Debate around the web

The Daily Telegraph has said that it paid £110,000 for the data about MPs expenses. Assistant editor Andrew Pierce said:

“So far the taxpayer has been reimbursed by MPs £500,000, and there will be more” and described it as “money well spent in the public interest

Harry’s Place has criticised an interview on 5Live with a reporter from Press TV:

“The BBC are not telling their listeners that Press TV are a Iranian government funded operation, the station’s slavish support of the regime, and the problems they have had with impartiality.

According to the Guardian, the situation of Notts County shows the limits of the football league’s “fit and proper person test” for directors. It is an example of self-regulation. The Guardian says:

Lord Mawhinney, the League’s chairman, told the government this summer that he would be “happy to work with the FA and Premier League” to see how the rules could be “strengthened appropriately, including how they might be applied prospectively”.

Debate around the web

The Evening Standard has corrected a report from TUC conference about a motion concerning high heels in the workplace. Mark Pack writes:

“Credit where credit’s due: the Evening Standard was one of the media outlets which ran pieces wrongly reporting the TUC as wanting to ban high heels.”

The Daily Mail and the Evening Standard have paid damages to Ali Dizaei. The Guardian quotes the Black Police Officers Assocaition:

“The article suggested that Commander Dizaei was involved in a bigamous marriage to Mrs Dizaei. Bigamy is a criminal act which carries a sentence of seven years,”

Roy Greenslade reports the details of how Fabio Capello won his complaint against the Daily Mail and the News of the World:

“The PCC has been assiduous in the last couple of years in dealing with complaints made discreetly by people worried about their privacy being compromised . . . The PCC has also been eager to show that people do not need to seek redress from the courts.”

Alastair Campbell suggests that the press treat the Tories differently from Labour:

“If you read in a newspaper that ‘Unemployment could top five million if the Labour government continues with its economic policies, a leading economist warned,’ and if the leading economist turned out to be a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, Professor David Blanchflower, do you think that you might read more than two sentences in a couple of broadsheets?

The editors’ code committee has announced a revision of the code of practice. Of particular interest is the revision to the definition of the public interest:

“Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest.

BBC News reports the Independent Police Complaints Commission has announced an 8% increase in complaints in the last year. Chairman Nick Hardwick says:

“At a time when politicians and the police are debating public confidence in the police and how to make them more accountable, the complaint figures published today give a strong indication of what the public want sorted out. Complaints about rude and late officers consistently top complaint categories and work to address this can have a positive impact.

Debate around the web

Alasdair Palmer in the Telegraph writes:

“The BBC is the only public body whose accounts aren’t checked by the National Audit Office. No wonder its bosses have no concept of value for money

Iain Dale takes James Macintyre of the New Statesman to task for an article accusing the Tories of racism. The following exchange is particularly interesting:

Q. Why was the article removed, and was it done with your knowledge?
A. No comment.

Pickled politics says that a shortage of junior doctors is partly due to tabloid newspapers:

“Thanks to the tabloids and the EU, we now don’t have enough people to heal the sick. The incompetence is striking.

Tom Watson MP criticises a news report from Cathy Newman of Channel 4 which inaccurately said that the Tories were responsible for the Westfield shopping development:

“Either the Tories hoodwinked Cathy Newman when briefing her or she’s willingly broadcast a misleading story.

Debate around the web

Media Guardian reports that the government is to conduct a review of libel laws, particularly as they relate to online content:

“Existing defamation law needs to be updated so it is fit for the modern age, and it is important we listen to views on the best way to achieve this”, said Jack Straw, the secretary of state for justice. “Freedom to hold and express opinions is a right that is vital to democracy.”

Press Gazette report a poll of journalists which found that more than half across Europe fear a decrease in standards as a result of the economic pressures in the industry:

Almost two in three of all respondents believed that the number of printed media will shrink dramatically in the near future and 32 per cent of journalists in the survey thought that their print publication or broadcast could be taken off the market altogether.

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw has attacked the BBC Trust:

“I know of no other area of public life where – as is the case with the Trust – the same body is both regulator and cheerleader.”

The Guardian has sprung to the defence of one of its correspondents who attracted the attention of Quentin Letts:

“Sources close to Miss Slinky point out that during the PM’s speech . . . Miss Slinky wasn’t, by then, actually in the auditorium, as her website deadlines meant she was busy in the newsroom filing copy.

