| The Dream Solution
- Articles |
26/03/01 - Jason and the arbitrators
Guardian
The Express's appointment of million-pound snapper Jason
Fraser raises some familiar questions about long-lens journalism
and the PCC, writes Roy Greenslade Roy Greenslade
Jason Fraser, the new executive director of Express Newspapers,
and his boss Richard Desmond are perfectly suited. Both
of them are in denial. The former hates being called what
he is: a paparazzo. The latter hates being called what he
is: a pornographer.
Joining forces therefore is logical. The celebrity-stalking
sneak photographer will provide juicy product for the man
who, while claiming to have cleaned up his act, is in the
process of trashing a newspaper.
Fraser's first contribution to the Daily Express since joining
- pictures of actors Emma Thompson and Greg Wise with their
baby daughter - was a classic illustration of his work and
also the deceit which underlies his defence of it.
One of the pictures, taken while Thompson and Wise were
on holiday in Cyprus, showed the couple with their daughter,
Gaia, on a beach. Two more, one of which appeared on the
front page, were of Thompson alone on the beach.
A fourth showed Wise with Gaia in a hotel pool. They were
taken by Mario Brenna, one of the most active of the various
paparazzi marketed by Fraser through his agency.
He rarely goes out on shoots nowadays, but he invariably
provides the essential information on the whereabouts of
his star victims, and then insists that his byline appears
when the pictures are published.
When I have protested in the past about the use of these
grainy, telephoto shots, pointing to the editors' code of
practice which outlaws "the use of long lens photography
to take pictures of people in private places without their
consent", Fraser - and the papers which have regularly
used his work - have offered two justifications.
First, sticking to the letter of the code, they say that
public beaches are not private places. Even if the victims,
again quoting from the code, believe they have "reasonable
expectation of privacy" because they are thousands
of miles from home and are not seeking publicity, they forfeit
any protection by disporting themselves on a public beach.
Second, and here comes Fraser's favourite escape clause,
is the suggestion that the supposed victims are complicit.
They take part in the pretence that they have been snapped
unawares for publicity reasons. That is why, according to
Fraser, there have never been any complaints about his pictures
to the press complaints commission.
Though I have little doubt that some people do indeed reach
secret agreements with Fraser, and others are probably relaxed
about being photographed, the suggestion of widespread complicity
smears those who are genuine victims.
My firm understanding is that Thompson did not give any
permission to any photographer to take the shots of her,
and I would not be in the least surprised if she did make
a formal complaint to the PCC.
Apart from the intrusion into her privacy - hotels are not
public places - she might also consider a complaint under
the clause which protects children being photographed "without
the consent of a parent".
Even if she does complain, and even if she is successful
in winning an adjudication, it would still rely on a narrow
interpretation of the code and doesn't come close to ending
the whole sordid nonsense of sneak photography.
Going on the precedent of last month's PCC adjudication
following the complaint by Anna Ford about pictures of her
which appeared in the Daily Mail and OK! magazine, the main
picture of Thompson, Wise and their child would escape censure.
Surely, that is unfair and entirely against the spirit of
the code. Ford's case is particularly relevant. She and
her friend, the former astronaut, David Scott, were pictured
sunbathing while on holiday in Majorca with her teenage
children.
Ford explained: "We deliberately chose a small, unpretentious
family hotel right at the end of the beach... away from
the crowds." She believed, erroneously but sincerely,
that the beach in front of the hotel was private.
As far as she was concerned, and I agree, she therefore
had "a reasonable expectation of privacy". But
the PCC found against her, stating that though it understood
she and Scott were "uncomfortable at having been photographed...
it could do nothing more than apply strictly the terms of
the code".
That's an interesting phrase, is it not? It might just have
been possible to have applied the code strictly on behalf
of Ford by supporting her "reasonable expectation of
privacy". More pertinently, I think the code needs
rewording to stop the abuse.
On the other hand, I realise the implications of finding
in Ford's favour: if routine newspaper pictures of "ordinary
members of the public" on a beach or in the street
were allowed, it would suggest that celebrities were getting
special protection.
