Leveson has changed nothing– the media still put ‘stories’ before the truth
by Gerald McCann - The Guardian - 02.10.2014
Nearly three years ago my
wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about
the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter
Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned
into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard
for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage
caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to
ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would
ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or
at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting
false reports in newspapers.
Voeu pieux, car c'est sans compter avec la rumeur, un phénomène d'une persistance invraisemblable, comme ont pu le constater les MC lorsque, à la suite de leurs récits téléphoniques sur le volet et la fenêtre forcés, leurs proches ont désinformé, sans le vouloir, les médias.
Voeu pieux, car c'est sans compter avec la rumeur, un phénomène d'une persistance invraisemblable, comme ont pu le constater les MC lorsque, à la suite de leurs récits téléphoniques sur le volet et la fenêtre forcés, leurs proches ont désinformé, sans le vouloir, les médias.
Nothing has changed since
then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before
truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always
was.
A year ago, when Kate and
I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police
stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we
received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its
reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish.
This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the
directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about
Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a
response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish
such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the
newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that
since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the
police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted
in her best interest.
C'est oublier les 48 questions et la reconstitution avortée.
C'est oublier les 48 questions et la reconstitution avortée.
However, the Sunday Times
went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely
ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and
without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction,
but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification”
and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to
publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further
correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the
original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced
us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.
Eventually, two months
after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting
all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite
the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page
– the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was
absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the
filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages,
all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell
the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is
peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover
it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to
ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things
right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to
some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our
hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will
probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology. Sûr que Carter-Ruck n'est pas à la portée de toutes les bourses.
So what has changed in
the newspaper industry since the Leveson report two years ago?
Absolutely nothing. Newspapers continue to put “stories” before
the truth, and without much care for the victims. They treat the people
they write about as if they don’t exist. Wild animals are given
more respect. They hide behind talk about the rights of the press
while they routinely trash the rights of ordinary people. They
constantly claim to stand up to the powerful, but they are the ones
with the power, and they use it ruthlessly.
Legal action should be a
last resort. A final route when all else has failed. I don’t blame
Leveson. He recommended changes that would make a big difference. He
wanted a press self-regulator that was not controlled by the big
newspaper companies and that had real clout. If a paper told lies
about you, you could go to this body and count on fast and fair
treatment: it would not just let papers off the hook. More than that,
Leveson wanted a cheap, quick arbitration service so that ordinary
people did not need to resort to the law. Our experience shows this
is a vital reform. Parliament backed
Leveson’s plan. The public backs it. So do we, and almost all the
other victims who gave evidence to Leveson. Only one group of people
is opposing this change – the perpetrators themselves, the same
editors and newspaper owners who were responsible for all that
cruelty. Instead of accepting the Leveson plan, these people,
including the owner of the Sunday Times, have set up another sham
regulator called Ipso, which is designed to do their bidding just
like the old, disgraced Press Complaints Commission.
If in another year’s
time the press still rejects the royal charter – itself already a
compromise – then it will be time for parliament to deliver on the
promises the party leaders made, and ensure that what Leveson
recommended is actually delivered. Otherwise elements of the press
will go on treating people with total contempt. This time, once
again, it was Kate and I who were the targets. Next time it could be
you.
Gerry la menace n'est jamais loin.
Gerry la menace n'est jamais loin.
Quid du superintendant en chef de Wrexham, Gordon Anglesea, par exemple ?
Le 21 octobre 2016, un superintendant en chef, Gordon Anglesea est condamné pour pédophilie. Les actes remontent aux années 80 et il a été démontré qu'il utilisait ses galons pour faire plier ses victimes. Mais ce qui est extraordinaire est que M. Anglesea a gagné, il y a 22 ans, une action en diffamation contre The Observer, the Independent on Sunday, Private Eye and
HTV, le détenteur de la franchise ITV du Pays de Galles, pour avoir allégué qu'il avait abusé d'enfants lors de visites dans un pensionnat. M. Anglesea obtint 375,000 livres de dommages.. Une des victimes se suicida après le procès, ne pas avoir été cru était insupportable.
Ce ne serait pas mal si le monde médiatique revenait au journalisme d'investigation, fort de la liberté d'expression et du sens de ses responsabilités. Parfois les rédactions ont de difficiles décisions à prendre sur des contenus controversés, mais il y aura toujours des gens en colère. Mieux vaut vivre comme cela plutôt qu'avoir des journaux qui craignent d'imprimer. Gerald MC devrait être honnête et admettre qu'ils ont "proactivement" instrumentalisé les médias pendant des années afin de promouvoir la cause qu'ils ont dénommée "recherche de Madeleine". Ils ont à cet effet maintenu l'histoire à la une des journaux. Selon eux, cela, comme l'emploi de chargés de communication et d'avocats haut de gamme, se justifie dans les circonstances qu'ils insistent, en dépit des réserves du rapport du procureur portugais, à qualifier de "enlèvement", et ils ont les fonds pour ce faire.