Debate around the web

There’s some controversy over a Daily Mail story reporting the protests in Washington DC against Barack Obama’s healthcare plan. The number of protestors in attendance is in some doubt. The page title of the article suggests that the article originally claimed “up to two million” attended whilst the headline currently reads “a million march”. Some of the most popular comments suggest that there were only tens of thousands. The debate has been taken up on the Wardman Wire.

The Daily Mail has apologised today for an article which originally appeared on 25 May 2007.

Tim Toulmin is to step down as the director of the PCC. Roy Greenslade writes:

“Toulmin has no immediate plans to obtain another job. He is taking on some unspecified “projects” and, in the short term, is looking forward to a restful period that includes “having a lot of fun. His job will now be advertised in national newspapers. Interviews, due to take place in October, will be conducted by a panel appointed by the PCC’s board. The capable deputy director, Stephen Abell – widely known by his nickname, Stig – is my tip for the job.”

The Guardian reports that Michael Palin is “very angry” and “very let down” after being censured by the BBC Trust.

“The complaint was upheld. That, I believe, brings the BBC into disrepute. I think it was a stupid decision. I felt very, very angry and very let down,” Palin told a Royal Television Society veterans’ lunch.

Debate around the web

Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson has called for stricter regulation of banks but a light touch regulation of other financial institutions – a sort of variagated regulation – via ConservativeHome.

Harry’s Place covers the account of someone who worked inside Press TV:

“There are a number of instructive vignettes concerning life at Press TV. You will enjoy reading about the horror of channel director, Mohammad Sarafraz, at finding photograph of a Press TV employee in a bikini on a Facebook page. His response: to circulate a photograph of the employee within Press TV, while issuing an injunction against ‘friending’ other employees.

There’s an interesting submission to the media select committee about the BBC’s complaints process:

“The procedure is extraordinarily lengthy and bureaucratic. . . At each stage of the procedure, BBC personnel defending the coverage are given the last word and use it to raise new points which the complainant does not get an opportunity to address.

George Monbiot has published correspondence with The Spectator about climate change:

“There are thousands of people out there making crazy and demonstrably false claims, about everything from the shape of the earth to seven-foot lizards, but none of them are worth staging an event for. Why him? It reinforces my observation that otherwise-sane editors take leave of their senses when it comes to climate change.

Debate around the web

Matt Wardman writes about how self-declared terrorism expert Glen Jenvey, acting as an agent provocateur under the name of Abu Islam, created a false story by posting allegations on an Internet forum, and then passed that story to the national press on his own behalf and made the front page of the Sun.

“There is also a more potentially sinister aspect – that of gung-ho coverage of anti-Islam stories in the British media provoked and seeded by commentators whose political attitudes are sympathetic to such stories. A good example of this style of coverage was the inflammatory coverage of the demonstration by approximately 20 extremists during a parade of soldiers returned from Basra in Luton, in March this year. By contrast, a far more balanced report was published by the Nofolk Unity blog.

This is another story which asks serious questions of the quality and professionalism of the processes of journalism in our national media

Anton Vowel reports:

“The Mail don’t skew everything, and very often their straight reportage is insightful . . . The sadness for me comes that after a rather good piece of news reporting from the Mail, there’s a predictable response in the comments.

The owner of the Guardian and the Observer has rebutted inaccurate reporting of the future of the Observer:

“It is not accurate to characterise GNM’s review of operations as a plan to shut the Observer. The review is an ongoing examination of all GNM’s operations, ruling nothing in and nothing out, with the full endorsement at all stages of the group board and the Scott Trust

Judith Townend writes about 4IP backed website Timetric. Boss Andrew Walkingshaw says:

“If you look in a newspaper, an entire sports section, the weather section, the City section: all those are data driven. What’s really interesting is that data confined to these areas is beginning to bleed out into editorial and opinion, where [normally you'd only see] polling and opinion surveys.

Alex Brummer of City AM, writing for Journalism.co.uk about journalism’s role in the financial crisis says:

‘Far from scaring people, the press were providing readers with reliable information’

Ofcom has announced that the BBC iPlayer and 4OD will be regulated by the Association for Television on Demand in the first instance – and the Advertising Standards Authority for advertising – with the regulator retaining backstop powers – in a system of co-regulation.

Guy Black (former director of the PCC) has been appointed the chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance which determines the PCC’s annual budget.

Ofcom has criticised the Jeremy Kyle show for failing to edit out swearing.

