What is press regulation?
Print media in the UK are not subject to any specific statutory controls on their content and activities, other than the general criminal and civil law.
Rather, the press ostensibly regulates itself, through the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) – an independent, non-statutory body that is responsible for maintaining an Editorial Code of Practice and investigating complaints into alleged breaches of the Code. By virtue of its status, the PCC has no powers to impose penalties on those it finds guilty of breaches.
The Code consists of 16 clauses, on accuracy, the opportunity for reply, respect for privacy, harassment, intrusion into shock or grief, the interests of children, the protection of children in sex cases, entry into hospitals, the reporting of crime, the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, the protection of victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, the protection of confidential sources, payment for information relating to criminal trials and payments to criminals.
Most of the restrictions outlined in the Code are subject to a "public interest" test, under which a restriction does not apply if, when challenged by the PCC, an editor can show that publication contributed to the detection or prevention of a crime, the protection of public health and safety, and – most significantly – preventing the public from being misled by the statements or actions of an individual or organisation.
Statutory controls on press freedom are widely regarded as an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech, and as such of democratic rights. However, the activities of some irresponsible elements in the press and the PCC's weakness in enforcing its Code, have frequently generated considerable support for legislation. The threat of regulation is believed to exercise a "chilling effect" on the press, encouraging restraint and good practice.
Broadcast media, by contrast, are already subject to extensive statutory regulations. Today, these are largely set out in the Communications Act 2003 and enforced by OFCOM. The BBC is regulated by its Royal Charter obligations.
Background
The modern system of press regulation arose in the aftermath of the Second World War. In 1947, a Royal Commission on the Press was established following pressure from the National Union of Journalists, which had maintained its own code of conduct since 1936. In 1949, the Commission recommended the formation of a General Council of the Press to govern the behaviour of the print media, from conditions of employment and training to issues of ownership, and to promote the interests of the consumers and conduct research into the long-term social and economic impact of the print industry.
The industry was slow to respond, however, and it was only after statutory regulation was threatened that, in 1953, the General Council was set up, funded by newspaper proprietors. As today, the General Council and its regulatory framework was non-binding, and by the time of the Second Royal Commission on the Press in 1962, it had been subject to considerable criticism. The Commission's report demanded improvement, particularly the inclusion of lay members.
In response, the General Council was reformed as the Press Council, which included 20 per cent lay members. It took a more activist approach, giving a number of authoritative rulings on press freedom and publishing a series of guidance booklets (Contempt of Court (1967), Privacy (1971) and Defamation (1973)).
However, the Press Council was criticised extensively in the Younger report on Privacy in 1973 and in the report of the Third Royal Commission on the Press, which reported in 1977. Commission chair Lord MacGregor of Durris warned, "it is unhappily certain that the Council has so far failed to persuade the knowledgeable public that it deals satisfactorily with complaints against newspapers", and he urged the development of a written Code of Practice. The Press Council rejected this proposal, and in 1980, the NUJ withdrew from membership on the grounds that the Council was incapable of reform.
The Press Council had lost the confidence of many in the media, and the 1980s saw what many considered to be some of the worst excesses of unethical journalism and intrusions into privacy by the tabloid press. In response to two Private Members' Bills promoting privacy laws, the Conservative government set up the Calcutt Committee to investigate in 1989. At the same time, under the chairmanship of Louis Blom-Cooper, the Press Council attempted to reform, transferring its funding to the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof) and beginning work on the development of a written Code of Practice.
The 1990 Calcutt report recommended the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission to replace the Press Council. The new Commission would be given 18 months to prove that non-statutory self-regulation could work effectively and if it failed to do so, then a statutory system would be introduced.
The press rose to the challenge. The PCC was set up at the beginning of 1991 and at the same time a team of national and regional editors produced the Code of Practice for the new Commission to administer.
However, in his first report of 1993, the late Sir David Calcutt complained of the ineffectiveness of the PCC and called for statutory regulation. The Government delayed responding until 1995, when National Heritage Secretary Virginia Bottomley rejected regulation, proposing instead a series of reforms to the PCC.
Following the death of Princess Diana in 1998, the PCC came under pressure to reform again, and the Code was revised once more to better protect privacy and to take account of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
To date the Code has been revised almost 30 times since it was first published. The latest amendments were made in January 2012.
The Code's preamble was amended to require editors who breach the Code to publish the PCC's critical adjudication in full and with due prominence agreed with the PCC's Director. The Public Interest rules were also amended.
Controversies
Rarely, if ever, is it suggested that the UK's system of press self-regulation imposes excessive restrictions on the media – although defamation laws have been so criticised.
Indeed, the Press Complaints Commission has been widely criticised as an ineffectual body incapable of keeping the press in check. Funded as it is by the newspaper industry (via PressBof), many have argued that it is fundamentally incapable of doing so. The PCC and its supporters deny this, making great play of the Commission's independence and the majority of lay members on its board.
Although making a complaint to the PCC is simple and free, complaints must be made ex post facto – once the damage has been done. Furthermore, the PCC adjudicates only on a tiny minority of complaints it receives: in 2002, this was 36 out of 2,360. It is also widely suggested that the PCC rarely takes complaints lodged by parties outside the Royal Family or the "establishment" seriously.
