Journalism is often about balancing a great story on the one hand, with the public interest on the other. Whilst researching different attitudes towards matters of harm and offence amongst Britain’s media regulators (as you do) I came across the following story in the Daily Mail:
The story reports “the surprise when mothers sitting down with their children flicked over to Channel 4 yesterday and were greeted by a fully naked woman. Dozens of viewers are understood to have complained after they saw more than they bargained for of fashion model Kirsten Varley.” There is a picture (of course) but it is tastefully obscured on the Mail’s website.
From there, I clicked through to the following:
Emma Watson shows how much she’s grown up at Harry Potter premiere
The article has a number of photos from the premiere including the (now 19 year old) Harry Potter star’s breast and a picture of her pants which were revealed as she re-arranged her dress.
This article took me on to:
British envoy quits Russia post after film of him in brothel sex threesome appears on the internet
This story includes pictures from the video and whilst there’s no nudity on display, it’s not hard to imagine some of the activities that took place on the video.
Now, I’m no prude and there is far worse on the internet. Pictures of Emma Watson et al fill the gaps between the sessions of play in the cricket. And tabloid titillation helps sell newspapers which helps fund investigative journalism. So what’s my point?
These stories matter because Paul Dacre told the culture media and sport select committee that his is a family newspaper that would have rejected the Max Mosley story if it had been offered. He told the committee:
“The Daily Mail would not have broken that story. We are a family newspaper, our readers do not expect us to print those kinds of stories . . . We are a family newspaper. Our readers would cancel the paper on it, and quite rightly too”.
For those readers confused as to why, when you Google Max Mosley prostitutes, stories from the Daily Mail appear in the top two search results, rest assured: Dacre defended his right to print the story after it came into the public interest.
This feels significant in the light of the News of the World phone tapping allegations. One of the defences mounted by experienced journalists is that some of this activity is to be expected given the levels of competition in the British press. Indeed, it has been suggested that such practices have reduced as competition in the tabloid market has decreased. But if some newspapers are just not going to print such invasions of privacy, why the massive sums of money?
It’s also significant because it highlights the challenges of holding the press to account. No newspaper editor appearing in from of the select committee could provide a definition of the public interest. Indeed, Peter Hill suggested his coverage of the McCann’s was not justified by the public interest. The editor of the Daily Mail says he wouldn’t have published the Mosley story because his readers wouldn’t have liked it. Now there’s obviously a difference between the three stories I found and the Mosley story. But what is it? And how can newspapers be judged against the ‘public interest’ when it’s so hard to define?
Much of it must come down to a newspaper editor’s instinct. And Mr Dacre’s instinct is one of the sharpest in the business. But just as we no longer trust doctors or politicians instincts without further scrutiny, so the decisions of newspaper editors are being questioned more closely. But that hasn’t yet led to any greater accountability.