Ford is now trying to obtain a judicial review of the PCC's
decision. Her lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, will have to
convince a judge that the PCC has failed to follow its procedures
correctly. Before he does that, he will need to show that
the delay in going to court is justified.
I understand that the PCC is fairly relaxed about this unprecedented
legal move, believing that it cannot be judicially reviewed.
If it is, of course, the implications are far-reaching because
it calls into question the validity of press self-regulation.
Nor is this the only challenge the PCC is facing. In a separate
development, two people are also hoping to obtain a judicial
review because the PCC refused to adjudicate on their complaint.
Ann and Derek Taylor are the parents of two women, Lisa
and Michelle, who were convicted in 1992 of murdering Alison
Shaughnessy, wife of Michelle's former lover. Less than
a year later, the sisters were freed after the court of
appeal decided that "sensational, inaccurate and misleading"
press coverage had seriously prejudiced their trial.
He quashed the murder convictions, pointing out that the
police's failure to disclose evidence also rendered the
convictions unsafe. Indeed, all the evidence against them
had been flimsy.
But in June last year, the Daily Mail carried a three-page
so-called "damning dossier" by Jo Ann Goodwin
headlined "Why I believe they are murderers".
The article was based largely on the "evidence"
of Bernard O'Mahoney, described as "a 40-year-old gangster
who makes no secret of his background".
He had previously befriended the Taylor sisters and, after
their release, had an affair with Michelle. After an acrimonious
split with her, he later claimed that he had discovered
a letter which proved Michelle's guilt, and that she had
also confessed to him.
Michelle vehemently denied this in a later court action.
In spite of this, Goodwin's article accepted O'Mahoney's
version of events. According to investigative journalist
Nick Davies, who has written widely about the case, her
piece "essentially consisted of a highly partisan reworking
of the prosecution case".
He and the Taylor family were outraged that the Mail had
given the Taylors very little time to respond to O'Mahoney's
allegations. Goodwin called Mrs Taylor the day before publication
and had only a brief conversation with her.
The result was a one-sided article. Davies supported the
Taylors' complaint to the PCC and was as astonished as they
were when the commission announced months later, following
several exchanges of letters, that it was not able to adjudicate.
It cited several reasons: it was unable to decide in a complex
case where the truth lay, it was worried about overlapping
legal moves, and it thought the proper course was for the
case to be adjudicated by a court, as the Taylors could
take libel proceedings.
Let's look briefly at those excuses, sorry reasons. No one
was expecting the PCC to sit in judgment on a murder case.
What was at issue was whether Goodwin and the Mail had published
a fair and accurate article. There were no legal moves,
so that is a red herring.
As for the idea of suing for libel, they had no money to
do so. Later, the PCC announced it was refusing to accept
their complaint because it came from a third party. Why
weren't the Taylors told that at the outset?
Anyway, they are named in the article and, as leading members
of the Taylor 2 campaign, they are materially involved.
There is one further point which links the Taylors to Anna
Ford and may well also affect Emma Thompson should she complain.
The PCC makes much of the fact that it is not a court. It
does not hold oral hearings. It does not have powers of
investigation. But I cannot help noticing - and there have
been other cases I have championed where this has been the
case - that when complaints are not upheld, or there is
a failure to adjudicate, the PCC is inclined to offer a
very narrow, overtly legalistic interpretation of the editors'
code.
By sticking firmly to the wording as a defence of newspapers'
activities, rather than applying the spirit of a code designed
to help the public, the PCC is endangering its reputation.
What complainants are so concerned about is journalistic
ethics.
It's a denial of press freedom to ban the picturing of celebrities
on public beaches. But does it mean that a well-known person
can never be free from a prying camera? Where is the respect
for private and family life accorded by the European Convention
of Human Rights?
OK, so a journalist should have the freedom to write a heavily
biased report accusing people of murder. But should it mean
that papers bear no burden of responsibility, losing all
sense of fairness?
After the hype of its tenth birthday bash, the PCC - and
the editors' code committee - need to think deeply about
their role. It would be richly ironic, would it not, if
a changed code outlawed the very pictures which have resulted
in Jason Fraser's preposterous £1m appointment to
the Express? |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
