TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/121189/12118900.003

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 3KB | 59 lines

PRESS, Page 89

Editor, Heal Thyself

Britain's racy tabloids try internal reforms


    Britain's tabloid newspapers have long slavered over the lurid
and the voyeuristic, whether it be gruesome photographs of
air-crash victims on the pages of the People or bare-bosomed women
on page 3 of the Sun. But in recent months, the newspapers' owners
have discovered that the regular diet of sex, scandal and
sensationalism has resulted in parliamentary dyspepsia and growing
public outrage. With the threat of government press curbs looming,
20 of the country's leading newspapers last week signed a broad
code of ethics, which includes the hiring of mediators, ostensibly
to slap down editors and reporters who place exploitation before
fairness.

    The British public's antipathy to the press was heightened last
month when the People, a Sunday tabloid with 2.7 million in
circulation, printed two front-page pictures of Prince William, 7,
urinating in a park (headline: THE ROYAL WEE). That led to a
protest from Prince Charles and Princess Diana and to the
subsequent firing of editor Wendy Henry by the publisher, Robert
Maxwell. Earlier in the year, the editor of the Sun (circ. 4.2
million) apologized in print for a story alleging that drunken
Liverpool soccer fans had "viciously attacked" rescue workers after
95 fans were crushed to death at a crowded soccer stadium in
Sheffield. The wildly exaggerated story spurred a boycott of the
paper in Liverpool. The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, was already
reeling from a $1.8 million out-of-court settlement with rock star
Elton John after falsely accusing him of using the services of a
male prostitute.

    The new code, which carries no penalties, was written by the
Newspaper Publishers Association, a group that includes both
tabloids and the so-called qualities, like the Times and the
Guardian. It was formulated, admits Arthur Davidson, legal director
of Associated Newspapers, because of a belief that "legislation of
some sort would come about." The British press, which lacks the
protection of a constitutional right to free expression, is already
being constrained by a law, passed in May, that sharply restricts
what it can print on national-security matters. And a
government-appointed group is to report next year on what
additional measures are needed to protect the British public's
right to privacy.

    Anticipating this study, the code pledges to protect privacy
(except when there is a "public interest" in intruding), to provide
an opportunity for reply, to correct mistakes promptly, and to
avoid irrelevant references to race, color and religion. The code
also promises an end to the sort of deception that followed the
Sheffield soccer tragedy, when journalists posed as social workers
to interview grieving relatives.

    But can the tabloids really reform themselves? Paul Woolwich,
editor of Hard News, a TV program that weekly exposes the worst
excesses of the British press, has his doubts: "Who will decide
when a right to reply is justified or when there can be an invasion
of privacy? The newspapers will." Indeed, the day after the code
was signed the Sun was back on the street with a story that began,
"Sex-mad Barbara Williams has ditched her toy boy hubby."