The CMS select committee has finally released its report after months of deliberations.
Generally speaking there is a lot of good stuff there. Libel gets a good look and sensible recommendations are made about time constraints for making claims for defamation online. Privacy also gets the once over with a decision not to recommend that there should be a privacy law. They also agreed that it would inappropriate to provide a legal obligation on journalists to contact the subject of stories before publication. They did emphasise that this is good journalistic practice and called on the Press Complaints Commission to include a clause in their code saying journalists should do this.
The main thrust of the report is about press standards and the Press Complaints Commission.
The committee says the PCC should spend more of its effort on raising press standards rather than just taking complaints. This has long been a concern of mine. The PCC deliberately ignored the idea of supporting press freedom and standards when it was first set up, it wanted to be solely a complaints body. But it's not possible to be a complaints body that means anything unless you are also keen to improve standards.
I also agree with the committee that there should be a wider range of people on the code committee. Journalists need to be there as well as editors, for instance. They need to be able to push their own views on the code committee to ensure they are not made the scapegoat for bad decision making. The committee also called for the PCC code to be placed in Journalists' contracts of employment and this makes it even more important that journalists have a say and are also able to speak out for ethics in the workplace without putting their careers at risk.
Giving the PCC more power to decide on stronger punishments for newspapers that are reckless about their commitment to the code of practice is also a good idea.
The committee was right to point out that the News of the World's behaviour over the phone tapping scandal was appalling.
Thursday 25 February 2010
Friday 19 February 2010
Jan Moir and the PCC
The PCC has finally reached its decision over the Jan Moir column about the death of Steven Gately of Boyzone that raised more than 25,000 complaints from outraged readers (we'll ignore the possibility that many of them weren't actually Daily Mail readers, or at least not until the article was pointed out to them on Twitter).
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
The Daily Mail (regularly in the top ten of complained of newspapers desite its editor in chief Paul Dacre chairing the committe that writes the code the PCC uses to measure complaints) specialises in controversial columns written from a traditional conservative viewpoint and this one was no exception.
The 25,000 complaints left the PCC with a problem: it doesn't take complaints from third parties, that is from people not actually involved in the story. Fortunately for the PCC (or perhaps that is unfortunately) Gately's civil partner Andrew Cowle rode to the rescue by submitting a complaint that the article was inaccurate, intruded into private grief and was discriminatory.
The PCC rejected the allegations of inaccuracy saying "there was no inaccuracy or misleading statement here". Discrimination quickly followed as while the commission was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the article" it did not consider it to be homophobic: "it was not possible to identify any direct uses of pejorative or prejudicial language". But it was the publication of matter involving personal grief that was the major issue. On this point the commission accepted that "timing of the piece was questionable to say the least" and that it had caused the complainant great distress, yet despite this they agreed that a "slide towards censorship" was not something they could endorse.
This is an interesting interpretation of a code that says journalists should handle publication sensitively in cases involving personal grief. Because Gately was a public figure and his death a matter of public discussion the intrusion into grief was acceptable. But because the PCC has always refused to rule on matters of taste and decency and has always avoided adjudicating on opinion columns this actually makes it a little more difficult for them. On the basis of freedom of expression, of course, the Moir column is perfectly legitimate journalism. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it and to publish it if a newspaper will provide the space. What is more difficult to justify is an invasion into private grief, the one thing on which the PCC is supposed to adjudicate.
So while it is a win for freedom of expression and its associated right to offend, it is also another example of the PCC at its most ineffectual.
Monday 15 February 2010
European challenge
Media lawyers Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson QC are to lead a challenge to the European case being brought by Max Mosley.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Mosley is hoping to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the media should be obliged to give prior notification to the subject of a story before publication. Prior notification, through a request for comment, is normal good journalistic practice but there are times when it is not appropriate; usually because the subject of the story will seek an injunction to prevent publication. It is a way that the wealthy and powerful can use their knowledge and position to prevent examination of their lives.
Mr Robertson said that it is a rule of the English Courts that you cannot get a pre-publication injunction where the press is prepared to defend, but he is concerned that the ECHR would not give this full consideration and put at risk one of the main freedoms of expression in the UK.
The challenge by a number of free speech campaign groups is welcome news. Whatever you think of the News of the World's intrusion into the privacy of Max Mosley, there is no doubt that a legal guarantee that publication can always be prevented by those with something to hide would be a further blow to freedom of expression and public accountability. The media may spend too much time spotlighting celebrities and too little exposing those whose actions deserve attention, but Mosley's desires would make it impossible to do either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
.JPG)