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.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/30/brooks-newmark-sex-sting-ipso-sunday-mirror

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

Version 0 Version 1
Brooks Newmark sex sting is ‘matter of urgent public concern’, says Ipso chair Brooks Newmark sex sting is ‘matter of urgent public concern’, says Ipso chair
(about 2 hours later)
The chairman of the new press regulator has said the Sunday Mirror’s Brooks Newmark sex sting is a “matter of urgent public concern” and indicated it would look to speed up the resolution process following a formal complaint.The chairman of the new press regulator has said the Sunday Mirror’s Brooks Newmark sex sting is a “matter of urgent public concern” and indicated it would look to speed up the resolution process following a formal complaint.
However, Sir Alan Moses said the paper was entitled to a fair hearing and declined to “rush to judgment” at the start of a full investigation into the scandal.However, Sir Alan Moses said the paper was entitled to a fair hearing and declined to “rush to judgment” at the start of a full investigation into the scandal.
This weekend’s Sunday Mirror story, in which a male reporter lured the junior minister into sending lewd pictures by pretending to be a Tory-supporting PR woman, is the first big test for the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The new regulator launched just three weeks ago, replacing the discredited Press Complaints Commission.This weekend’s Sunday Mirror story, in which a male reporter lured the junior minister into sending lewd pictures by pretending to be a Tory-supporting PR woman, is the first big test for the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The new regulator launched just three weeks ago, replacing the discredited Press Complaints Commission.
Moses admitted that the story, which prompted Newmark’s resignation as a minister, was so serious that Ipso would have investigated it even without the complaint made by Mark Pritchard, one of several Tory MPs contacted by Alex Wickham, a freelance reporter who works for the Guido Fawkes blog.Moses admitted that the story, which prompted Newmark’s resignation as a minister, was so serious that Ipso would have investigated it even without the complaint made by Mark Pritchard, one of several Tory MPs contacted by Alex Wickham, a freelance reporter who works for the Guido Fawkes blog.
The Sunday Mirror has faced criticism about the journalistic methods used to get the story, facing accusations that it amounted to a so-called “fishing expedition”, and whether it was in the public interest.The Sunday Mirror has faced criticism about the journalistic methods used to get the story, facing accusations that it amounted to a so-called “fishing expedition”, and whether it was in the public interest.
However, while the paper has apologised to the women whose pictures were used to get the sting, it stands by its story as in the public interest.However, while the paper has apologised to the women whose pictures were used to get the sting, it stands by its story as in the public interest.
Under the terms of the Ipso code the Sunday Mirror has 28 days to respond to the complaint and is expected to argue that the subterfuge used is justified by the public interest in exposing Newmark. But Moses suggested that the complaint should be dealt with more quickly than that.Under the terms of the Ipso code the Sunday Mirror has 28 days to respond to the complaint and is expected to argue that the subterfuge used is justified by the public interest in exposing Newmark. But Moses suggested that the complaint should be dealt with more quickly than that.
“[The Sunday Mirror] ought to have the justification already in place ... One of the things about the code is that newspapers think beforehand,” he told a fringe meeting organised by the Media Standards Trust at the Tory party conference on Tuesday morning.“[The Sunday Mirror] ought to have the justification already in place ... One of the things about the code is that newspapers think beforehand,” he told a fringe meeting organised by the Media Standards Trust at the Tory party conference on Tuesday morning.
Warning that a “rush to judgment can lead to injustice”, Moses added that “questions of entrapment and enticing people to do things are really important and Ipso needs to give not only judgment but guidance as to what is acceptable and consistent with the code”.Warning that a “rush to judgment can lead to injustice”, Moses added that “questions of entrapment and enticing people to do things are really important and Ipso needs to give not only judgment but guidance as to what is acceptable and consistent with the code”.
He criticised the term “fishing expedition” in general as “most fishermen choose to throw their line where they know there will be fish”. The proper definition, he said, was “taking a punt with no evidence in advance and, surprise surprise, somebody might be tempted to do something that they regret ... that’s hardly a newspaper story”.He criticised the term “fishing expedition” in general as “most fishermen choose to throw their line where they know there will be fish”. The proper definition, he said, was “taking a punt with no evidence in advance and, surprise surprise, somebody might be tempted to do something that they regret ... that’s hardly a newspaper story”.
