After months of consideration following the Leveson report, the editors’ code of practice has finally been revised. The changes to the previous code are, however, minimal.
A press release issued by the code committee notes the following amendments:
- The clause on accuracy now includes a specific reference to headlines. Newspapers and magazines “must take care not to publish... headlines not supported by the text.”
- A new clause has been inserted on the reporting of suicide. It states: “When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media’s right to report legal proceedings.”
- The clause on discrimination has been amended to include the need to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s gender identity.
- The preamble to the code now states that it is “the duty of editors... to resolve complaints swiftly” and to co-operate with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). Its adds that “a publication subject to an adverse adjudication must publish it in full and with due prominence, as required by Ipso.”
- The code’s definition of the public interest has been substantially updated in order to comply with the laws of defamation and data protection along with guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service.
The new code, which comes into effect on 1 January 2016, is anything but a root-and-branch revision. It should be seen instead as another stage in the code’s evolution since it was first drafted in 1990.
The code committee’s chairman, the Mail group’s editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre said: “I am convinced these changes strengthen the code and will ensure it remains the universally accepted standard for journalistic practice in the post-Leveson era.”
Ipso’s chairman, Sir Alan Moses, said: “It is important to acknowledge publicly and to welcome the significant degree of co-operation and accord which all those at the editors’ code committee have achieved.
“As Ipso gains authority through experience, we look forward to continuing and improving our contribution to the work of the committee in the next round of discussion and consultation in 2016.”
But critics of Ipso, and of the code committee, are unimpressed, both by the process that led to the revision and the changes themselves. Hacked Off, the organisation that represents victims of press misbehaviour, was swift to condemn the code committee’s decision.
Its joint executive director, Evan Harris, issued a statement calling the changes “merely cosmetic” and arguing that “they water down the code in a number of important areas.”
He said “an initial analysis of the changes by Hacked Off indicated that there are two substantive improvements in the code and eight weakenings.”
For example, nothing has been done to address the concerns of minority groups who have argued that they can be abused with impunity, which was a concern raised in the report by Sir Brian Leveson.
Hacked Off also complain that the code committee “is dominated by editors who have no interest in effective independent regulation.”
By contrast, the Independent welcomed the changes. Though small, it said, they are significant. It thought the addition of “gender identity” in the clause which protects individuals against discrimination was overdue and would help in tackling negative stereotypes.
The Independent - like the Guardian and the Financial Times - has not signed up to Ipso, though journalists at all three titles work to the editors’ code.
According to the Indy’s editorial, the closing of the gender identity loophole “shows the benefit of involving non-editors.”
The code committee’s press release did point out that it has fulfilled Leveson’s recommendation by recruiting independent lay members. They are: Christine Elliott, chief executive of the Institute for Turnaround; David Jessel, the former TV investigative journalist; and Kate Stone, founder of Novalia, a digital technology company.
Ipso’s chairman, Moses, and its chief executive, Matt Tee, are also full members of the committee.
The new code can be found here. And the code is also available for the first time in a mobile phone friendly format to enable journalists to consult it easily.
Full disclosure: I was one of the editors in 1990-91 responsible for drawing up the original code prior to the formation of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which was replaced by Ipso.
