APPENDIX 47
Memorandum submitted by Nottingham Evening
Post
I am aware that the Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee, which you chair, is examining the issues of
privacy and media intrusion.
You will give a lot of consideration, I imagine,
to the subject of self-regulation and to the effectiveness or
otherwise of the Press Complaints Commission.
In principle. I believe wholeheartedly that
democracy is best served by self-regulation. Quite simply it provides
the best balance between freedom of expression and privacy, two
rights that sometimes can view the other as a wrong.
Enough of philosophy! My purpose in writing
is to share my experience from a number of years of editing regional
newspapers. I trust it may be of some use as you try to make up
your minds about a complex subject.
It is the practicalities of dealing with hundreds
of thousands of stories delivered to hundreds of thousands of
readers that have convinced me self-regulation has no rival.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people
who have a complaint about what a newspaper publishes would be
more poorly served if legislation replaced self-regulation.
The Nottingham Evening Post, which I
have edited for eight years, tries to get it right with everything
it publishes. But inevitably mistakes will occur. Sometimes an
inaccuracy—a name misheard or misspelled. . . sometimes
we are misinformed. . . occasionally we make a misjudgement.
Dealing with hundreds of stories on a daily
basis, and with the best will in the world, a newspaper will not
always get it right.
Self-regulation is the practical way that resolves
almost all of any difficulties that arise. It is speedy, it costs
the complainant no more than a stamp or a telephone call—and,
above all, it is effective.
I am not sure how widely it is appreciated what
newspapers and the Press Complaints Commission do, away from the
glare, to satisfy their customers.
For the Nottingham Evening Post, self-regulation
starts long before the PCC. Each complaint (and we don't get a
great number of them!) is fully investigated. If it is valid,
we seek to provide the best remedy to satisfy the complainant.
It may be a right of reply, a correction or the publication of
a further story.
As policy, we send out more than 100 accuracy
surveys each month randomly to people who have featured in our
columns asking if they were correctly reported and also how they
were treated. The satisfaction rate is very high.
On occasion when someone complains to the PCC,
I have found the organisation to be very even-handed and efficient,
seeking solutions promptly and with a minimum of fuss.
Legislation has its place, of course. Plenty
of it exists, in my opinion, to deal with an uncaring newspaper
getting something wrong and not being prepared to provide a remedy.
But it is slow, often confrontational, expensive—and should
be a last resort for all parties.
I have found self-regulation to work. I think
the PCC provides an invaluable cog in the chain. I cannot think
of an example in my experience where a privacy law would have
served a complainant better.
Finally, I think the culture of self-regulation
has a profoundly important effect in the newsroom. Reporters are
taught respect because of it. It is about taking responsibility;
it is about considering the effect of what you write. Not about
what you can write about an inquest, for instance, but what you
should write.
Self regulation does more for responsible journalism,
and therefore our citizens, than any legislation ever could.
5 February 2003
| 
