Self-Regulation of the Press

What is self-regulation of the press?

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 people labelled as 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 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 again to better protect privacy and to take account of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

To date the Code has been revised 30 times since it was first published. The latest amendment was made to the Accuracy clause in January 2011.

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, that is 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 is 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.

Statistics

Complaints with merit

In 2009 there were 738 complaints that raised a possible breach of the terms of the Editors' Code of Practice (compared to 678 in 2008). 609 of those complaints were amicably settled when the newspaper or magazine in question took remedial action with which the complainant was satisfied - usually (in 541 cases) this action followed successful mediation by the PCC but, on some occasions, the matter was resolved even before the Commission launched its investigation. Where a settlement was reached between the parties, the PCC did not make a subsequent ruling on the case.

In the remaining 129 cases, the PCC ruled that there had been a breach of the Code, although, in 111 of those, remedial action by the offending publication (even though not considered suitable by the complainant) was considered sufficient by the Commission and public censure was therefore unnecessary. Critical adjudications - in which the Commission elected publicly to censure the editor - were issued in the 18 cases where remedial action was either not forthcoming or was inadequate, or in cases where a breach of the Code was so egregious that it could not be remedied.

Complaints that raised no breach of the Code

Overall, the Commission received just under 1000 distinct complaints where a ruling was possible but where the terms of the Code were not breached. In all of these cases, the PCC issued rulings to the complainants, some following an investigation, others for which no investigation was necessary. 21 of those rulings were published by the Commission because they raised significant points of principle and are recorded on the 'adjudications' section of our website.

Although we received a total of over 37,000 individual complaints, the number of distinct issues being raised was much smaller - for instance, more than 25,000 people complained about Jan Moir's piece on the death of Stephen Gately but it was fundamentally one case on which the Commission could make one ruling. Overall, there were 1,731 discrete cases (accounting for many thousands of complaints) which could either be resolved through mediation or ruled on by the PCC. This included a record number of complaints with merit and a record number of complaints that were successfully settled to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Source: PCC 2009 Annual Review - published June 2010

Quotes

"The system is such that the more people use the PCC, the better it works. We try to raise standards in the press by holding editors to account for their actions, and then using our rulings to act as guidelines for future behaviour. As we receive more complaints (because our service is better known and easier to use), so we will be more active in dealing with standards issues."

Stephen Abell, PCC Director - 2010