One of the most common complaints about the PCC has been its lack of powers to impose any penalties. All it can do is demand that an offending publication print an apology and details of the adjudication. However, these are rarely given anything like the prominence of the articles that generate the complaints. It is widely felt amongst the public that editors have little concern for the PCC and its adjudications. Nonetheless, the PCC points out in its defence that many editors are now having compliance with the Code written into their contracts.
Payments made by newspapers for information or "chequebook journalism" have been at the heart of much recent "unethical" conduct. This is not a new practice; newspapers had made payments to parties involved in the Moors Murders, the case of Jeremy Thorpe and the case of Rosemary West. In 2003, however, the PCC initiated its own investigation into the Daily Mirror's conduct in paying a large sum of money to Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer convicted of killing a burglar, for his exclusive story. But the Commission finally concluded that there was sufficient public interest for the payment to be made and found no breach of the Code.
The growth of the internet has brought its own problems particularly in relation to social networking sites and the protection of privacy. An Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by the PCC in March 2008 revealed that 42% of web users aged 16-24 knew someone who had been embarrassed by information uploaded on to the internet without their consent. And 78% of the entire adult online population would change information they publish about themselves online if they thought the material would later be reproduced in the mainstream media.
In addition, 89% of web users thought there should be clear guidelines about the type of personal information that can be published online so that they can complain if the material is wrong or intrusive.
PCC director Stephen Abell, in an interview in June 2010, said the Commission believed that the proliferation of information online "militates against statutory regulation, as the content is so diffuse that it cannot be easily constrained." The PCC felt therefore that only self-restraint and self-imposed standards from newspapers, magazines and their websites could really work online.
In 2011 a major scandal erupted involving allegations of criminal activity and phone hacking at the News of the World and alleged corruption by some members of the police force.
The Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons on 13 July 2011 that a two-part inquiry would be set up to investigate the role of the press and the police in the phone-hacking scandal. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed chairman of the inquiry.
Mr Cameron said the whole country had been “shocked” by the revelations. “What this country—and the House—has to confront is an episode that is, frankly, disgraceful,” he said. “Accusations of widespread lawbreaking by parts of our press, alleged corruption by some police officers, and the failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that has been getting worse.”
The Prime Minister confirmed that the first part of the inquiry would look into the culture, practices and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation; the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue of cross-media ownership.
The second part of the inquiry would examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. It would also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police.
The inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005, which gave it the power to summon witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, policemen and politicians of all parties, to give evidence under oath and in public. The Inquiry was funded through two Government departments: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office.
Lord Justice Leveson opened the hearings on 14 November 2011.
In March 2012, as the future of press self-regulation was under consideration by Lord Leveson, the PCC announced that it had agreed unanimously in principle to the proposal that it should move into a transitional phase, transferring its assets, liabilities and staff to a new regulatory body. It would, however, continue to deal with complaints under the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice during this period of transition.
PCC chairman, Lord Hunt, drafted a proposal for the future structure of the system of self-regulation which proposed a new regulator be established with two arms: one to deal with complaints and mediation and one to audit and, where necessary, enforce standards and compliance with the Editors’ Code.
Lord Hunt said that greater emphasis should be placed on internal self-regulation, with a named individual carrying personal responsibility for compliance at each publisher. This individual would be responsible for providing “a simple but thoroughgoing audit of compliance on an annual basis.”
The system would be underpinned through a system of commercial contracts. Administrative oversight within the new regulatory body would be vested in a small Management Board or Board of Trustees, and the Board would have a lay majority, with senior involvement for the industry. The Independent Chairman would oversee both the standards and complaints arms of the new body.
Lord Justice Leveson’s report was set to be published on 29 November 2012.
Statistics
PCC Complainant feedback.
The PCC surveys all those who receive a ruling or whose complaint is settled by mediation. It also requests feedback from all individuals whose cases were investigated (meaning that the PCC wrote to the editor because the complaint appeared to have merit) even if they did not ultimately pursue their complaints.
In 2011, 213 people responded to the PCC survey, which is carried out anonymously. Results were generally positive especially when it is considered that over half of those who sent their feedback did not have their complaints upheld by the PCC.
The figures
76% – said their complaint had been dealt with satisfactorily, thoroughly or very thoroughly
62% – of respondents said the time it took to deal with their complaints was 'about right'
62% – of respondents thought the PCC staff who dealt with their complaint were helpful or very helpful
70% – of respondents (including those whose complaints were found by the Commission not to raise a breach of the Editors' Code of Practice) felt that their case had been handled satisfactorily, well or very well.
Source: PCC June 2012
Quotes
“The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”
Lord Justice Leveson opening the inquiry hearings – 14 November 2011,
“Recent events have illuminated certain weaknesses with the current system of self-regulation. The Press Complaints Commission has never been a regulator: it has never had any powers of investigation or enforcement and it has never been able to bind participants into long-term membership.
“The public and politicians have evidently lost confidence in the existing system and therefore the PCC must be replaced by a new, credible regulator armed with the powers that the PCC has lacked.”
PCC chairman Lord Hunt – March 2012
-01.png){kind=spacer}