APPENDIX 51
Memorandum submitted by the Editor of
the Aberdeen Evening Post
Firstly, can I stress that I share the view
of my fellow editors, both personally and collectively through
the Society of Editors and the Newspaper Society, that this inquiry
is welcomed.
I believe that it will find that the current
system of self-regulation throughout the Editors' Code Committee
and the Press Complaints Commission is working well and in the
best interests of the public.
As a regional editor, the decisions my staff
and I take on a daily basis are governed by the code of practice.
I can assure you I would rather face a legal skirmish than fall
foul of the PCC. The reality is that a public rebuke is far greater
censure than any discreet financial penalties we may face in a
legal battle.
All our journalists are contractually obliged
to work within the code and are expressly warned within their
written terms and conditions that any breach of the code is a
disciplinary matter which could result in their dismissal. Further,
they are all issued with copies of the pocket-sized format issued
by the Society of Editors.
At a management level we discuss PCC adjudications
and keep staff fully informed of any changes and amendments which
may change the way they operate.
There is no doubt that the code has improved
the conduct of the press and raised standards both in my own sector
of the regional press and in the national press.
It 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 provides
a clear statement of both principle and practice and prevents
the type of unacceptable coverage that I suspect is behind your
committee's inquiry.
The code and the PCC system helps us to deal
promptly with complaints that inevitable arise from time to time.
It is especially helpful because it enables prompt remedial action
without the need to resort to expensive legal advice. The PCC
can, and does act as a mediator. Importantly, the system is fair
and acceptable to both sides.
As I highlighted earlier neither editors nor
journalists are comfortable when faced with having to publish
critical adjudications. There is also a continual battle to win
readers and its is vital we handle complaints promptly, fairly
and satisfactorily in the eyes of the complainant. We value our
readership and take great pride in serving Aberdeen and having
the trust and respect of our readers.
As a regional newspaper we, as I am sure you
are aware, focus on local people—ordinary folk who are not
generally in public life. We are particularly careful not to intrude
into grief and our reporters know not to return to a house once
they have been turned away. We also take great care to ensure
any photographs we use do not infringe the proper expectations
of privacy.
It is inevitable that there will be difficulties
on occasion as we strive to fulfil our function as a championing
newspaper actively involved on behalf of our readers.
If any problems do arise, the PCC offers readers
credible, free intervention in any dispute with our newspaper
without them having to incur expensive legal costs.
Indeed, we actively encourage readers to raise
any complaint directly with us or through the PCC and for that
purpose we publish details daily under a heading "Getting
it right".
The code of practice is the fundamental cornerstone
of self-regulation. Where there is conflict both sides have respect
for and can trust any adjudication. The professional members of
the PCC have the respect of editors as they are fully aware of
the operational factors contained in editorial decision-making.
From the complainant's perspective the built-in lay majority of
non-journalist members ensures fair play.
A state funded "Press Ombudsman" would
be seen as first step to Government censorship, while a privacy
law would allow only the rich and privileged able to afford to
enforce it. 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 press and the public.
The PCC helps strike the right balance between
the democratic needs of a free press and individual privacy. I
would urge the Committee not to burden a free press with statutory
regulation when the current system has the confidence of the public,
the backing of the industry and is clearly working.
10 February 2003
| 
