Archives

by Lionel Wijesiri

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told a group of media representatives recently that his Government wishes to do away with the Press Council and instead establish a Press Complaints Commission (PCC) on the lines of the British model.

What is really a PCC? How does it serve both print media and public alike? Has it been successful in UK? Have there been any pitfalls? According to the recommendations of the Calcutt Commission, the PCC was basically expected to demonstrate "that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively". In this respect, the Commission was a success. In 1995, the UK Government recognised the achievements of the PCC in its White Paper "Privacy and Media Intrusion". All subsequent Governments have also made clear of their support for effective self-regulation and for the work of the PCC.

History

In 1953 a voluntary Press Council was established in Britain with the aim of maintaining high ethical standards of journalism and promoting freedom of the press.

However, during the 1980s there was mounting concern about press standards, notably as regards the moves down market of the 'gutter press', as well as much concern about invasion of privacy, in particular the relentless hounding of the politicians and members of the Royal Family.

This in turn, reinforced a belief in the Government that the Press Council, which by that time had lost some of its credibility, was not sufficiently effective. The Government believed that the public interest required the enactment of a law of privacy and a right of reply as well as a statutory press council wielding enforceable legal sanctions. Given the serious implications of such a course of action, a Committee under Sir David Calcutt QC was appointed to consider the entire matter.

The Committee was requested to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) were needed to give further protection to individual privacy from the activities of the press. Their terms of reference also included improving recourse against the press for the individual citizen, taking account of existing remedies and to make recommendations.

The Report of the Calcutt Committee was published in June 1990. It recommended the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission in place of the Press Council. The press responded favourably with the report and acted with co-operation to set up an independent Press Complaints Commission at the beginning of 1991.

A Committee of editors produced for the very first time a Code of Practice for the new Press Complaints Commission to uphold. All publishers and editors committed themselves to this Code of Practice and ensured adequate funding of the PCC. A Press Standards Board of Finance was put in place and charged with raising a levy upon the newspaper and periodical industries to finance the Commission. This arrangement ensured secure financial support for the PCC, while its complete independence is at the same time guaranteed by a majority of lay members.

Over the years, the PCC has continued to grow in stature - building on the accomplishments of its early years. The Press Complaints Commission ensures that British newspapers and magazines follow the letter and spirit of an ethical Code of Practice dealing with issues such as inaccuracy, privacy, misrepresentation and harassment. Every year, thousands of complaints are brought to the PCC. The majority of them are related to possible breaches of the Code and nearly all of those concerning inaccuracy are resolved directly and swiftly by editors to the satisfaction of those complaining. The Commission adjudicates formally on the remainder. All critical adjudications are published in full and with due prominence by the publications involved.

Commitment

Self regulation worked in Britain because the newspaper and magazine publishing industry were committed to it. As a sign of this commitment, the industry's Code was made mandatory to be written into the contracts of employment of the vast majority of editors in the country - something which gave the PCC real teeth.

One of the central benefits of press self regulation is that it combines high standards of ethical reporting with a free press. Statutory controls would undermine the freedom of the press - and would not be so successful in raising standards. A privacy law, too, would be unworkable and an unacceptable infringement on press freedom.

It would be of potential use only to the rich and powerful who would be prepared to use the Courts to enforce their rights - and would be misused by the corrupt to stop newspapers from reporting in the public interest. Self regulation has none of the problems of the law - yet still provides a system in which editors are committed to the highest possible ethical standards.

Commission Members

There are sixteen members of the Press Complaints Commission. A majority of them have no connection with the press - ensuring that the PCC is independent of the newspaper industry.

There are three classes of members: the Chairman, Public Members and Press Members.

The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry. The Chairman must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines.

The Public Members and Press Members are appointed by an independent Appointments Commission. None of the Public Members can be engaged in or, otherwise than by their membership of the Commission, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines. Each of the Press Members must be a person experienced at senior editorial level in the press.

There are five members of the Appointments Commission which is chaired by the Chairman of the PCC.

Code of Ethics

The PCC operates a Code of Practice which covers a number of clauses.

Any newspaper which is criticized by the PCC under any of the clauses must print the adjudication which follows in full and with due prominence.

