» SubscribeMain section
-
Top story
Frankenstein Unbound?
152/Julian Petley
Julian Petley reports on the findings of the 2005 Press Complaints Commission’s Annual Review
DATELINE: 8/7/06
Annually reviewing the PCC Annual Review, there’s a danger of sounding like a cracked record, or Mr Grumpy. This year, however, a distinct change of tone from the Wakeham-era — more glasnost, less smugness and fewer paeans to the PCC as the last bastion against state regulation — makes it possible to engage with the Review more constructively.
In 2005 the PCC received a record number of 3654 complaints. 2.7 per cent of these came from people in the public eye, 4.8 per cent from organisations, and 92.5 per cent from the public. Of the complaints investigated, 69.8 per cent concerned accuracy, 25.4 per cent privacy and 2.7 per cent discrimination. In terms of privacy, the PCC made over 200 rulings in 2005; 54 per cent concerned the regional and local press, and 31.2 per cent the national. It received 228 complaints about privacy from those directly affected by an alleged breach of the Code — slightly up on the 2004 figure.
Overall, the number of cases resolved amicably rose by 41 per cent in 2005. 76 per cent of possible breaches of the code were resolved in 2005, up 12 per cent on 2004. In a further 22 per cent of cases the PCC negotiated offers judged appropriate by its board but not acceptable to the complainant. In only 2 per cent of cases did editors fail to respond in a way the board felt appropriate. These complaints were upheld. Of the 242 complainants who replied to the PCC’s customer survey, 66 per cent said their complaint was handled satisfactorily or very satisfactorily. The PCC noted this was up 6 per cent on the previous year but failed to mention it still left one-third of complainants dissatisfied.
According to the PCC, the steady increase in the number of complaints received shows a greater general awareness of its services (and not that there’s more to complain about), whilst the rise in the number of resolved complaints testifies to ‘the effectiveness of the conciliation culture that the PCC has sought to foster across the industry” (and not to the inequality of the struggle between complainants and the newspaper industry).
As the Review states, the PCC Code requires newspapers to publish corrections and apologies with due prominence, in other words “in a proportionate position with regard to the original piece”. This will take into account “the scale of the breach of the Code; the speed of the action taken by the publication; whether the publication has a clearly defined corrections column”. In 2005 the PCC negotiated the publication of the resolution on the same page, further forward or in the corrections column in 82 per cent of cases. On this basis, the Review confidently dismisses as a “myth” the notion that corrections are hidden away.
The PCC’s new Chairman Sir Christopher Meyer rightly emphasises the need for corrections and apologies to be displayed prominently. As he put it at the launch of the Review: “The power of naming and shaming is a more potent sanction than the ability to impose a few thousand pounds worth of fines — if ever a proportionate tariff could be established … Far better to hit sinning editors where it hurts most: in their self-esteem and personal reputation by obliging them to publish prominently and unedited the full text of censure. Nor is the message lost on the rest of the industry.”
One wonders what Sir Christopher would make of the 16 April edition of the People, where, at the bottom left-hand corner of page 41, there appeared a tiny, PCC-brokered correction which was apparently considered an adequate response to a 1016 word article on page 16 and a 145 word leader on page 14 of the February 26 edition in which a migrant in Calais was described variously as an “asylum seeker”, a “bogus asylum seeker”, an “illegal immigrant” and a “refugee”, all in flagrant contravention of PCC guidance on this extremely sensitive matter.
Sir Christopher is also right to stress the importance of the fact that “there is now more public involvement with and scrutiny of the Commission’s work than ever before” However, it is surely exaggerating to suggest, as he did in a speech to the Society of Editors in March 2005, that “self-regulation” may no longer adequately describe what the PCC does, on the grounds that “we are not an organisation in which journalists sit in judgement on journalists, unlike lawyers and doctors who regulate themselves. None of the PCC’s full-time staff has a background in journalism. 10 out of 17 Commissioners have no connection with the newspaper industry”.
It could be argued this makes them easy meat for editors and their lawyers, and that what the PCC actually needs is more journalists; not editors, but experienced figures who know how the press works and have a track record in analysing its shortcomings. It is also difficult to agree with his conclusion that “the PCC has now become a bit of a Frankenstein: the creature that broke free from its creators”. (A pedant writes: Frankenstein was not the monster but its creator.)
