Opinion - News Analysis   

Needed, proactive PCC and editors

K. Narayanan

Among those who tendered evidence to the U.K. House of Commons committee on culture, media, and sport was the MediaWise Trust, which offers “free, confidential assistance to people affected by inaccurate, intrusive or sensational coverage” in the media. The Trust contended that while the current form of self-regulation might be regarded as a sufficient buttress against abuse of power by the press, there was an unhealthy imbalance of power. If self-regulation failed, statutory controls would become unavoidable. But “Members of Parliament hesitate to take too strong a stand against the press, which could reveal their weaknesses.”

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the Trust said, tended to give the benefit of the doubt to newspapers when the public complained. For the industry this was a cheap alternative as the PCC imposed no monetary penalty on erring publications. Nor was there any disclosure by newspapers of what they had spent on discreet settlement of claims. The PCC, it said, provided a system of justice in which the press was jury and judge — a set-up it would not tolerate for other sections of society. The Trust wanted a regulatory system suited to social attitudes and the changing nature of mass communications, and which would strike a balance between the individual’s right to privacy and the newspapers’ right to freedom of expression.

* * * 

The National Union of Journalists was even more critical. Self-regulation as practised by the PCC, it said, meant the absolute minimum of interference. The number of cases adjudicated has fallen consistently year by year. The PCC, it said, was flawed as a structure: it had no power to impose penalties. It needed more involvement from other sections of the industry, including working journalists and more powers to decide on complaints before resolution. “The PCC risks being a mere facade of protection to allow proprietors to make money out of intrusive and sensational copy.” The question was not whether the Code should be amended, but how the PCC should be applying it more often and more rigorously, and impose significant penalties for breaches.

The PCC however claimed that “its success continues to underline the strength of effective and independent self-regulation over any form of legal or statutory control.” Resolving complaints by conciliation, instead of adjudication, was not a sign of weakness but of the strength of self-regulation. It was also quicker. Imposition of penalties would involve legal delays and risks. The PCC claimed it was proactive to prevent excesses by the press and in advising the public of their rights. Legal controls, it argued, would be useless to those who cannot afford the costs and would also mean protracted delays.

* * * 

The House of Commons committee clarified that it could not provide a comprehensive view of how self-regulation works. According to the PCC, it had gained the trust and confidence of the industry and there was a high level of satisfaction among complainants. But its critics held that it did not command absolute confidence that it was fair. It applied the Code of Practice too lightly and it had a very limited repertoire of sanctions.

Any move for statutory regulation would mean a dangerous interference with the press, the committee said, terming it “a hallmark of authoritarianism.” Editors and the PCC had to ensure that there was no need to resort to such steps. What was needed was strengthening the existing framework. In instances such as the Kate Middleton episode, the PCC could have intervened by issuing a desist notice to editors without waiting for a complaint. When a complaint was disposed of by conciliation, the details should be published, if the complainant desired it. Only adjudication proceedings are required to be published now.

Self-regulation required vigilance by the editors against potential breaches of the code. Otherwise it might give the impression that they turned a blind eye as long as good stories were produced, “a practice of which at least some editors are guilty,” the committee noted.

* * * 

One of the principal arguments for self-regulation was that it was more effective than statutory controls. But that justification would be undermined, the committee noted, if the industry waited for a breach of law to occur before it acted (as in the News of the World royal editor’s case.) If self-regulation was to command confidence and support, editors had to be proactive in observing the Code.

In the Kate Middleton case, while the News of the World acted on its own to observe the Code, the press allowed the scam to continue for too long. The PCC should have intervened much earlier. Others who might not have the same public support as Ms. Middleton did would also need protection. For this the PCC had to be more vigilant.

The Code of Practice, the committee emphasised, was central to self-regulation — it was prepared by editors and they had to uphold it. The terms of employment for journalists should have a provision that they would adhere to the Code.

The PCC’s arguments against the imposition of fines for breaches of the Code were unconvincing, the committee held. But such a penalty would require statutory and structural changes, and needed broader study.

* * * 

The mainstream Indian press, as of now, does not indulge in aggressive intrusions into privacy or dig up personal data, and much of this report would be of academic interest. But the growing challenge from television may soon force some of them into similar ventures. Self-regulation may then become a necessity, but can it be done in the Indian context? It would also call for a regulatory body with adequate powers. The Press Council of India, in its latest report, calls for powers to ensure that the press abided by the directives and observations of the Council.

(Concluded. The first part appeared on October 29, 2007)

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The challenge of Nandigram
A sorry tale of Saudi King’s U.K. visit
Farm suicides rising, most intense in 4 States
Needed, proactive PCC and editors
A new wave of hope in Myanmar
U.K.’s new plan for Afghanistan
Welcome development
Turmoil in Pakistan
Death penalty
Congratulations

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu