Opinion - News Analysis   

Self-regulation by the Press: the U.K. experience

Some recent events in the electronic media relating to two TV channels and an FM radio channel have turned the spotlight on a system of self-regulation. This follows the debate on the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill. It has generally been opposed. The Bill pertains to the electronic media, which is not my area of concern. But the issue concerns the media in general, the question discussed being what form regulation should take. Self-regulation of content and a regulatory body on the model of the Press Council of India (PCI) are some of the suggestions.

The effectiveness of the PCI is a matter for debate and self-regulation is non-existent for the print media, which are much older than the electronic media. But these references reminded me of a recent report of a British House of Commons committee on the working of the system of self-regulation of the press.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in the U.K. came into being in 1991. It has a board of 17 members. Seven of them are newspaper editors from across the country; and 10 persons, including the chairman, forming the majority, are not professionally associated with the industry. The non-journalists are selected by a five-member appointments commission, an independent body unconnected with the press.

The PCC adopts two methods to deal with complaints — conciliation and adjudication. In conciliation, matters are settled to the satisfaction of the complainant, the newspaper concerned making amends in some form — a private or published apology, payment of damages, internal disciplinary action, and so on. When there is no such settlement, the issue is adjudicated. The PCC's conclusions have to be published in full and prominently by the paper. The Commission is assisted by an 11-member secretariat.

Making a complaint is easy and free. An aggrieved party has to write to the editor of the newspaper and if there is no response within a week or if the response is unsatisfactory, a complaint can be lodged with the PCC. These are dealt with in 25 working days. In 2006 there were 3,325 complaints. About two-thirds related to factual inaccuracies. One in five was about violations of privacy and the rest were about the lack of a right to reply, harassment, and obtaining information using covert devices. Ninety per cent of the complaints were resolved to the complainants' satisfaction. Where they were not satisfied by the action recommended, the matter was adjudicated. There were 31 such cases in 2006.

In its proceedings, the PCC applies a Code of Practice drawn up by the newspaper industry. The Code is revised, when needed, by a committee of 17 editors. Revisions proposed by the committee are considered by trade associations and then ratified by the PCC. Editors and publishers have to ensure that the Code is rigorously observed by the editorial staff.

Operating in parallel is a code drawn up by the 100-year-old National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which has 40,000 members. NUJ's rules allow it to discipline members for breach of the Code and even expel them for serious breaches.

The PCI differs from the PCC in many respects. Set up under an Act of 1978, it is a quasi-judicial body that adjudicates complaints against the press for violation of ethics and by the press for violation of the freedom of the press. The Chairman, by convention a retired Supreme Court Judge, is nominated by a committee of the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the Lok Sabha Speaker, and a member of the Press Council. The 28 members consist of 13 working journalists (six of them editors); six representative of newspaper managements; one from a news agency; three nominated by the University Grants Commission, the Bar Council of India, and the Sahitya Akademi; and five Members of Parliament.

In dealing with the complaints, the Council can make observations about the conduct of any authority; and in the case of journalist misconduct, warn, admonish, or censure the persons or paper concerned. During the year April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006, it received 726 complaints — 150 by the press against authorities and 576 against the press. There were 975 matters pending from the previous year. A total of 940 matters were disposed of, either through adjudication or summary disposal following mediation by the chairman, or because of lack of sufficient grounds for enquiry or non-prosecution of the complaint.

Two recent events led the public and politicians to question the effectiveness of the system of self-regulation as practised by the press in the U.K. One was the conviction of Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of the World, and a private investigator who assisted him, for illegally accessing the voice mail messages left for members of the Royal Family. Both were sentenced to jail terms. The editor of the News of the World resigned, owning ultimate responsibility for this serious breach of the Code and the laws.

The other incident related to the harassment in January 2007 by the paparazzi of Kate Middleton, the then girlfriend of Prince William. (After a break, they are now seen together again.) A person subject to such treatment can appeal to the PCC, which then issues a “desist” notice to newspapers. (In 2006 it issued 16 such notices, and 21 in 2007, up to June.) Solicitors for Ms. Middleton considered submitting a complaint (as required under the rules) to the PCC but did not. The PCC however circulated to newspaper editors a letter from the solicitors about the harassment of their client and warning of a formal complaint. But before this happened, the News of the World decided on its own, not to use the pictures from the paparazzi.

Public reactions to these incidents led the House of Commons committee on culture, media and sport to consider the issues thrown up. The points it took up for study included: whether self-regulation continues to offer sufficient protection against unwarranted invasions of privacy and whether the Code of Practice needed to be amended. It was not a broad-based survey; it only sought to draw lessons from these episodes. The report, published in July 2007, also deals with the laws relating to protection of privacy and personal data. I take up only the points relating to self-regulation.

(To be concluded)

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

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

Stories in this Section

Maoists strike again, in Jharkhand
Offering pain relief
Contempt of court and the truth
Self-regulation by the Press: the U.K. experience
Unravelling the Rudy Giuliani myth
Employment and growth — a comment
Valparai awaits tourism infrastructure
Indexing inhumanity
Tehelka expose
Tragic incident

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