The real problem for the PCC is that, in order to be considered an effective regulator, it has to be respected by the public and by the newspaper industry alike. As far as I am aware, no recent research has been carried out, either into public attitudes to press regulation or press attitudes to the PCC. I suspect that research into the former would show that the PCC is regarded as poorly as journalists are themselves. As for press attitudes there is a good deal of anecdotal evidence suggesting that newspapers publicly play up the PCC’s effectiveness as a means of warding off legislation.
Thus, in the Press Gazette, 26 May, David Seymour, the former group political editor and readers’ editor at the Mirror, stated “the party line for all newspapers is that the PCC is doing a fine job”, but personally denounced it for doing a “hopeless job” and “handing down verdicts which fail to even meet the dictates of common sense, let alone justice”. And, just to prove that irony is apparently an unknown quantity in the Murdoch empire, the following week’s edition published a letter from the Sun’s managing editor Graham Dudman in which he said: “I can say from personal experience the PCC does an excellent job in often very difficult circumstances … Thanks to the PCC, when we get something wrong, we put it right quickly to the satisfaction of those complaining”.
Hardly the thing to dissipate suspicions that the PCC and the papers it’s supposed to regulate are members of the same cosy club. More voltage Dr Frankenstein!
Caborn's view - an afterthought
“I want to start by registering the fact that the government strongly support self-regulation of the press...We believe that the government should not seek to intervene in any way in what a newspaper or magazine chooses to publish. We therefore support self-regulation, and the basis for the government's relationship with the independent Press Complaints Commission is support for effective self-regulation.”
Richard Caborn, Minister for Sport, replying for the DCMS in the House of Commons on 8 May 2006 to an adjournment debate on press regulation which had been called by George Galloway MP.
Last modified: Saturday, July 8, 2006
Previous press complaints commission stories
CPBF writes to PCC on editors' code of conduct
A Pathetic Judgement
Slow and shoddy should be PCC slogan
PCC rejects CPBF Express complaint
CPBF launches complaint against Express
CPBF calls on PCC to open the books
-
Notices
Events & Announcements
World Press Freedom Day
More reporters are currently imprisoned in Turkey than in any other country in the world. Only a matter of weeks ago lawyers failed to persuade a Turkish court to release a 76-year-old journalist from a Turkish internet news station.
World Press Freedom Day on Friday May 3, 2013 is being marked in Britain by a rally to highlight the dangers facing journalists in Turkey and in this podcast, Nicholas Jones speaks to Barry White, Organiser at the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and Sam Bamford, the TUC's policy officer for Eastern Europe and Africa about the importance of a campaign to highlight international press freedom.
The World Press Freedom Day rally is being staged by the National Union of Journalists at the NUJ head office, Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1 on Thursday May 2, 6pm-8pm.
DATELINE: 27/4/13
UK launch of EU media campaign
DATELINE: 13/3/13
The UK launch of a 'European Citizens' Initiative' calling for EU rules against concentration of media power will take place on Thursday March 21 from 11:00am – 12:30pm in Committee Room 4A at the House of Lords, London. Guest speakers will include actor and activist Hugh Grant (pictured), media consultant Claire Enders, Professor Steven Barnett, Barry McCall (President of the NUJ) and Marc Gruber (Director of the European Federation of Journalists).
A European Citizens' Initiative is an official petition, like a Downing Street petition. If it succeeds in gathering a million signatures across the EU, the Commission is obliged to respond.
This petition calls for the EU to act to protect media pluralism and press freedom.
CPBF Annual General Meeting
DATELINE: 1/3/13
Make a note in your diary
Saturday 13 July 2013 from 10.00am
NUJ HQ, 308/312 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1.
Leveson, media ownership, CPBF future work.
DOWNLOAD FREEPRESS NOW
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Download Freepress in PDF, ePub or mobi format. Issue 194 now available.
MEDIA FOR ALL CONFERENCE
DATELINE: 26/3/10
Papers from the Media for All Conference
MEDIA MANIFESTO
DATELINE: 26/3/10
The media’s job is to inform and entertain us but we rely on them too to tell us what our rulers and representatives are up to. In the run-up to the Iraq war the government used spin and disinformation in the media to create panic and mislead people. The truth is coming out now, but we need stronger, more independent media to be able to scrutinise governments and make informed choices.
-
Previous stories
