View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Comment
December 21, 2011

PCC says public interest changes won’t undermine source confidentiality

By Cleland Thom

The Press Complaints Commission has assured journalists that new restrictions on researching stories “in the public interest” will not compromise their confidential sources.

Yesterday, the Editors’ Code Committee announced that from January 1, 2012, it will tighten up the way the code’s public interest defence is used.

At the moment, editors who rely on the public interest defence to justify breaches of the code must prove they had “good reason to believe the public interest would be served”.

But in future, they will also have to show … “how, and with whom, that was established at the time”.

Those words “with whom” concern me.

Supposing a journalist has used a confidential source to establish that there is public interest in researching a story.

The article is published, provokes a storm, and someone complains to the PCC. The PCC then asks the editor “how, and with whom”, did (s)he establish public interest?

Content from our partners
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it

Would the editor be asked to name the source? And what would happen if (s)he refused?

I put this to the PCC and invited their explanation. Their spokesman assured me: “This change is not a requirement for editors to identify the names of confidential sources.”

He added: “Editors need to be able to testify to (through a clear audit trail) the editorial processes that took place in the preparation of the story.”

Personally, I’m not entirely convinced by this reassurance.

Will the commission be entirely satisfied if an editor says: “We checked this story, but under Clause 14 of your code, we’re not prepared to tell you who with.

“We also cannot give you full details of how we checked the information, as this could reveal clues about our source’s ID.”

Each case will differ. But I can foresee a time when the public interest, and clause 14, will conflict.

And then what?

Remember, too, the journalist has the right to refuse to name a source under the Contempt of Court Act.

Tomorrow I’ll be looking at the other change announced by the PCC – the requirement on editors to agree the position of PCC adjudications with the commission’s director.

Cleland Thom is consultant and trainer in media law.
See website


Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network