In answer to repeated questions on the case, he said: “Of course I’ve got views about it. But then I would have to stand down, probably permanently ... You will never gain authority unless you listen to both sides and the Mirror is entitled to a fair hearing.”In answer to repeated questions on the case, he said: “Of course I’ve got views about it. But then I would have to stand down, probably permanently ... You will never gain authority unless you listen to both sides and the Mirror is entitled to a fair hearing.”
Moses said that the paper would have to prove that what they did was in the public interest. “They will have to justify what they did, having regard to the fact that the editors’ code is absolutely clear that this sort of method is only permissible in circumstances where no other means of discovering evidence of that which is already suspected exists.”Moses said that the paper would have to prove that what they did was in the public interest. “They will have to justify what they did, having regard to the fact that the editors’ code is absolutely clear that this sort of method is only permissible in circumstances where no other means of discovering evidence of that which is already suspected exists.”
The rule over such subterfuge, he added, was that it was a “last resort”.The rule over such subterfuge, he added, was that it was a “last resort”.
Moses, in his first public speaking engagement since Ipso was set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry into failures of the press over phone hacking, was also critical of the overly complicated code governing press behaviour that he has inherited from the PCC, as well as the industry generally for “failing to engage” with its critics.Moses, in his first public speaking engagement since Ipso was set up in the wake of the Leveson inquiry into failures of the press over phone hacking, was also critical of the overly complicated code governing press behaviour that he has inherited from the PCC, as well as the industry generally for “failing to engage” with its critics.
On a panel filled with some of Ipso’s fiercest critics, he said both Ipso and “those who condemn it” shared a desire to “seek protection and redress for the victims of breaches of the code and, at the same time, support and encouragement of a free and fair press”.
He was conscious of the “anger and, it’s not too strong a word, despair” of people who had been waiting for a new regulatory system, only for the press to “devise a scheme which does not match the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry”.
“What the public deserves and democracy needs is a press distinguishable from the noise and flatulence of the internet.”
He said that even he found “some of the rules completely incomprehensible” but that the complexity also encouraged interpretation.He said that even he found “some of the rules completely incomprehensible” but that the complexity also encouraged interpretation.
The Birmingham event, which was organised by the Media Standards Trust, a lobby group for tougher press regulation, also heard from John Whittingdale, the Tory chair of the Commons culture select committee; Jonathan Heawood, director of Impress, a rival royal charter-compliant regulator; and Joan Smith, of Hacked Off, which campaigns on behalf of victims of press intrusion.The Birmingham event, which was organised by the Media Standards Trust, a lobby group for tougher press regulation, also heard from John Whittingdale, the Tory chair of the Commons culture select committee; Jonathan Heawood, director of Impress, a rival royal charter-compliant regulator; and Joan Smith, of Hacked Off, which campaigns on behalf of victims of press intrusion.
In comments highly critical of the Mirror’s story, Smith said “[the newspaper] says its sting is to protect women and then it appropriates those images [of women] without their permission or prior knowledge.”In comments highly critical of the Mirror’s story, Smith said “[the newspaper] says its sting is to protect women and then it appropriates those images [of women] without their permission or prior knowledge.”
The two women whose online images were used as part of the sting operation have criticised the Mirror.The two women whose online images were used as part of the sting operation have criticised the Mirror.
Whittingdale said the Newmark case “raises serious issues both whether [there was a ] public interest but also it raises questions about the methods used. It’s a very challenging and interesting case.”Whittingdale said the Newmark case “raises serious issues both whether [there was a ] public interest but also it raises questions about the methods used. It’s a very challenging and interesting case.”
He added: “If Ipso fails to deliver the strong regulation that we’re all agreed is necessary then it might have to be revisited but we need to give Ipso a chance.”He added: “If Ipso fails to deliver the strong regulation that we’re all agreed is necessary then it might have to be revisited but we need to give Ipso a chance.”
Moses, who said he wanted Ipso to be “genuinely independent”, criticised the industry which funds the body for failing to engage with critics such as those on the panel. “I am sad about the refusal of the press themselves to engage with those critics,” he added.Moses, who said he wanted Ipso to be “genuinely independent”, criticised the industry which funds the body for failing to engage with critics such as those on the panel. “I am sad about the refusal of the press themselves to engage with those critics,” he added.
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@theguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email media@theguardian.com or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.
• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook.