Aux entités et autorités appelées à déposer sur l'affaire MC, le Comité parlementaire posa deux questions auxquelles répondre par écrit.
1) Pourquoi le régime d'auto-régulation n'a-t-il pas été utilisé, pourquoi la PCC n'a-t-elle pas eu recours à sa propre enquête et à quels changements cette affaire a-t-elle donné lieu dans l'industrie journalistique ?
2) L'action pour diffamation gagnée par les MC contre l'Express Group et d'autres journaux indique-t-elle que le régime d'auto-régulation accuse une sérieuse faiblesse ?
Auditions de Roy Greenslade et de Nick Davies - 21.04.2009
Q434 AS : How effective do you think the PCC is in upholding standards?
Q470 Chairman: Is Paul Dacre a public figure?(Q469 was Is a public figure somebody who lots of people in the public have heard of)
Q471 Ch. : So did Gerry McCann become a public figure?
Q475 Paul Farrelly: The highest profile case of ordinary people using the CFA was the McCann case. They could not have done it otherwise.
Q490 Ch. : Can I just come back to the McCann case because that was one of the main reasons for our inquiry. That is probably the most serious libel committed by a large number of papers although only one finally reached the court in recent times and has caused deep concern. First of all, do you think it was a one-off, that it was such an extraordinary case, that that kind of thing could not have happened elsewhere? Secondly, given what has been revealed by the extent to which papers were just making up stories do you think that they actually learned lessons? Did they sit and take a long hard look at themselves and say, "We must never allow this to happen again?"
Q491 Paul Farrelly: The tabloid press has said that the McCann case was a one-off so that is a refreshing counter-argument. There are inaccuracies that may not affect people's whole lives; with the McCanns of course it did affect their lives. There is also the question of whether it is accurate or is irresponsible and I just wanted to read into the record another case recently, the way the British tabloids treated the daughter, Elizabeth Fritzl, and the Sun in pursuing her to her new home, published a pixellated face. Then on 11 March the Daily Mail actually felt the need to publish the name of the village where she lives. The Austrian press referred to our press as "Satan's reporters". Florian Klenk of the Falter newspaper in Vienna, in the case of Elizabeth, has said that their new existence has been destroyed thanks to the British reporters who have divulged the name of her village. Is that not another example, when there is such a big story like this, that every new fact, every new angle is a fresh lead and a fresh headline, and nobody steps back to ask Should we be doing this?