflating fact and comment. For example, counsel to the inquiry asked journalist Simon Walters about a Daily Mail article which described how housing benefit cuts would target ‘feckless’ couples. It was put to Mr Walters that the use of the word ‘feckless’ was introducing comment into the article. [8]

This was a ridiculous line of questioning – the use of the word ‘feckless’ is plainly not conflating fact and comment in breach of the PCC Code. No reader would have been misled. Further, the Daily Mail’s ‘feckless couples’ are the Guardian’s ‘society’s most vulnerable’. Both descriptions are the product of their respective ideologies. Accuracy in this context depends on one’s political persuasion. That is not a matter for regulation in a democratic society.

The main complainant about the conflation of fact and comment was Gordon Brown. He told the inquiry: ‘To distort fact and opinion and mix them together, and then, of course, to make it an issue not of policy difference but an issue of motive, an issue of intentions, an issue of character, an issue of personality, an issue of evil practice, and I think that's where the press has failed our country’. [9]

Counsel to the inquiry failed to challenge this statement. It should have been challenged because what Mr Brown was complaining about was not the representation of opinion as fact, but about the right of newspapers to exercise their own discretion in choosing which stories to print. Of course, in some cases, the victimisation of individuals over time may be unwarranted. But they can seek redress in a number of forms, such as by complaining to the PCC about inaccuracies or pursing actions of defamation, infringement of privacy, harassment and data protection.


Should Newspapers be Neutral?

Gordon Brown’s suggestion that newspapers should be ‘neutral’ in their editorial decisions and story selection is plainly ridiculous. It is unreal to say that news is news and comment is comment. It completely ignores the reality that news is inherently constructed. News does not select itself. It is the product of selection and refinement. The prejudices, values and philosophies of each newspaper will affect its story selection.

In any case, isn’t diversity of opinion a vital organ of a healthy democracy? The BBC has to adhere to strict impartiality rules, yet its news editors are praised for the insight and opinions they offer. Unlike the The Sun, the BBC can’t throw its weight behind a particular party. But that doesn’t change the fact that in reporting a political story, BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson will introduce his own perspective.

Some may argue that over time partisan coverage may distort the perceptions of readers. However, that view is out of date and incredibly patronising to the public. Modern day readers are media-savvy. Ken Clarke made the point that ‘an astonishing proportion of [people] take a newspaper which still doesn't affect their views when they're finished.’ [10] Michael Gove emphasised the reality that readers are media-astute: ‘what we rely on is the common sense of the reader to discern the difference between that which is straight reportage, that which is reporting with colour or a view or an accent, and that which is comment or polemic.’ [11]

The media literacy or ‘common sense’ of readers is, of course, much greater now than it used to be. Members of the public consume a mass of information from a vast array of sources every day. They do not rely on only one source of information. Therefore, if they read a newspaper containing partisan coverage it does not mean their perception of the facts is going to be distorted. They can read between the lines. The plurality of information available to the public also raises another point: it is now much easier for journalists, as well as the public, to verify facts.


Conclusion

In failing to appreciate the distinction between misleading readers and presenting partisan coverage, the Leveson Inquiry failed to understand the operation of Clause 1(iii). It was treated as a clause that had failed when in reality it is hardly ever needed.

In any case, complete neutrality in reporting is impossible. It is also dangerous. No news story has one true angle. Saying “’news is news’ and ‘comment is comment’ and they should be kept distinct from one another” may fit nicely into a script. But it betrays the failure of the inquiry to grasp the realities of journalism. We have to hope that any future regulator isn’t so naïve.

Footnotes:

[1] It was previously Clause 3, but when the code of practice was amended in 1998, it was incorporated into Clause 1.

[2] 21 May 2012 – Afternoon – Page 13 [17]

[3] Mr Philip Bel v Daily Mail (27/06/2012) http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=Nzg5Nw and Leila Mahmoud v Isle of Wight County Press (2/10/07) http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDc5Mw

[4] Claris Powel v Sunday Telegraph (15/12/2010) http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=Njg0Nw

[5] Tolkien family v Sunday Mercury (Decision 62) http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=MjA5Ng

[6] For example, see Paul McKenna v Daily Mirror which was not upheld http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=MjEyMA . The PCC found that ‘there was no reason for the Commission to interfere with the columnist’s right freely to express his view of the matter.’ (Decision 65)

[7] 23 May 2012 – Morning - Page 62 [6-19]

[8] 25 June 2012 – Afternoon - Page 45 [16]

[9] 11 June 2012 – Morning – Page 19 [19-25]

[10] 30 May 2012 – Afternoon – Page 84 [24]

[11] 29 May 2012 – Afternoon – Page 5 [1-8]