Media Standards Trust

A More Accountable Press - Part 1: The Need for Reform

Martin Moore
09/02/2009

If a newspaper or magazine publishes something inaccurate, misrepresentative, or unfairly intrusive about you, then there ought to be someone independent and effective that you can go to for redress.

Today we (the Media Standards Trust) are publishing a report – A More Accountable Press - that assesses the current system of press self-regulation, as led by the Press Complaints Commission. It concludes that, as it stands, this system is neither independent nor effective.

The current system is paid for by the newspaper industry, its rules are written by working newspaper editors, and almost half the Commission itself is made up of newspaper and magazine editors.

You would be forgiven, as a member of the public, for thinking that the system was geared more towards protecting the interests of the press than the public.

And, were you to look into it further, you’d become even more convinced of its partiality. Right now, if you make a complaint, you have about a 250:1 chance of getting an adjudication in your favour (based on the 16 successful adjudications out of 4,340 in 2007, Annual Report). Those are pretty terrible odds. Not surprising then that many people are now choosing to go to court instead.

The failure of the current system to offer the public fair redress is not only bad for the public, it’s bad for journalists. It undermines people’s trust in journalism. A couple of weeks ago an international poll found the UK media was amongst the least trusted in the world (Edelman poll, results publishing in PR Week).

A national survey commissioned by the Media Standards Trust in December, and conducted by YouGov, was similarly depressing. It found that 75% of the public think newspapers publish stories they know to be inaccurate. 70% of people believe there are far too many instances in which newspapers invade people’s privacy (full results can be found at the back of the report).

Nor does a poor system of self-regulation provide journalists with an adequate defence from the State, from the law (in the case of public interest journalism) – or even from their own proprietors.

This report - ‘A More Accountable Press’ - analyses what’s wrong with the current system. Now we plan to think about how to make it better.

From today we’ll be asking news organisations, regulators, journalists and the public how to address the problems we’ve identified. If you have any thoughts as to how things can be improved, please get in touch.


Keywords: ACCOUNTABLE, ACCURATE, INDEPENDENT, MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST, PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION, REPORT

Comments

Richard North, 09/02/2009 04:33 PM

Seems you have a problem with Meyer ... he does not even seem to beleive there is a problem. That, methinks, is the bigger problem.

Julian Petley, 09/02/2009 01:57 PM

This is an excellent report, and fully bears out what organisations such as the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom and MediaWise have been saying for years. The problem with such an obviously ineffective and compromised body is not simply that it discourages people from complaining about the press, or short-changes those who do, but that it encourages calls for further statutory regulation of the press. What in fact is needed is effective self-regulation along the lines practiced by the Advertising Standards Authority, but there again it's very hard to imagine British newspapers paying for anything that actually works.

DW, 09/02/2009 12:46 PM

This is a welcome report that I hope will be taken seriously and acted upon. I wrote to the PCC last year, concerning an article in a newspaper that was both misleading and, as I saw it, irresponsible and unethical.

While the response I received was swift and informative, it pointed out that my complaint could not be dealt with, since I could not provide evidence that I was 'personally affected'. To my mind, this largely renders the PCC ineffective, or at least, lacking in a broad enough remit.

I am angered at the low standards of reporting and lack of ethics in newspaper journalism today. How the negative effects this has on our culture can be so wholly ignored (by the PCC) is completely beyond me and gives no indication that things will ever improve.

Adrian Chaffey, 09/02/2009 09:49 AM

I complained to the PCC last year. I set out in some detail how something the Spectator had published infringed two parts of their code. It took them a long time to look at it. When they finally did, they wrote me a fob off letter, which failed to properly address the matters I had raised.

Of course none of this appears on their website because the website only contains info on things they bother to investigate.

Useless, useless, useless.

peter wood, 09/02/2009 09:45 AM

The publication fo your report could not have arrived at a better time. I have spent several weeks on and off pointing out to the Times that its Feedback editor's claim to have high standards does not stand up to testing. Too much writing appears to be expected of journalists and some on nationals are producing the kind of weekly torrent of material in which judgement can play little part. What seems to be happening now is that in the absence of journalist's sense of a monitoring, judicial presence or conscience-function (such as self-respect) what might have been acceptable in the private sphere is now being pushed out for public consumption. Incidentally, how many national papers reported the fact of the MST's publication today?

Dr Grumble, 09/02/2009 08:05 AM

Is there anything that can be done about the highly misleading programme on MMR by Jeni Barnett from LBC Radio on the 7th January 2009?

What is the Media Standards Trust?

The Media Standards Trust is an independent registered charity that promotes high standards in news on behalf of the public

More info

Subscribe to MST

Your Questions...

...and we'll do our best to answer.
Or why not check the FAQs?