APPENDIX 21
Memorandum submitted by the Deutscher
Presserat
NEW INQUIRY "PRIVACY AND MEDIA INTRUSION"
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the
UK Parliament is conducting a study on media intrusion and respecting
the privacy in reporting about people who are not "in the
public eye". We learnt of this survey from our partner institution—the
Press Complaints Commission (PCC). Since the German Press Council
is involved with this subject area in many ways—including
examining the complaints from the public about press publications—we
feel it makes sense for us to take a position on some of the points
in your catalogue of questions dated 19 December 2002. This letter
will serve the purpose of providing the British legislator with
experience of voluntary press self-regulation from the German
point of view.
For 47 years the German Press Council, as an
institution of voluntary press self-regulation, has been performing
the task of identifying problems in the press and aiming to remedy
them. It also defends the freedom of the press and intervenes
for unhindered access to the sources of news and against any threats
to the free formation of information and opinion by the public.
Moreover, the Press Council examines individual complaints about
newspapers, magazines, press services and online publications
and, in justified cases, expresses disapproval and issues public
reprimands. Finally, it issues journalists with editorial recommendations
and guidelines for journalistic work (Press Code). This means
that the Press Council basically performs two functions: defending
the freedom of the press and maintaining the standing of the press.
The German Press Council is funded equally by
the high-level associations of the publishing industry and by
the journalists' trade unions—Bundesverband Deutscher Zeitungsverleger
[Federal Association of German Newspaper Publishers], Verband
Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger [Association of German Magazine
Publishers], Deutscher Journalisten-Verband [German Journalists'
Association] and Vereinigte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft/Fachgruppe
Journalismus [United Services Union/Journalism Group].
In the early 1950s when the Federal Government
attempted to put the press under state control, the journalists'
and publishers' associations established the German Press Council
to set up an effective means of self-regulation. Incidentally,
in this they were following the British model in the form of the
British Press Council founded in 1953.
Since then, the German Press Council has been
an establishment for the voluntary self-regulation of the press
in the interests of upholding the freedom of the press, maintaining
the standing of the German press and respecting the basic rules
of fair and proper journalism. The Press Code with the Journalistic
Principles and Guidelines for Editorial Work developed by the
Press Council for this purpose is not only a guideline for journalistic
practice. Complaints about editorial publications and individual
journalistic conduct are measured against it. The complaints (we
had 701 of them in 2002 alone) were mainly affected parties.
This complaint work was also recognised by the
Federal legislator at an early stage in Germany. The Federal Act
that ensures a state grant for the Press Council's complaints
work dates from 1976. The "Act to Ensure the Independence
of the Complaints Committee Deployed by the German Press Council"
was issued not least because the state supports the possibility
of arbitration outside court in the form of a complaints procedure
based on professional ethics principles in front of the Press
Council's complaints committee.
Support is only of a financial nature, there
is no influence on the contents of the work of the Press Council
and its bodies. At the time this media policy decision was taken
for very selfish reasons in the interests of the legislator. With
the possibility of complaint to the Press Council there is a way
for the reader to turn to a body that knows the material from
its own experience without needing a lawyer and, thus, additional
costs. This ensures that the borderline cases of professional
ethics submitted are decided according to a complaints procedure
following the principles of the rule of law.
When the Press Council took on the Freiwillige
Selbstkontrolle Redaktionsdatenschutz [Voluntary Self-Regulation
Editorial Data Protection] in the year 2000, another aspect was
handed over to self-regulation, which is thus not subject to state
regulation. This is about the organisation of self-regulation
in the field of data protection in the editorial work of the press
including its preventive and supervisory components. Here, too,
the German legislator has given the self-regulation of the press
precedence over state regulation in transposing the EC Data Protection
Directive of 1995. It will probably also support this important
task with a grant.
Both at various meetings at European level and
in many bilateral contacts between our two press councils we had
the impression that press self-regulation in the UK has been doing
effective work for many years. The PCC's proposal to organise
a regular European network for all self-regulation institutions
of the print media in Europe and for all those that are in the
process of establishing such self-regulation met with wide support.
Thus, in 1999, the Alliance of Independent Press
Councils of Europe (AIPCE) was founded in London with the aim
of a regular exchange and the possibility of discussing problems
together and, where appropriate, solving them. Both here and at
bilateral level the PCC has initiated support for the discussions
and dialogues with media players in all those countries that cannot
look back on a long tradition of a free press. This is where it
stands up to strengthen democracy, the freedom of opinions and
the press and the individual rights of victims of the media.
As we can currently see, the press scene in
the UK differs from that in Germany and nevertheless—maybe
especially because of this—the press councils and complaints
commissions are given an important role in our civil societies.
The possibility as a member of the public to turn to an institution
that is interested in upholding ethical standards should not be
underestimated.
The fact that complainants who turn to the self-regulation
body themselves are not always satisfied with the decisions is
evident. This obvious comment does not speak against the model
of self-regulation; much rather it underlines the importance of
the principle of the independence of the self-regulatory work
in a free media system. After court judgements surveys always
find people who don't agree with the verdict. Especially if the
verdict is not what the plaintiffs or complainants hope for. Furthermore,
as can often be assumed in Germany, drawing the conclusion that
a body of this kind is only inadequately performing its task and
is therefore unnecessary, would be a wrong conclusion.
In our opinion, a strong and independent press
in Europe needs a well functioning self-regulatory system. With
too strong a regulation and one-sided emphasis on the rights of
the individual over the freedom of the press, the press cannot
perform the important task as a monitor assigned to it in a democracy.
A democratic Europe needs a strong, free press throughout the
EU and corresponding self-regulatory bodies. The German Press
Council hopes that this will continue to be guaranteed in the
UK by the work of the Press Complaints Commission.
30 January 2003
| 
