How the Press Complaints Commission Works - Work for the United Kingdom Newspapers - Case Study Example

PCC Makes Self-Regulation Work for UK Newspapers Introduction The British newspaper industry is considered one of the most licentious in the world, where practice often goes down to the level of gutter journalism. In fact, London tabloids are the most infamous, such that tabloid journalism in UK needs serious checking (OCR Textbook). Hardly a week passes by without some royalty, movie celebrity and politician suing a British newspaper for barging into their private lives or making false innuendos. It is for this reason that self-respecting British publishers, editors and journalists got together in 1991 to find effectives ways on how they can police their own ranks. The result was the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which was established in 1991 to strengthen and magnify the self-regulatory functions of the Press Council, which was the industry's regulatory body for nearly 40 years. In scope and coverage, the old Press Council was limited since its membership was confined to newspaper publishers. For a change, the PCC was constituted in such a way that its membership would be shared equally between representatives of the newspaper industry and those coming from the cross-section of British society. At present, the PCC consists of 16 members, eight of whom are publishers, editors and practicing journalists and the eight others are laymen. This lends the council an image of independence, free from possible influence of both the newspaper industry and government. For the same reason, the council left out government as possible source of its operational budget and instead relied on the largesse of newspaper companies whose funding contribution is arranged on a pro-rata basis. Publishers contribute a levy to PCC based on their companies' market share, with the Press Standards Board of Finance, an entirely separate body, collecting the money. How the PCC Works In essence, the PCC receives and resolves complaints from members of the general public about the editorial content of newspapers, magazines and other periodicals. The report in question may be false and inaccurate as to put someone in a bad light. It could be misleading or intrudes into a person's right to privacy. Whatever the complaint brought to the attention of PCC, it tries to settle the case within 25 working days without any charges from the complaining public. So far, its service has been described as quick and efficient (PCC handbook). Once the PCC receives a complaint, which could be by regular mail, telephone, fax or e-mail, it starts by assessing if there is a valid cause for action. If there is, the council then refers the complaint to the concerned newspaper, which is obliged to run it in full without any embellishment that might distort the meaning of the complaint. In 2005, PCC received 3,654 complaints, of which 2 out of 3 involved inaccurate reporting and 1 out of 5 alleged intrusion into privacy. Of the complaints that don't involve breach of journalistic ethics, 9 out of 10 are resolved without the slightest delay (PCC). Pinkerton, R. (2002) observes that 97 percent of all the complaints PCC handles from year to year are resolved in favor of the complainants. Only 3 percent is tossed to the regular courts for adjudication because an apology would not suffice in these cases, or the editors cited in the complaints are convinced they have done no wrong and believe the courts will vindicate them. PCC ensures that it is accessible to all by operating Helpline, a 24-hour Advice Line, an Internet site and a Textphone service. Helpline assists everyone in lodging a complaint, while the Advice Line handles urgent complaints round the clock. The Textphone service provides assistance to people with hearing defects and the website makes relevant information available. The PCC also runs regular public service ads on how to make a complaint against erring newspapers in various minority languages - Welsh, Chinese, Bengal, Arabic, Somali and Urdu. As evidence of its accessibility and increasing public acceptance, PCC contended with 8,550 inquiries in 2005, with the actual complaints brought before it rising by 3,000 yearly. Code of Practice The journalistic Code of Practice that serves as backbone of PCC's operations is often described as a document that was "written by editors for editors," such that the council's effectiveness has been attributed to this factor. As framed by the best minds in the newspaper and periodical industry in 1991, this code embodies the ethical demands of journalism that have to do with accuracy, privacy, harassment, intrusion into moments of grief or shock, the need to uphold the rights of children and the reputation of people involved in sexual cases. Since then, the Code of Practice has undergone many changes to reflect new requirements on its coverage. In 1991, for example, new provisions were added to the code's clause on accuracy, privacy and discrimination. There was a series of changes in 1993, which include a ban on clandestine listening devices, an expanded definition of private property to make certain domains off-limits to reporters, and a rule calling for a swifter cooperation of editors. The other additions to the Code are: clarifying the extent by which reporters can operate in hospitals (1004); redefining private property to exclude privately owned land seen by passersby (1995); calling for transparency in payments made by reporters in exchange for exclusive stories (1996); a ban on news photo manipulation (1997); aligning the rule on children's vulnerability with the Youth Justice Act (1999); adopting a resolution updating the Code on an annual basis (2004); expanded provision on sexual discrimination to cover the third sex following the enactment of the Gender Recognition Act (2005); and disallowing intrusion into grieving relatives of suicide victims (2006). Central to PCC work is the protection of children, innocent relatives and friends of convicted felons, victims of sexual assault, patients being treated in hospitals, and individuals likely to be subjected to racial, religious, sexual and other form of discrimination. In seeing to industry compliance with the Code of Practice, the PCC has issued guidelines on media depiction of people with mental illness and reportorial handling of lottery winners, who are within their rights to hide in anonymity. The Code of Practice consists of 16 items, 8 of which set the ground rules on ethical conduct. The other 8 clauses involve issues on violation of privacy, harassment, reporting on children, deceptive use of listening devices, naming of innocent relatives and friends of crime suspects, payment for articles, and misrepresentation and subterfuge. All these are written into the employment contracts of newspaper editors and reporters in UK (Pinker, R., 2002). Conclusion There is growing agreement that self-regulation is more effective and has more salutary effects than statutory controls or other forms of government restrictions. It is argued that statutory controls would only undermine the sacred principle of press freedom and would not serve to raise journalistic standards (PCC Handbook). The same thing is expected to happen if the law is brought to bear on journalistic violation of privacy instead of self-regulation. This system would only benefit the rich and powerful people who can manipulate the courts, even as corrupt officials may use it to stop newspapers from reporting wrongdoings. Self-rule does not pose these problems and even provides a setting in which editors are committed to the highest ethical standards. Statutory controls in UK are only carried out in relation to the Official Secrets Act and existing libel laws. The OSA prohibits civil servants, soldiers, police and others who work for the Crown to speak on matters of government activities. Newspapers are also covered by it when they impinge on matters of national security, the same way they are answerable to the law when libel or defame someone with malice. (OCR Textbook) PCC has made self-regulation work for the British newspaper industry because of the way it handles the process. For one, access to its services is available to all, rich and poor alike. The PCC service is also fast and with great flexibility, unfettered by any special interests and is provided at no cost to the complainant and the British taxpayer. Moreover, the Code of Practice the PCC adopted to carry out its job is based on civic traditions and values held by the industry that it oversees, as well as the public that it serves and protects. The industry stakeholders themselves wrote their own code and made public commitment to accept and abide by all PCC decisions. Pinker, R. (2002) points out that PCC met the "institutional preconditions" for making self-regulation effective when the publishers, editors and journalists demonstrated to politicians and the public that they meant business and they possess the ability to make self-regulation work. Also, the budgetary setup of the PCC infringe in no way on its independence (Pinker, R., 2002). References: Kenny, Colum. "Media Matter - Striking a Balance between Press Regulation." http://www.dcu.ie/dcutimes/summer 0506/31-32.pdf OCR Textbook. "Freedom, Regulation and Control in the British Press." Chapter 9. http://www.northallertoncoll.org.uk/media/controlbp.htm Pinker, Robert (2002). "Press Freedom and Press Regulation - Current Trends in their European Context." Paper presented at the Modern Media and EU seminar, Nicosia, Cyprus; February 2002. Press Complaints Commission. "What is the PCC" http://www.pcc.org.uk Read More