Why Leveson is right to allow anonymous witnesses

Sometimes, anonymity is necessary in the public interest. That does not justify the tabloid's prurie

The decision to allow anonymous sources to contribute to the Leveson inquiry could be seen as a victory -- or a bit of a bear trap.

It's deliciously hypocritical of the Daily Mail to use the "Yuman Rites* Act" it has so often pilloried in the past to attempt to stop others from using the kind of anonymous sources it wouldn't think twice about using.

I remember when "friends" of the newsreader Carol Barnes happily stuck the boot into her when she was about to die, as reported by the Mail, or when a "friend" of missing woman Claudia Lawrence decided to tell all to the Mail (rather than the police) about the alleged nature of her acquaintance's private life (and more particularly sex life).

It's not just the Mail, of course, and it would be wrong to portray this use of anonymous "friends" to just those titles, when there are many others who use this kind of tactic all the time. The veneer of public interest in a dying (or dead) celebrity, or the sex life of a missing person, is very thin indeed, although the authors of these pieces attempt to justify why we're being told about these secrets when the subject doesn't have the ability to respond to them.

But we all know what it's really about: it's about feeding the readers' morbid or prurient curiosity and hoping to get or retain readers off the back of it. That's all there is to it. No-one has ever really benefited from finding any of this information out. Have people benefited financially from revealing it? That is a mystery. Perhaps people do it out of the goodness of their hearts because they really want the wider public to know.

Anonymous sources do have their place in journalism. Without them, whistleblowers would not be able to tell their side of events and bring items of genuine public interest to the fore. It's in most workers' contracts, private or public, that if you tell the media what's going on in your workplace, you can be kicked out -- and that means a lot can be concealed.

I think there's a justification for paying sources as well, if what they reveal could not be brought into the public arena in any other way. After all, it makes sense to compensate some people who have an awful lot to lose if it is found out that they are behind a particular story.

There's a time and a place when these things are right, and necessary -- but also a time and a place when they're impossible to justify. When people's lives get wrecked, when untruths are told and the victim is unable to respond because they're missing or dead, when there's no reason for publishing other than "because we can". Is that the price we must pay for those occasions when anonymity provides a genuine scoop for a story of real public interest?

There's also a time when sources are as dodgy as hell, and it doesn't do any particular harm -- for example, when an "onlooker" comments on a story for a red-top with a quote so pitch-perfect that you could be forgiven for thinking it had been written by the journalist who put the story together and merely attributed to the eyewitness. If that doesn't really do any damage, is it the worst crime in the world, especially when readers are aware of the likelihood of the spectacularly articulate "onlooker" existing?

There could be a concern that an inquiry which is investigating, among other things, the use of anonymous or paid sources, might open itself to accusations of hypocrisy by using, er, anonymous sources. But I don't think that's such a problem, and I'm glad that we will be hearing from anonymous contributors about the culture of what goes on in newsrooms up and down the country. It's worth taking that evidence with the same amount of cynicism we might usually reserve for anonymous sources in newspapers -- which in my case is quite a lot.

* The silly phonetic spelling of such subjects as "Yuman Rites" and "Elf 'n' Safety" is a trope often used by the Mail's own star columnist, Richard Littlejohn, in order to emphasise the ribtickling nature of such subjects. Perhaps my favourite example of Littlejohnian phonetic silliness is when he decided that the inherent let-wing bias of the BBC would see Israelis thought of as "Izza-ra-ay-lees". You know, Izza-ra-ay-lees. The pronunciation that no-one has ever used, ever.

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media
Getty
Show Hide image

We're running out of time to stop a hard Brexit - and the consequences are terrifying

Liam Fox has nothing to say and Labour has thrown the towel in. 

Another day goes past, and still we’re no clearer to finding out what Brexit really means. Today secretary of state for international trade, Liam Fox, was expected to use a speech to the World Trade Organisation to announce that the UK is on course to leave the EU’s single market, as reported earlier this week. But in a humiliating climb-down, he ended up saying very little at all except for vague platitudes about the UK being in favour of free trade.

At a moment when the business community is desperate for details about our future trading arrangements, the International Trade Secretary is saying one thing to the papers and another to our economic partners abroad. Not content with insulting British businesses by calling them fat and lazy, it seems Fox now wants to confuse them as well.

The Tory Government’s failure to spell out what Brexit really means is deeply damaging for our economy, jobs and global reputation. British industry is crying out for direction and for certainty about what lies ahead. Manufacturers and small businesses who rely on trade with Europe want to know whether Britain’s membership of the single market will be preserved. EU citizens living in Britain and all the UK nationals living in Europe want to know whether their right to free movement will be secured. But instead we have endless dithering from Theresa May and bitter divisions between the leading Brexiteers.

Meanwhile the Labour party appears to have thrown in the towel on Europe. This week, Labour chose not to even debate Brexit at their conference, while John McDonnell appeared to confirm he will not fight for Britain’s membership of the single market. And the re-election of Jeremy Corbyn, who hardly lifted a finger to keep us in Europe during the referendum, confirms the party is not set to change course any time soon.

That is not good enough. It’s clear a hard Brexit would hit the most deprived parts of Britain the hardest, decimating manufacturing in sectors like the car industry on which so many skilled jobs rely. The approach of the diehard eurosceptics would mean years of damaging uncertainty and barriers to trade with our biggest trading partners. While the likes of Liam Fox and boris Johnson would be busy travelling the world cobbling together trade deals from scratch, it would be communities back home who pay the price.

We are running out of time to stop a hard Brexit. Britain needs a strong, united opposition to this Tory Brexit Government, one that will fight for our membership of the single market and the jobs that depend on it. If Labour doesn’t fill this gap, the Liberal Democrats will.

Tim Farron is leader of the Liberal Democrats.