Why the Vanessa Perroncel scandal is a problem for the PCC

If you read nothing else today, go now to Nick Davies's interview with Vanessa Perroncel. Don't ask "who", just click on it and read every word.

Then, if you are a journalist, ask yourself whether the actions of your fellow journalists are defensible. And I would certainly be delighted to hear from any hack who thinks any of it can be justified.

For the record, Perroncel's lawyers have sent letters warning of a possible action for breach of privacy to seven titles: the News of the World (of course) and The Sun; the Daily Mirror (sadly), the Sunday Mirror and The People; and the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.

Perroncel's story of her dealings with these papers is a catalogue of intrusiveness, inaccuracy and innuendo that amounts to a full-frontal character assassination. It brings modern journalism into disrepute, and is reminiscent of the treatment meted out to the Kate and Gerry McCann. It proves yet again that popular newspapers in the midst of a feeding frenzy do not learn from past errors.

As I made my way through Davies's piece I felt as if I was re-reading Heinrich Böll's 1974 novel The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, a reminder that there is bad journalism elsewhere in the world.

But there are disturbing features about the Perroncel case that take it into its own special league of current British tabloid nastiness, namely the business of phone-tapping.

Just how did a verbatim quote from Perroncel's phone conversation with a friend end up in a newspaper?

In the aftermath of this case, there may well be further questioning of the Press Complaints Commission's capability - or lack of capability - in dealing with such bad behaviour by its paymasters.

Note first that Perroncel decided against going to the PCC, so we must presume that the commission had no way of knowing what was happening. If it had received a call, then I imagine its officers might have warned off editors by reminding them of their obligations under the editors' code of practice (pointing to clauses about harassment and subterfuge, not to mention accuracy).

In similar instances of reporters laying siege to someone's house and pestering them on the phone, the PCC has discreetly stepped in once alerted. (This activity is, by its nature, covert).
So the PCC will rightly counter that it could do nothing for Perroncel since it was unaware of what was happening. But note also Perroncel's reason for not going to the PCC. She told Davies:

There are too many newspaper editors who sit on it. From these same papers. It's a conflict of interest. Who would trust them?

That's the real problem for the machinery of press self-regulation. However much it argues that it is scrupulously fair in its dealings with people, it is not perceived as impartial. And perception is everything.

This is the central problem that the PCC has always faced. It will be fascinating to see whether the governance review that is under way at present addresses this matter and, if so, comes up with a solution.

Meanwhile, power to Perroncel's elbow. If her phone calls were intercepted then it will prove that previous allegations about the widespread use of such illegal activity were justified. And it may help to force Scotland Yard, finally, to come clean about why it cut short its inquiry in the News of the World phone-hacking affair.