Ce ne serait pas mal si le monde médiatique revenait au journalisme d'investigation, fort de la liberté d'expression et du sens de ses responsabilités. Parfois les rédactions ont de difficiles décisions à prendre sur des contenus controversés, mais il y aura toujours des gens en colère. Mieux vaut vivre comme cela plutôt qu'avoir des journaux qui craignent d'imprimer. Gerald MC devrait être honnête et admettre qu'ils ont "proactivement" instrumentalisé les médias pendant des années afin de promouvoir la cause qu'ils ont dénommée "recherche de Madeleine". Ils ont à cet effet maintenu l'histoire à la une des journaux. Selon eux, cela, comme l'emploi de chargés de communication et d'avocats haut de gamme, se justifie dans les circonstances qu'ils insistent, en dépit des réserves du rapport du procureur portugais, à qualifier de "enlèvement", et ils ont les fonds pour ce faire.
Mais tout cela ne peut faire taire les critiques sur des actes, les leurs, qui pourraient avoir mis leur enfant en danger. La célébrité est à double tranchant et qui n'y est pas préparé doit parfois se sentir mal à l'aise. Que penser du stockage des portraits-robots au fond d'un tiroir pendant tant d'années ? Ils auraient pu expliquer sur leur site, le site officiel, pourquoi ils ne les avait pas publiés, histoire de rassurer le public. Ou bien ont-ils pensé que toute publicité, même la mauvaise, est bonne à prendre ?
The parents of missing
Madeleine McCann have said press regulation is still not working,
after receiving £55,000 in libel damages from the Sunday Times. The payout came over
claims they had withheld details about their daughter's disappearance
from the authorities.
Kate and Gerry McCann
said the paper did not provide them with a proper opportunity to
comment and chose not to publish key parts of their response.
The Sunday Times said it
had agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.
"It has been a
significant period since the Leveson Inquiry finished and I don't see
any change in culture. Gerry McCann
The McCanns said the
allegations were "grotesque and utterly false", and in
effect suggested they had deliberately hindered the search for their
daughter Madeleine, who went missing in Portugal in 2007. Last December the paper
printed an apology which the McCanns said was on an inside page and
inadequate. After instructing lawyers
to sue for damages they received the payout which will be donated to
two charities for missing people and sick children.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's
Today programme, Mr McCann said the story "should never have
been published", saying his family had given the Sunday Times a
statement to that effect when the allegations were first put to them.
"This damaged us, it
damaged the reputation of the [Madeleine's Fund] fund and it quite
potentially can damage the search for Madeleine," he added. He said it showed the
continued failure of the press - which Mr McCann said was causing
damage to ordinary people on a "daily basis" - to act
responsibly. "It has been a
significant period since the Leveson Inquiry finished and I don't see
any change in culture," Mr McCann added.
The allegations in the
Sunday Times were made at a time when the paper was arguing there was
no need for the independent regulation proposed by the Leveson
Inquiry into press standards.The McCanns described the
new Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started
its work last month as the successor to the Press Complaints
Commission, as the "latest industry poodle". It is not the first time
Mr and Mrs McCann have taken legal action against the press. In 2008, they accepted
£550,000 libel damages and front-page apologies from Express
Newspapers over allegations they were responsible for Madeleine's
death.
The McCanns have been
prominent in the Hacked Off group which campaigns for press
accountability following the News of the World phone-hacking scandal. At the Leveson Inquiry,
the McCanns were critical of their treatment by the press, saying
they were left distraught by suggestions they were responsible for
Madeleine's death. Mr McCann told the
inquiry many of the stories were untruthful, sinister or, he
believed, made up. Mrs McCann said seeing
her private diary published in the News of the World made her feel
"totally violated". Lord Leveson's report
recommended an independent, self-regulatory press watchdog backed by
legislation.
The three main
Westminster parties agreed a Royal Charter that established a panel
to independently verify a new regulator, although Ipso has not sought
recognition from this.
A rival independent
self-regulator, Impress, has been set up by a group of high-profile
campaigners with the aim of becoming compliant with Leveson's
requirements.
September 19, 2014
The parents of missing
child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a
story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the
investigation into her disappearance.
According to publisher
News UK the claim has been settled. Kate and Gerry McCann took issue
with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said
suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a
crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their
daughter".
In addition to the
article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until
8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left
on the article – in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette. The
story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “The
critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for
Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was
presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.” The title
reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns
contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the
prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their
advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if
they divulged its contents”. The Insight story also quoted a source
close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical
of the people involved”. In their claim form, in which they were
claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was
understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for
[Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing
the trail to go cold".
They said that the story
led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations
and severe embarrassment and distress”. They also claimed that the
paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their
spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made
against them.
The McCanns also said
that the story did not include several points made to Insight by
their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper
opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity
of the allegations against them".
On 1 November, the couple
sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter –
urgent”.
They said that the email,
outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”,
was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later. The
McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have
made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have
published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely
rejected their complaint. They said Tyrer offered them “three
limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the
statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited”
clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.
On 8 November Gerry
McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained
online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below. The McCanns
then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on
15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.
The Sunday Times
published the following apology on 28 December:
In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."
