Media & PR

The other story about press regulation: the consultation on the current rules

In amongst all the talk about Royal Charters, statutory underpinning and the like, there’s been an awful lot of talk about how a press regulator should be structured and almost nothing about what rules the regulator should enforce.

Yet almost completely unnoticed, at the same time as all that debate, a public consultation is being run on the current press rules.

The Code of Practice which the Press Complaints Commission policies is currently up for consultation. A new regulator may decide to change the Code radically, but it’s a pretty fair bet that whatever the Code says at the time they take over will have a significant influence on what the new rules are. In other words, this consultation matters.

Here’s the draft of my submission to that consultation which I’m working on. Views on what I’ve written so far very welcome. The comments thread awaits you…

(The full Editors’ Code of Practice can be read here and information about the consultation, which closes on 17 April, is available here.)

 

Professional standards apply at all times

The code sets out to be a standard for journalism, and not simply a set of rules to be used to adjudicate on complaints if and when they are made. As the code says, “All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards”. There is no caveat in that about standards only applying when a breach involves an identified individual who then complains. If that is the standard Editors are agreeing to sign up to, then it should be meaningfully implemented, otherwise, their agreement to do so is a charade.

However, the question of whether or not a complaint should be considered under the Code when it is from a third party has often been a matter for debate. As the code sets itself to be a general standard for journalism at all times, it should reflect that in its approach and so the following fifth paragraph should be added to the preamble:

“The standards set out in this code apply at all times, and not just if a person identified in a story complains. The Press Complaints Commission will expect the code to have been followed regardless of who it is who raises allegations of a breach.”

 

Online corrections

Currently, when the Press Complaints Commission upholds a complaint about a story which has appeared online, the online versions are often not updated to reflect the ruling.

For example, the PCC ruled against the Daily Telegraph in May 2011 about a series of stories it had run the previous December (see ruling at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8503891/PCC-adjudication-Liberal-Democrats.html). However, although the ruling has been placed on the Daily Telegraph website, the stories it covers have not all been updated to refer to the ruling (for example, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8217253/Vince-Cable-I-have-declared-war-on-Rupert-Murdoch.html and also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215462/Vince-Cable-I-could-bring-down-the-Government-if-Im-pushed.html).

In other words, someone currently visiting the Telegraph website and finding the stories, could easily read them without being made aware of the subsequent PCC ruling about them. That should not be the case. If a ruling upholds complaints about a story that is still available online, then the online version should make clear it was subject to a complaint that was upheld and include either the full ruling or a link through to it.

Therefore the following should be added  at the end of 1(ii):

Retractions, corrections, apologies and PCC rulings upholding complaints in respect of online articles must always be displayed either at the original URL or at a URL to which the reader is redirected. If a story was written about on multiple occasions, all the different instances of the story must be so updated. Where a PCC ruling is long, a short summary and a link through to the full ruling elsewhere is acceptable.

 

Sexual comments about under 16s

As the code sets the bar at “the highest professional standards” and not at, for example “whatever you can get away with without being prosecuted”, and therefore bearing in mind matters of both the law and of basic decency, the code should cover cases where references to the physical appearance of children are made which are in terms of whether or not the child, or parts of their body, are sexually attractive.

Therefore add to Section 6 a new (vi):

“References to the physical appearance of a child under 16 must not make reference to their sexual attractiveness, whether in relation to the child overall or any part of their anatomy.”

 

Copyright

Self-evidently, “the highest professional standards” includes obeying the law unless there is a strong public interest case for doing otherwise.

However, the question of whether newspapers have lifted photos taken by others in breach of their copyright status often comes up. Therefore a new section to the code would be useful, marked with an asterisk to indicate as with some other sections that a public interest defence can apply:

“* Copyright
i) The press must follow its obligations under copyright law, including getting prior consent where that is required. The simple presence of a photograph online must not be taken to mean that there are no legal copyright requirements governing its use by a publication.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify their editorial systems in cases where repeated complaints about breach of copyright rules have been upheld against their publication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.