Accuracy - newspapers and periodicals should endeavour to print accurate reports; if it transpires that a report was inaccurate, they should publish a correction and an apology where appropriate; where the newspaper has been the subject of an action for defamation, that should be reported;

Opportunity to reply - individuals and organisations should be given a fair opportunity to reply when reasonable; Comment, conjecture and fact - there should be a clear distinction between conjecture and the reporting of facts; Privacy - Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence. A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent Misrepresentation - journalists should not normally misrepresent themselves in order to obtain information; documents and photos should not be removed without the owner's position. The 'public interest' is justification only if material cannot be obtained by other means;

Harassment - Journalists and photographers must neither obtain nor seek to obtain information or pictures through intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit They must not photograph individuals in private places without their consent; must not persist in telephoning, questioning, pursuing or photographing individuals after having been asked to desist; must not remain on their property after having been asked to leave and must not follow them. The 'public interest' provides justification for photography, persistent telephoning, remaining on property when asked to leave etc;

Intrusion into grief - In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries should be carried out and approaches made with sympathy and discretion. Publication must be handled sensitively at such times but this should not be interpreted as restricting the right to report judicial proceedings.

Children - Young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion. Journalists must not interview or photograph a child under the age of 16 on subjects involving the welfare of the child or any other child in the absence of or without the consent of a parent or other adult who is responsible for the children. Pupils must not be approached or photographed while at school without the permission of the school authorities.

Children in sex cases - The press must not, even where the law does not prohibit it, identify children under the age of 16 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or as witnesses. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence against a child - the child must not be identified, the adult may be identified. Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child. - The term 'incest' not to be used - offence to be described as 'serious offences against young children' or similar.

Innocent relatives and friends - The press must avoid identifying relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime without their consent. Victims of sexual assault - The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and, by law, they are free to do so.

Discrimination - The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. It must avoid publishing details of a person's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability unless these are directly relevant to the story.

Listening devices - 'bugs' should not normally be used. However, the 'public interest' is a justification for their use;

Hospitals - permission should be obtained before a journalist reports from a hospital; the privacy restrictions also apply here;

Payment for articles - no offers of payment should be made to witnesses or potential witnesses in a current criminal matter, nor to people engaged in crime. The 'public interest' provides an exception.

Financial journalism - information received not to be used for own profit, nor passed on to others, even if not illegal; should not write about shares etc. in which they have an interest without informing editor; should not buy or sell shares etc. which they have written about in recent past or will write about in near future.

The PCC will normally consider complaints from those people directly affected within one month of the publication of the subject of the complaint. Complaints should be only on matters covered by the Code of Practice. It will not consider complaints which are the subject of court proceedings, or complaints which the complainant intends to take to court. Normally, the PCC will expect that the matter will have been taken up with the appropriate editor before the PCC is approached.

Success

In defence of the PCC, commentators point out that since 1991 the Commission had dealt with 25,000 complaints and that in all of those the editors had responded in terms of the code. Further, such problems as identification of children in child abuse cases, identification of victims of sexual assault have now been almost completely stamped out, as also intrusion into the privacy of hospital patients and the unauthorized use of listening devices.

It is also claimed that there was not a single editor who would not correct an acknowledged inaccuracy rather than suffer the Commission's censure. Finally, one significant virtue of the voluntary system is that it ensures cases are settled swiftly, 75% of all complaints being dealt with in forty working days, which would almost certainly not be the case if there were a statutory system. Most independent analysts agree that the PCC had changed the entire culture of British newspapers and magazines and had proved "self regulation is a key manifestation of freedom of expression".

Other Side

However there is also a group of analysts who believe that the Commission is a self-regulating body which is run largely for the benefit of the industry itself.

On the whole, these commentators remain dissatisfied with the PCC's preference for acting as conciliator rather than judge, with the result that newspapers often have to publish a small correction or letter, which seems to many of the aggrieved to be a small price to pay for what they have suffered.

There are no fines and no compensation for the victims (some of whom have lost jobs, family, friends, and even their lives) - unless of course they can afford to mount a successful legal action. Another significant criticism of the PCC is that it does not permit complaints by third parties or by groups. Thus, for example, there is no way that asylum seekers can respond to their vilification in the British press, unless one of them is named individually.

Our Experiment

In the meantime, in Sri Lanka, a first step in the right direction would be the establishment of a genuinely independent regulatory body in which the public can trust that their interests are being properly served.

It would need to have transparent procedures which protect the confidences of all parties, and allow complainants to feel that they are being taken seriously. That should include the opportunity for well-ordered oral hearings helpful, fair and revealing, especially in complex cases.

They give the complainant an opportunity to confront their accusers in a controlled situation, and allow independent assessors a chance to judge the trustworthiness of both parties.

Such actions need to be mirrored by changes in attitude among the newspapers themselves - a greater willingness to deal with criticism promptly and fairly. Media lawyers currently advise their clients that editors and reporters should never acknowledge errors for fear of incurring a liability if the matter is taken further.

This may make sound business sense but it makes nonsense of public relations let alone freedom of expression.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager