Whether or not this reaction was representative of actual interest in the report, the exchange served as a reminder of Lord Justice Leveson’s determination that his volumes would not end up gathering dust on a scholarly bookcase (or, considering the size and price of the report, as unopened PDF files in a forgotten folder).

What will be the legacy of the report? To what extent will his recommendations be implemented? Beyond this, what did he miss? The last question is the theme of an event at the Frontline Club in October that I am participating in. The keynote speakers include Jake Lynch, author of A Global Standard for Reporting Conflict, and Stewart Purvis, co-author of When Reporters Cross The Line.

Here are the details:

The 10th anniversary conference of the Institute of Communication Ethics, to be held at the Frontline Club, 13 Norfolk Place, London W2 1OJ, on 25 October 2013, will explore some of the many crucial ethical issues which went missing during the Leveson Inquiry.

One of the keynotes is to be given by Jake Lynch, Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney and a Senior Research Fellow of the School of Communication at the University of Johannesburg. His paper is titled ‘Reporting conflict: The critical, realist approach’.

A selection of papers given at the conference will be published in a special conference issue of Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics.

Cost of attendance: £65; students £10. For more information contact Dr Fiona Thompson, Director, The Institute of Communication Ethics, 69 Glenview Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire BD18 4AR; email f.thompson287@gmail.com.

Current line up (and it is increasing all the time) includes:

Raphael Cohen-Almagor, Jeremy Collins, Philip Cowan, Jake Lynch, John Mair, Jackie Newton, Deirdre O’Neill, Julian Petley, Judith Townend.

Background

Purvis’ first post on the topic [14 Nov] detailed a Sunday Times’ story by Miles Goslett* (£), which didn’t appear to have been followed up elsewhere by the media. It described how lawyers acting for Mark Thompson and Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, had responded to questions posed by the Sunday Times in August – they denied allegations about the handling of the Newsnight item and threatened legal action if they were printed. Purvis emphasised the significance of this story (the timings) in his post. Thompson’s reply to Purvis’ post was published here. Purvis has since summarised the resulting coverage here and here.

The Sunday Times’ latest story by Goslett, ‘Former DG feels heat over lawyers’ letter’ (£), reports:

Thompson … has told the Pollard inquiry he was not emailed a copy of the [legal] letter and does not recall being shown it.

Curiously, this fascinating story has received little interest beyond Purvis’ blog, the pages of the Sunday Times and US-based publications…

Purvis has remarked on this too and suggests that the fact that the Times’ story was behind a paywall might be significant.

However, that wouldn’t explain the continued lack of interest, now Purvis and US publications have made the details open-access…

It’s a “potentially explosive” story says the Telegraph’s Tom Chivers, but in his view, the New York Times’ could jazz up its headline a little: “‘Letter Raises Questions’? Seriously? That’s how you want to lead this? That’s your best shot?”

Further reading

• New York Magazine: ‘Mark Thompson Had No Idea What Was in That Letter From Mark Thompson’
• Poynter: ‘New CEO Mark Thompson ends first week with memo to New York Times staff’
• New York Times: Mark Thompson
• The Times: ‘‘Mark Thompson’s own paper raises doubts’ (£)

*Goslett was the journalist who first (unsuccessfully) tried to interest Fleet Street in the  Newsnight/Savile story, before placing it in the Oldie in February 2012. The newspapers’ reluctance to run it is a topic for another blog post…