7. SYP’s interaction with the media after the disaster

What was investigated?

Under a term of reference covering SYP’s engagement with the media and MPs in the aftermath of the disaster, the IOPC investigated:
The interactions of police officers with the press and politicians, in particular: 

a) whether any police officer was involved in the passing of inappropriate or inaccurate information to a journalist, including whether any police officer was involved in passing written accounts to the press 
b) whether any police officers passed inappropriate or inaccurate information to any Member of Parliament—whether individually or at meetings. This will include investigation of the actions of Chief Inspector Norman Bettison in visiting Parliament and the evidence he presented, its content and subsequent use by others 
c) whether the briefing which was given to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister on the day after the disaster contained any inaccurate or inappropriate information 
d) whether the evidence demonstrates that such interactions were directed or encouraged by SYP

This chapter focuses on part a and some interactions with MPs, in relation to what they then said to the media (part b). Chapter 8 covers parts b and c. 
 

What was found?

• The IOPC has not found any evidence to suggest that the behaviour of supporters caused or in any way contributed to the disaster. There was little or no evidence to support the main allegations reported in the media about the behaviour of supporters on the day of the disaster. 

• In relation to supporters’ alcohol consumption, there was a clear divide between the evidence of many police officers, who broadly suggested that there was an unprecedented level of alcohol consumption, and the evidence of most supporters, who indicated that there was nothing out of the ordinary. The majority of third-party accounts, images and video do not support the suggestion that drinking was at unprecedented levels. 

• The allegation that supporters burned a police horse with cigarettes is not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence gathered by the IOPC shows that this claim was not only improbable, but implausible.

• Though it has long been assumed that The Sun was the first newspaper to print stories which painted the supporters in a negative light, the IOPC confirmed that similar allegations had been reported by local news outlets the Sheffield Star and White’s News Agency the day before they were published in The Sun.

• The available evidence suggested that a key source of information for the White’s news feed—and possibly the Sheffield Star article—was Irvine Patnick, the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam. Mr Patnick’s own notes from the time show that he spoke to several police officers on the evening after the disaster; they told him various stories about supporters, which he then repeated to the media.

• No officer admitted being the source of the anonymous comments published in The Sun or any of the other media coverage. With just one exception—the probable identification of a chief inspector quoted in one article—the IOPC was not able to identify the officers who spoke to journalists.
 

Significant new evidence 

To investigate police interactions with the media, the IOPC contacted almost 200 journalists who had been at the ground on the day, or whose name appeared on any of the articles published in the days that followed the disaster, asking them about the sources of their stories and whether they had spoken to any police officers.

1. Media coverage of the Hillsborough disaster has been a source of enduring controversy, primarily due to the way that Liverpool supporters were portrayed.
    
2. From the earliest reports, there were suggestions in the media that the disaster had been caused by the actions of supporters. A central allegation was that large numbers of supporters had been drunk. Further coverage then insinuated that supporters had hindered rescue efforts and, in the most notorious article published by The Sun, even claimed that some supporters had acted disrespectfully towards those who had died. 
    
3. This led to a lasting public perception that the behaviour of supporters was, at best, uncaring and unsavoury; at worst, that it directly contributed to the disaster.
    
4. This coverage has been repeatedly discredited, not least following the conclusion of the Goldring Inquests, where the jury found the behaviour of the supporters did not cause or contribute to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles. 
    
5. The tone and content of the media coverage has caused enormous distress to many Liverpool supporters and residents, to those who were at the game and to those who lost family members or friends. The IOPC investigation focused on the role of the police in the coverage, looking at what officers may have said to journalists and whether there was any evidence of a coordinated effort to influence media coverage.