APPENDIX 52
Memorandum submitted by the Editor of
the Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd
The Birmingham Evening Mail welcomes
the Select Committee's inquiry because we believe it will show
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 both the regional and national press.
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.
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
that 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.
The code has succeeded in raising standards
because it provides a clear statement of both principle and practice.
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 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 they 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.
This early 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.
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.
I would be grateful if you would consider some
of these points during your forthcoming deliberations. Please
contact me if you require any further information.
6 February 2003
| 
