It’s good to be pleasantly surprised. I confess I was pretty sceptical
about the ‘independent governance review’ of the PCC (whose report
is published today). I wasn’t sure how ‘independent’ it actually
was, and was concerned by the very limited publicity for written
submissions and that oral evidence was taken in secret.
But it
turns out to be a carefully thought out and reasonable response to the
many calls for reform over the last 18 months. This includes, of course,
the calls by the Media Standards Trust since February 2009 (‘A
More Accountable Press’).
It’s clear from the report that
they’ve been listening. By my count the review appears to have accepted,
in whole or in part, 19 of the 28 recommendations we made in our
submission earlier this year (‘Can
independent self-regulation keep standards high and preserve press
freedom’) in addition to those of others like Peter Preston
and MediaWise.
The real challenge now is to see if the PCC and the newspapers embrace
the recommendations and use this as an opportunity to revitalise
self-regulation, or ignore them and leave the current system frozen in
aspic.
The recommendations are detailed (I think I counted about
75 in all) though mostly in plain English. They include:
- Greater
openness about the system – for example, being open about funding (it
still seems remarkable that an industry that recognises the importance
of knowing where the money comes from doesn’t make clear how its own
self-regulation is funded), making sure the PCC statistics are
‘consistent and clear’, and providing more information about complaints
- Codifying
the sanctions and telling people about them – this could mean providing
a clear ladder of remedies so people understand what the penalties for
breaching the code are and have a better idea about the seriousness of a
breach
- Making the PCC more proactive - emphasising the
importance of taking action where there is a clear sign of public
concern
- Introducing more ways to judge the effectiveness of the
PCC - including targets for the year, and polls that measure not only
confidence in the PCC but also in the press (this way hopefully we won’t
get the Commission claiming success each year whether complaints go up
or down)
- Clarifying the purpose of the PCC – including making
plain ‘how it considers standards issues’ and ‘what it means by – and
what it wants to achieve through – proactivity’.
On some of the
big issues – particularly the all-important one of sanctions – the
review pushes most of the responsibility back to the PCC and the
industry. This makes sense from the perspective that the industry would
balk at any ‘outside’ pressure on them to introduce new penalties for
breaching the code. However, if this becomes an excuse neither to
strengthen existing sanctions nor to explore new ones then people will
still not take the PCC seriously as an independent self-regulator – as
it aspires to be.
It should also be said that this review leaves a
lot of room for manoeuvre. The Commission could, if it wanted, do not
much more than publish minutes of its meetings, and alter the
appointments and compliance process. Equally, the industry could ignore
recommendations to divulge their contributions, and fail to become more
involved in the promotion and discussion of standards. Hence why this
review is a good start, but certainly not an end point.
One
subject on which the review didn’t go into much detail is funding. The
PCC has a much smaller budget than organisations like the Advertising
Standards Authority or Ofcom. Taking on the additional responsibilities
recommended in the review will cost more. Though the review takes note
of this it thinks costs can be kept down. This could be tricky and other
funding mechanisms ought to be explored. In
our
submission we suggested the PCC start charging for investigations –
like the Financial Services Ombudsman. Alternatively the industry could
throw more money in the pot, though given the parlous state of news
organisations this seems unlikely at present.
The ball is now
squarely in the PCC and the industry’s court. The PCC has made positive
noises about the review and has already made some commitments – for
example around transparency (it said in its
annual report it would adhere
to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act). PressBoF, which
has been fantastically opaque to date, seems to be raising its head
slightly above the parapet. We await the response of the Editorial Code
Committee. But it remains to be seen what the Commission, the Board of
Finance, the Code Committee – and most importantly the industry – will
actually do.
Keywords: governance review, MST, PCC, press, report