Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Wheatcroft (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Friday, 15 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on Media: News Corporation.


Media: News Corporation

My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler for having pursued this issue with such vigour. I also support his opening remarks that we should not condemn all journalism because of the allegations surrounding some newspapers. I do that with something of a vested interest, as someone whose career has largely been in journalism. I have worked extensively for what is now dubbed ““the Murdoch press””, particularly the Times and the Wall Street Journal; occasionally I still write for the Times. Having listened to my noble friend Lady Kramer, I confess that, having always had the highest admiration for the editorial standards of the Wall Street Journal, I concur that this morning’s interview with the proprietor was perhaps not its most probing. Having been a journalist, a banker and now a politician, I feel that I am perhaps going to have to try estate agency to enhance my standing and public esteem. There is no excuse for the phone hacking and bribery. Now, quite rightly, both practices and the industry in general will be examined by judicial inquiry. However, we must be careful not to endanger journalism in general. It can be a force for good. The London Evening Standard's current campaign to improve literacy has the potential to enhance many thousands of lives. It may not be on the same scale of bravery as was that of the Sunday Times campaign on behalf of thalidomide victims, but it is shining a light on something of which politicians should be ashamed. Responsible journalism should continue to do that. It should inform, it should stimulate, it should even entertain—but it should never mislead. If it does err, it should be quick to point to the error of its ways. That is why I was somewhat surprised to see that great campaigner for press morality, the paper that has done so much to expose phone hacking, the Guardian, decide that its corrections column on page 36 was the place to tell readers that, actually, the Sun’s story about Gordon Brown’s son was not the result of information being obtained from accessing medical records, as the Guardian had so boldly declared to the world. Newspapers can be as guilty as politicians of finding a good place to bury bad news. I contend that page 36 is probably not the place.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c1025-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Corruption Sky Inquiries Ethics Independent Police Complaints Commission Ownership Police Privacy Newspaper press Mergers Media Metropolitan Police Press Complaints Commission Press freedom Regulation Telephone tapping Politicians News International News Corporation Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Inquiry News of the World
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk