APPENDIX 29
Memorandum submitted by the Society of
Editors
The Society of Editors has more than 400 members
in national regional and local newspapers, broadcasting, new media,
media law and journalism education. The membership includes editors
and senior executives in national newspapers and broadcasting
as well editors of major regional dailies and weekly newspapers
and local and regional broadcasting.
Our main objectives are the maintenance of media
freedom and the wider public right to freedom of expression and
the right to know. We are also closely concerned with the maintenance
and improvement of journalistic standards and have a particular
involvement with journalism training.
While we have members and an interest in the
regulation of broadcasting we recognise and reluctantly accept
the need for different treatment of that part of the media. There
are technical barriers to entry into broadcasting and therefore
artificial barriers to freedom of expression and plurality. In
essence, anyone can set up as a publisher and it is difficult
to create a precise definition of a newspaper, magazine or, indeed,
a print journalist. In the absence of barriers to entry, statutory
restrictions on reporting and publication would not only create
unacceptable restrictions on the press but would also be an inhibition
on the more general right to free expression.
With that in mind our comments at this stage
are mainly concerned with regulation of the press. We are sometimes
questioned and criticised by some of our overseas colleagues for
accepting restrictions on reporting and publication of any kind.
The society accepts that restrictions are sometimes appropriate,
in court reporting for example, but they should be properly justified
and kept to a minimum. More general restrictions are a matter
of ethics, which are in turn an issue for editors and journalists
themselves.
That is why the society supports self-regulation.
Indeed we encourage it as a helpful expression of journalistic
ethics that our members can share and which can be demonstrated
to the public.
Along with other industry bodies, we welcome
the select committee's inquiry because we believe it will show
how the current system of self-regulation of newspapers and magazines
through the Editors' Code and the Press Complaints Commission
is effective, efficient and accessible to ordinary people. Since
it was created it has improved the conduct of the press in both
the national and regional press.
It replaced a system that was failing both the
press and the public because it had the respect of neither. The
Code of Practice was a fundamentally important initiative because,
for the first time it set out principles and practical guidelines
to which editors and journalists could work.
While there may be occasional instances that
suggest the need for further consideration or toughening of the
code, the system has the advantage of being responsive to the
need for change both from the point of view of the industry and
the public. To that end the code and the PCC are always subject
to review, not least in response to opinion within our membership.
That is a broad church with a variety of views. The code and its
administration through the PCC are subject to debate but our members
share two fundamental principles. They accept the need for the
code and a respected and vociferous and effective body to apply
it. They also believe firmly that the interests of the public
in a fair and independent press are best served through self-regulation.
Journalists are well aware of the provisions
of the code of practice, the decisions of the PCC and the important
principles that led to their creation. This has brought about
a significant improvement in the understanding of journalists
of the ethical framework in which they should conduct their work.
Editors and journalists have both an ethical
and marketing interest in the application of self-regulation to
the needs of ordinary people who are not generally in public life.
This is especially important to them. Those people are the readers
editors want to win and to keep. The system is particularly effective
in balancing the rights of individuals with the wider public interest
in the free flow of information.
All journalists are aware of both the terms
of the code and the importance of following its spirit as well
as its detail. They are made aware of the code in their basic
training and the society produces copies in a pocket-sized format
so they can carry it with them. Adherence to the code generally
forms part of their contracts of employment. The code has succeeded
in raising standards because it provides a clear statement of
both principle and practice.
The code is a major point of reference in the
editorial process and an important factor in decisions about how
or whether stories are pursued or published. Application of the
code can ensure that stories can be published but without any
mischievous impact. Unacceptable coverage can be limited or removed.
Furthermore the code and the PCC system helps
editors to deal with complaints that inevitably arise from time
to time. It is especially helpful because it enables prompt response
without the need to resort to expensive legal advice. Other regulatory
systems are expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. Many are also
long-winded, including some of those dealing with broadcasting.
The PCC can act as a mediator and the system is fair and acceptable
to both sides. Editors accept PCC decisions and publish adjudications
when required. That in itself is a much under rated sanction.
Critical adjudications are regarded most seriously.
No editor or journalist enjoys the prospect of having to publish
such criticism and they can lead to disciplinary action for journalists
or editors. Most important, editors invest a good deal of time
and energy in winning readers. It is therefore particularly important
that complainants are satisfied that their complaints are dealt
with fairly and appropriately so that editors can retain their
support.
A further advantage of the system is that it
is possible to seek advice from the PCC informally prior to publication.
The pro-active involvement of the PCC is helpful in order to discuss
issues or problems arising from stories and in preventing possible
breaches of the code. The regular publication of decisions and
commentaries on the code and the PCC's work enhance the original
concept and make it dynamic.
The select committee is quite correctly concerned
with people who are not usually in the public eye. As you will
appreciate regional and local newspapers take great pride in how
they serve their local communities by developing close relationships
with readers. Indeed they could not succeed editorially or commercially
if they did not achieve that. As a result examples of praise and
gratitude far outweigh complaints about invasions of privacy or
inappropriate behaviour. Like all newspapers they set out to question
and criticise the actions and behaviour of people whether or not
they are in the public eye when it is appropriate. Similarly,
they aim to spotlight and praise when that is appropriate. National
newspapers are aware of the benefits that accrue to regional newspapers
and have similar interests in developing close relationships with
their readers.
Given the Committee's special interest in people
who are not usually in the limelight it is interesting to note
that more than 90% of complaints are from "ordinary"
people. A proportionately bigger number of complaints about privacy
concern regional and local papers and those "ordinary"
people. Only a small percentage come from famous people—pop
stars, film stars and celebrities, including politicians. The
evidence is that those so-called ordinary people seem satisfied
with the system. That said, it is the high profile cases, including
those involving politicians, that cause the biggest fuss and lead
to questions about the complaints system.
An overwhelming number of complaints of all
kinds are settled directly by editors, sometimes with the help
of the PCC. The fact that so few need to go to formal adjudication
is vindication of the system. The existence of the code and the
PCC has certainly improved the methods editors use to deal with
complaints and has speeded up the process. There is certainly
no way these days that complaints are left to languish in an in-tray
until they go away. That is another significant improvement.
The nature and duties of the press at local,
regional or national level are understandably likely to cause
tension from time to time. A dynamic code of practice that can
be amended when appropriate is the cornerstone of self-regulation.
Professional members of the PCC help to create respect from within
the industry because they are aware of the operational factors
involved in editorial decision-making. They represent all sections
of the press and are changed regularly to help ensure that the
widest range of expertise and attitudes are brought to bear.
Journalistic and commercial competitiveness
ensures that the system is neither cosy nor self-serving. The
built-in lay majority of non-journalist members maintains fair
play for the public.
Worries about the balance between the democratic
needs of a free press and individual privacy, which is one of
the committee's concerns, are being effectively tackled by the
PCC—as several senior judges have publicly and privately
acknowledged. A state funded "Press Ombudsman" would
be seen as a first step to Government censorship, while a privacy
law would only be enforceable by the rich and privileged. A statutory
system would struggle to achieve such a balance and would not
be acceptable because the motives behind it would continually
be subjected to question and criticism by both the press and the
public.
The esteem in which the system is held in other
countries is evidence of its success. The work of the Commonwealth
Press Union in particular demonstrates that editors, journalists
and politicians elsewhere are envious of what has been created
in the UK and how it is improving standards.
Editors are well aware of the need to keep the
system under review. Fundamental changes in either the code or
the PCC would be a backward step for both the public and the industry.
The PCC is about to acquire a new chairman. That will be another
opportunity for it to develop still further. No organisation or
system should be immune from criticism. What is important for
the public whom both the media and politicians serve in their
different ways, is that the benefits of the existing system should
be stressed and promoted. Increased use and awareness of self-regulation
will increase both respect for it and its effectiveness in raising
standards.
In response to legitimate concerns the industry
has set up an effective and workable system. The fact that it
is financed by the newspaper and magazine industry should be a
matter for praise rather than question. The financial and management
arrangements are distanced from the working of the system. To
all intents and purposes the code and the complaints machinery
are independent. Those organisations that recommend the appointment
of professional members consider the issues and the individuals
carefully in order to provide a broad background of opinion and
experience. The system for the appointment of lay members enhances
the independence of the PCC.
Suggestions of what might be perceived to be
more powerful sanctions are inappropriate and would undermine
rather than enhance the complaints system. Financial penalties
would inevitably bring in expensive lawyers and delay the process.
More fundamentally, penalties can only deal with transgressions.
The key point of the code, which is the basis of self-regulation,
is to prevent transgressions rather than merely to punish them
and to deal with the aftermath.
Editors sign up to the code and to system as
a whole voluntarily. That is what gives it strength. The law punishes
murder or burglary but it does not stop it. Most of us do not
commit such crimes because we know they are wrong. Editors take
that ethical stance a step further in their work. They volunteer
to be regulated and to accept some restriction on the freedom
of the press. Why volunteer if they do not intend to live by restrictions
that they have, in effect, applied to themselves?
We expect that we would endorse many of the
detailed comments you will have received from other industry organisations.
We hope this will help you in your deliberations. We would be
happy to discuss and expand on any of the points we have raised.
A brief biography of the author follows as relevant
information for the Committee.
Bob Satchwell, Director, Society of Editors
Bob Satchwell has held senior editorial position
in both regional and national newspapers.
1970-1980: Lancashire Evening Post. Graduate
trainee to associate editor. Journalist of the Year in the British
Press Awards for 1977 and Crime Reporter of the Year in the same
year.
1980-84: News of the World. Assistant
editor
1984-98: Cambridge Evening News. Editor
President of the Guild of Editors 1997-1998.
A member of the Editors' Code Committee when
Diana, Princess of Wales died and helped in the revision of the
code.
During his nearly 15 years tenure the Cambridge
Evening News was one of the most successful regional newspapers
in Britain. It was Press Gazette Newspaper of the Year in its
category for 1993 and Daily Newspaper of the Year in the BT Awards
for the London and Homes Counties North region for 1994. It won
Newspaper Society prizes for best circulation increases in 1993,
1995, and 1996. It was also named Community Newspaper of the Year
for 1996.
3 February 2003
| 
