The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Well, taking -- that's just one example. The riots over the summer or gang violence or a whole range of other features that get covered in the news will often be covered in what I would say is quite a responsible way, where it is situated in a context where they look at: are there any wider patterns here? Are there any trends here? What's the research here? What's the statistics here? How does this particular incident fit with the wider context that we're working in?

It will usually involve asking particular commentators and maybe politicians, lawyers, academics, experts, frontline NGO services to come and actually comment on maybe what happened, why did it happen, is there anything that we should know more about that might enable us to prevent this happening in future or take measures that could minimise the possible likelihood of harm?

What I'm concerned about -- and I only reference two cases here, but actually if you take just recently -- over the Christmas period, for instance, I think probably most of us were struck by the fact that there were about four instances of a man murdering his wife and children. I'm not saying they're necessarily linked, I'm not saying it's necessarily the same thing, but what I am saying is I would expect responsible journalism to actually look at those things as: what is going on here? What is happening? Why is it happening? Is there anything -- is there a common factor or isn't there? There may not be, but those are valid questions to ask. Is there any research on this issue or isn't there? If there isn't, should there be? If there is, what does it say about it?

I think in actual fact from the work that we do we know that there is research that looks into those kinds of factors. So what we're concerned about is these cases get treated as a one-off example of a few bad apples, and it's a tragedy, a one-off thing. There's nothing anyone could do about it. You could never predict it could happen. There's nothing particularly you could do to prevent it.

Whereas the position we're coming from, which reflects the position in CEDAW and other international conventions is that violence against women is linked directly to the public policy sphere. It's linked to our society and our economy and our choices. It's not inevitable and it's a reflection -- a cause and a consequence of inequality.

So what we would expect in terms of responsible reporting is that some of those questions get asked, some people are called upon to actually say: well, what are -- "You are our politicians. You are our decision-makers. What do you think about this? What are your steps to deal with it? What are you doing about?"

And they're very, very rarely, if ever, treated in that way. It's simply a one-off tragic case. How awful, how dreadful, what a shame, nothing we can do about it. So it's just a lack of contextual ignorance and failing to ask the right questions, but I think where that becomes a problem for us is that that again causes us to sit back and think there isn't anything we can or should be doing about and it can have quite a damaging effect as well in terms of what is your priority and your focus and your public responsibility and your accountability, whereas, as I said before, in -- a free press which it is actually meeting its own aims of holding people to account, could and should, I think, be asking those kind of more challenging questions about our society and the status quo.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech