Chris Jefferies: Only press fines can prevent trial by media

"My story was a readymade Midsomer Murders script set in a respectable and leafy suburb," says man f

"My story was a readymade Midsomer Murders script set in a respectable and leafy suburb," says man falsely accused of Joanna Yeates's murder.{C}

Only imposing fines on offending newspapers could prevent a repeat of the trial by media endured by Chris Jefferies, according to the victim himself and Lord Hunt, the chair of the now-defunct Press Complaints Commission.

Speaking at the 'Hacked To Bits' Benn Debate on journalism in Bristol last night, Jefferies concluded: "If we're to avoid statutory regulation then the new PCC must have sanctions at its disposal so severe that compliance to the highest possible standards must be compelled."

It was a view endorsed by Lord Hunt, who last month decided to dissolve the PCC in its current form and open consultation as to its new structure. He said: "What we need is a regulator. The PCC is not a regulator - it has no power to investigate, or to request documents. But I don't want to seek a precedent in restricting good journalism.

"Everyone agrees that we need a new regulator, with teeth. Editors are worried about [the new PCC having the power to fine] but when you look at the cases which have happened, I think we have to look back and say 'What should have happened to stop that arising in the first place?'"

The debate, chaired by Donnacha De Long of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), brought together voices from across the industry, including local journalists Steve Brodie of Points West and Mike Norton, editor of the Bristol Evening Post, as well as Richard Peppiatt, the former Daily Star journalist who resigned over Islamophobic news coverage, and Thais Portilho-Shrimpton, the co-ordinator of the Hacked Off journalism standards campaign.

Jefferies, libelled by eight newspapers - two of which were also found in contempt of court over their coverage - explained how he had been demonised by the press when he found himself arrested on suspicion of the murder of his tenant Joanna Yeates. Vincent Tabak, Yeates's next-door neighbour, was convicted of the killing last summer, after Jefferies had been the subject of huge intrusion into his private life.

He recalled: "If you think back to end of 2010 and last year, the story was something of a gift to the tabloids. It was a readymade Midsomer Murders script set in a respectable and leafy suburb.

"I was the person who had been arrested and the press seemed determined to believe the person who was arrested was the murderer, and to portray me in as dark and as lurid a light as possible.

"Journalists will talk to 100 people and if 99 say one thing and one says something they would like to believe or will enable them to write the story they want to write, that is the one they will choose to believe.

"The caricature for me was the lewd figure, a peeping tom, I had apparently spied on tenants, I was a loner because I happened to live alone. A lot of people said some nice things about me but they tended to be buried and not given enough prominence in the articles."

When asked how he felt about the coverage at the time, Jefferies said: "At the time all this was taking place I was unaware of it, as I was in custody. For some time afterwards I didn't see any of it, as friends I was staying with said, 'you don't want to see this, it wouldn't be a good idea to read it.' It was some time after the event I did start to look at these articles.

"Even today I haven't been able to bring myself to read everything.

"Things would have been different if I hadn't had so many supportive freinds, and I have to say I am extraordinarily touched by the fact I am not infrequently approached by people I don't know who say kind and supportive things.

"Mine was an extreme case but it was by no means unique. Some of the reporting was so extraordinarily lazy and casually inaccurate. There were reports that the floorboards of the house were being ripped up, but it has solid floors."

On the relationship between the press and police, the subject of the second phase of the Leveson Inquiry, he said: "Often the relationship between press and police can be mutually beneficial but because of the nature of this case, it served to convince the police they had caught their murderer. During interrogation the police were particularly interested in these fantastical stories that were being reported."

The debate viewed a BBC report from Brodie on the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry, in which it was revealed that innocent Ikea delivery workers, who had delivered furniture to the flat a month before the crime, were confronted by tabloid newspapers after they were interviewed by police. Somehow, their mobile phone numbers and their addresses had been found.

However, Brodie had concerns about the future of regulation. He said: "I really do worry about further legislation. We're already the libel capital of the world. Chris Jefferies correctly sued newspapers for libel, and nobody in this hall would say he wasn't right to do so, but the same law is used by organisations to stop proper journalism.

"I have (BBC) guidelines in a very thick book and we do regulate ourselves internally, and we have the Trust above us. But I don't think Fleet Street would self-regulate; it's not in their nature."

Ex-Daily Star reporter Peppiatt said that the character of tabloids had changed from newspapers to entertainment products. He said: "It's regarded as being a bit snobby to question the tabloid agenda, but world events have really dropped down the agenda. Gone are the days when the Daily Mirror was a thrusting investigatory newspaper. . . A lot of people are saying 'this is what people really want'.

"It's been forgotten that newspapers shouldn't be corporate products to make as much money as possible but they are also there to serve a public interest. At Leveson some speakers defended celebrity coverage by saying that 'celebs collude wih us'. What's astounding is that they're quite happy to admit they'll set up faux romances and present it to their readers, who they say they care about so much, as if they're real events."

Portilho-Shrimpton said that it wasn't regulation but the practices of the industry itself that were the biggest threat to journalism. She said: "Mail Online is the news equivalent of a battery farm; only a small proportion of the stories are from the newspaper," adding that talented reporters were "being turned into professional rewriters and uploaders".

"Hacked Off is sometimes accused of trying to muzzle the press. The press should be free to go after stories. However, if the stories turn out not to be true then their behaviour should be challenged."

"The work of Leveson is extremely important. Lord Justice Leveson fears his report will end up in the same way as [the Calcutt report of 1990], roundly ignored. I hope by the end of this we are able to lead this debate - it's not either state regulation or it's not - and there are all kinds of things in between. Hacked off and the Media Standards Trust are coming up with ideas, and we do hope that in conjunction that in the end what wins is the industry, journalism and freedom of the press."

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

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland