Editor, Heal Thyself

By David Brand

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."

With reporting by Anne Constable/London