This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/17/publishing-texts-huhne-pryce-court-case

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers' editor on… publishing the texts in the Huhne and Pryce court case The readers' editor on… publishing the texts in the Huhne and Pryce court case
(7 months later)
Of all the ugly things that emerged throughout the saga of the Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce court cases, none was more wretched than the text exchanges between Huhne and his son, Peter. Texts are rarely a subtle means of communication but these, disclosed in court in pre-trial hearings, revealed in a few words the depths of bitterness within the family brought about by the divorce.Of all the ugly things that emerged throughout the saga of the Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce court cases, none was more wretched than the text exchanges between Huhne and his son, Peter. Texts are rarely a subtle means of communication but these, disclosed in court in pre-trial hearings, revealed in a few words the depths of bitterness within the family brought about by the divorce.
The texts were raw and uncompromising. To read them feels very much like intruding on private grief. However, the Guardian published eight exchanges. As a result, 11 complaints were sent to the office of the readers' editor condemning the publication as "salacious" and "prurient".The texts were raw and uncompromising. To read them feels very much like intruding on private grief. However, the Guardian published eight exchanges. As a result, 11 complaints were sent to the office of the readers' editor condemning the publication as "salacious" and "prurient".
One reader summed up many of the concerns: "I do not understand why the Guardian chose to publish highly personal text messages between Mr Huhne and his son. Clearly the family was distressed and having difficulties. What was the editorial justification? It seems to me that it was simply salacious details. Some of the texts were indeed editorially justified, eg where the son states unequivocally that Mr Huhne had asked his wife to take the points. However most of the texts were emotionally charged family disagreements that, while relevant to the background of the story, didn't seem editorially justified. 'I hate you Dad. Go fuck yourself.' I'm not sure that level of intrusion is necessary to make your point."One reader summed up many of the concerns: "I do not understand why the Guardian chose to publish highly personal text messages between Mr Huhne and his son. Clearly the family was distressed and having difficulties. What was the editorial justification? It seems to me that it was simply salacious details. Some of the texts were indeed editorially justified, eg where the son states unequivocally that Mr Huhne had asked his wife to take the points. However most of the texts were emotionally charged family disagreements that, while relevant to the background of the story, didn't seem editorially justified. 'I hate you Dad. Go fuck yourself.' I'm not sure that level of intrusion is necessary to make your point."
While I have a lot of sympathy with that view it should be made clear that publication was neither rushed nor casual. Senior editors were aware that there was an ethical dilemma to be addressed before publishing the texts between Huhne and Peter, who was 18 at the time of the exchanges. Dan Roberts, the national editor at the time of publication, now the Guardian's Washington bureau chief, wrote a thoughtful reply to complainants, partially reproduced here.While I have a lot of sympathy with that view it should be made clear that publication was neither rushed nor casual. Senior editors were aware that there was an ethical dilemma to be addressed before publishing the texts between Huhne and Peter, who was 18 at the time of the exchanges. Dan Roberts, the national editor at the time of publication, now the Guardian's Washington bureau chief, wrote a thoughtful reply to complainants, partially reproduced here.
"It was a very difficult decision that followed lengthy internal debate for precisely the reasons highlighted by this reader. There were also a small number of complaints on Twitter that echoed this view and played a part in our deliberations later in the day about how to handle the story in the paper. We had a further conversation among the journalists in our open editorial conference this morning and believe we made the right decision for the following reasons:"It was a very difficult decision that followed lengthy internal debate for precisely the reasons highlighted by this reader. There were also a small number of complaints on Twitter that echoed this view and played a part in our deliberations later in the day about how to handle the story in the paper. We had a further conversation among the journalists in our open editorial conference this morning and believe we made the right decision for the following reasons:
• It would have been impossible for our readers to fully understand what lay behind yesterday's surprise decision for Huhne to plead guilty without making them aware of the texts, which would have been crucial evidence in the trial and had been introduced in open court by both sides with the agreement of the judge. Some argued that we could have paraphrased the texts rather than repeat them, but it is hard to see how this would have lessened the harm and it would have reduced the reader's comprehension of the family breakdown which ultimately lay behind this story: sometimes newspapers have to show as well as tell.• It would have been impossible for our readers to fully understand what lay behind yesterday's surprise decision for Huhne to plead guilty without making them aware of the texts, which would have been crucial evidence in the trial and had been introduced in open court by both sides with the agreement of the judge. Some argued that we could have paraphrased the texts rather than repeat them, but it is hard to see how this would have lessened the harm and it would have reduced the reader's comprehension of the family breakdown which ultimately lay behind this story: sometimes newspapers have to show as well as tell.
• We are only granted the legal freedom to report the contents of court cases if we agree to report them fairly and accurately. Obviously this does not require us to publish every gory detail unquestioningly, but in this case there was a compelling argument made by the defence that it was necessary to see text exchanges in full to understand their context. The prosecution introduced the text about Peter accusing his dad of lying and his dad's lawyers said it was necessary to see the breakdown in their relationship to understand why he didn't argue back. We are not condoning this decision, but it would have been one-sided to have selectively reported the exchange. Many court cases introduce painful and intrusive revelations into the public arena, but it is our duty as journalists to make balanced judgments about whether to report them based on whether we think it is in the public interest."• We are only granted the legal freedom to report the contents of court cases if we agree to report them fairly and accurately. Obviously this does not require us to publish every gory detail unquestioningly, but in this case there was a compelling argument made by the defence that it was necessary to see text exchanges in full to understand their context. The prosecution introduced the text about Peter accusing his dad of lying and his dad's lawyers said it was necessary to see the breakdown in their relationship to understand why he didn't argue back. We are not condoning this decision, but it would have been one-sided to have selectively reported the exchange. Many court cases introduce painful and intrusive revelations into the public arena, but it is our duty as journalists to make balanced judgments about whether to report them based on whether we think it is in the public interest."
I think those arguments are persuasive for publishing the text in which Peter states unequivocally that his father was driving. There is a case for publishing one further text exchange as an example of the state of the family following the break-up and paraphrasing the rest. However, I'm not convinced that publishing the rest in full was necessary. It feels like being a motorist who slows down to gawp at a bad crash on the motorway.I think those arguments are persuasive for publishing the text in which Peter states unequivocally that his father was driving. There is a case for publishing one further text exchange as an example of the state of the family following the break-up and paraphrasing the rest. However, I'm not convinced that publishing the rest in full was necessary. It feels like being a motorist who slows down to gawp at a bad crash on the motorway.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.