Bullish but refreshing

Gone are the days when Kelvin MacKenzie could summon broadsheet media editors to discuss “growing hostility to us from [other] journalists and in Parliament”—whilst telling them, at the same time, that their shorthand was sub-par and they lacked the “intellectual ability” to work at the Sun.

MacKenzie inspires loathing in many; witness the anger when his name is mentioned in Liverpool or among former Fleet Street printers.  But for all his faults, he is admirably frank on the important issues. Today that issue was press ethics, as he appeared in front of the Leveson Inquiry.

His evidence began with typical, if uncomfortable, honesty. MacKenzie admitted that he had little regard for privacy and that he would regularly run stories without having thoroughly checked their validity. “The dictionary definition of ethics is: the philosophical study of the moral value of human conduct and the rules and principles that ought to govern it,” Mackenzie wrote in his witness statement. “They were not issues I bothered with.”

In the spirit of the soaraway Sun, he also pointed out that the Guardian had erroneously reported the Milly Dowler story but had “got away with a correction on page ten.”

MacKenzie’s approach to journalism—which he today described as “bullish”—has made him unpopular in some circles. But his evidence was refreshing, as we enter the third month of what has been a frustrating series of hearings. Lord Leveson and Robert Jay QC have had the opportunity to question various newspaper editors and journalists, several notable celebrities, and members of the public who have fallen victim to alleged press skulduggery. And yet, so far, all they seem to have been able to conclude is that journalists should try to tell the truth.

Take the evidence of Piers Morgan, who appeared before Lord Leveson shortly before Christmas. Morgan told the Inquiry he “did not believe” that he had ever run a story based on phone hacking; a non-committal answer to a straightforward question. The former Mirror editor “could not remember” who taught him the method by which phones could be hacked, despite being able to recount the content of the conversation. He then simply refused to explain how he came to possess a recording of Paul McCartney’s voicemails, despite having admitted listening to them.

So much for the inquiry to investigate, yet so little investigating carried out. Does the Leveson inquiry really have the authority to hold the media to account? When Kelvin MacKenzie emerges as the most cooperative editor to give evidence, you have to wonder.

Alexander Wickham is a freelance journalist and blogger. He has also written for The Independent and Total Politics