Steve Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Newspapers tarnished by Mary Bell coverage
By Paul McCann Media Editor
THE FOCUS of attention in the Mary Bell case switched onto the behaviour of
the national press yesterday, with precious few newspapers, from the
qualities to the tabloids, covering themselves in glory.
The tabloids were simultaneously condemning and wooing Mary Bell, not to
mention feeding drinks to her boyfriend for a story, while the Times and the
Daily Telegraph exchanged letters and leader articles on the rights and
wrongs of paying for the book's serialisation rights.
The Press Complaints Commission disclosed that it was conducting an
investigation into the Times' 40,000 purchase of Gitta Sereny's book on Ms
Bell, Cries Unheard, following a complaint from a member of the public. The
investigation may take a month to complete.
Peter Stothard, editor of the Times, denied yesterday that money from his
newspaper reached Bell. He also maintained that the book was in the public
interest.
The PCC disclosed that it had received 30 to 40 complaints from the public
about the behaviour of reporters outside Ms Bell's home in a south coast
town. Most callers were angry that the journalists' presence had forced Ms
Bell to admit her true identity to her 14-year old daughter. They were also
angry that the reporter's door-stepping tactics meant the East Sussex Police
had to take the pair into protective custody.
The commission is unable to take up complaints about press harassment from
third parties because those complaining cannot name the actual newspapers
and journalists involved. So far the PCC has had no complaint from Ms Bell.
Mr Stothard denied that the Times carried any responsibility for the
hounding of Ms Bell. Instead he attacked Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, for
his remark this week that Ms Bell had endangered her right to privacy by
co-operating on the book: "It was like Jack Straw saying the court order
protecting her identity doesn't matter. Politicians have legitimised the
chase, this hysterical side issue of tracking her down and punishing her."
While tabloid newspapers expressed outrage at a payment made by Ms Sereny to
Ms Bell for her co-operation on the book, it emerged that at least two
Sunday newspapers were vying for interviews with her. Both the News of the
World and the Mail on Sunday posted letters into the Bell home on Wednesday.
The News of The World's editor Phil Hall said yesterday: "We haven't offered
her any money. We have offered her a safe berth away from media attention in
return for an interview."
But Ms Sereny claimed that some newspapers were offering money which made
the payment she had made look "infinitesimal in comparison with the offers
she [Bell] has had from the very same newspapers who have been screaming the
loudest these last 10 days. The offers are continuing to come in."
Clause 16 of the PCC's code would forbid any payment to Ms Bell because she
is a convicted criminal. Newspapers could get around the rule if they could
prove there was a public interest in making the payment. Less legitimately,
some tabloid newspapers have in the past made payments to close family
friends in order to secure interviews without breaking the PCC code.
All of the tabloid newspapers carried front page interviews with Ms Bell's
39-year old boyfriend yesterday, but no money changed hands. However one
reporter did confess that the man was clearly in a distressed state.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the newspaper market, both the Times and the
Daily Telegraph were trying to make capital out of the story.
Charles Moore, editor of the Daily Telegraph, penned an article for his
newspaper on Tuesday explaining why he had turned down serialisation rights
for the Bell book and implicitly attacking the Times for doing so. The
following day Mr Stothard returned fire in an article accusing Mr Moore of
dropping a 75,000 offer for a book he admired because of fears about what
rivals' opinions of the deal, it was he said: "Rejection of principle in
return for safety from criticism."
This prompted the unusual response of letter in yesterday's Times from the
editor of the Daily Telegraph accusing Stothard of misleading his readers.
And somewhere Mary Bell, in hiding with her 14-year-old daughter, must be
considering the value of whatever payment Ms Sereny made to her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
===================================================
Lifes a beach and I'm on it, Jah Wobble.
===================================================
PERSONAL EMAIL TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