Debate around the web

Tara Hamilton Miller’s article ‘How cool are David Cameron’s Conservatives?’ has attracted criticism around the web, particularly from Hopi Sen. However, the comment section of the article itself was particularly critical.

Picked Politics criticises the coverage of the ‘most popular names’ story which reported (again) the growing popularity of Muhammad and its variations.

The Guardian reports a judge in Portugal has banned sales of a book about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

Dr Silcock, Tweeting from the Future of Journalism conference suggests that the PCC develops a more proactive capacity (which it would probably argue it already does very well) and also:

• John Horgan’s comments: Journalism needs regulation like the Titanic needed deck chairs
• 97% of PCC complaints concern trivial matters

Tim Ireland disputes Julie Moult’s understanding of Twitter after an article suggested Sarah Brown was given the cold shoulder by Demi Moore on Twitter.

And finally, in the corrections column of today’s Guardian, the newspaper mis-spells management.

Debate around the web

MUmBRELLA asks:

“Is there any journalist in Australia who isn’t currently endorsing a product, organisation or PR agency?”

The Guardian reports that bcap, the body which governs the rules relating to broadcast advertising has:

“delayed publication of the results of a controversial review of the UK advertising code, which includes proposals that could allow abortion clinics to run TV commercials, until next year after receiving around 4,000 submissions.

Michael Kinsley, of the Washington Post, says of the New York Times corrections column:

“Although the purpose of this column is to demonstrate the Times’s rectitude about taking facts seriously, the facts it corrects are generally so bizarre or trivial and its tone so schoolmarmish that the effect is to make the whole pursuit of factual accuracy seem ridiculous.

Judith Townend is complaining about an article in The Independent which criticises online media for passing on inaccuracies. The article itself repeats an inaccurate story from uncorrected newspaper clippings.

“The irony is this: the inaccuracy repeated by Smith occurred as a result of stubborn mainstream journalism habits. Why don’t the newspapers correct the copy? Responsibility isn’t always taken by named and supposedly accountable writers either.

Philip Stevens writes about the Murdoch view of Ofcom:

“News Corp should not be immune. It wants Ofcom emasculated, supposedly in the cause of competition. But that sits uneasily with its own behaviour. Mr Murdoch senior, some will recall, did his best to use his pricing power to drive out competitors from the newspaper market during the 1990s. A current investigation into BSkyB’s monopoly in the pay-television market may explain some of his son’s antipathy towards Ofcom. Mr Murdoch wants regulation when it suits him – hence BSkyB’s request that Ofcom rein back the expansion into new media of the telecommunications company BT.

Iain Dale reports an apology from the Daily Mail who confused David Davis MP and David Davis of the Libertarian Alliance. The original article, highlighted by Dale appeared on Friday 4 September.

Anton Vowel noticed on Twitter:

“Today’s Star: JACK ‘RAPE’ CAUGHT ON TAPE. Story: “Cops are desperate to find out if the alleged incident might have been filmed…”

Debate around the web

David Hencke has criticised the lobby system in parliament suggesting that the close relationships between ministers and journalists prevent proper scrutiny of the government.

“One glaring example was the planned part-privatisation of the Post Office. All newspapers reported that the government was legislating to sell off a third. Had anyone checked the parliamentary bill, they would have found that the legislation gave the government the right to sell half of it.

Roy Greenslade reports a mea culpa from Michael Parkinson over his abilities as a columnist:

“When I became Mirror editor in 1990 one of my first acts was to relieve Mr Parkinson of his hapless, hopeless and terrible column . . . I am delighted that almost 20 years later he has had the honesty to own up to his shortcomings.

Jon Bernstein reports on misleading media articles regarding the government’s social media strategy:

“There were some obvious inaccuracies, not least the job title, worthy of correction. As yet, scanning the print and online versions of these publications, no corrections have been made.

TechCrunch reports inconsistencies between the New York Times’ principles and the position of columnist David Pogue:

The one thing the NY Times has is its brand and its people. They aren’t first to stories but they generally get things right. Trying to hide conflicts of interest hurts that brand, particularly when they hide, hypocritically, behind an ethics statement that prohibits the behavior they’re hiding. It’s far better to keep everything in the open. Transparency is what’s important, not appearances.

Danny Baker talks to Media Guardian about his return to Five Live:

“The encroaching, suffocating layers of management who are surrounding all of it now will probably stop that just for the hell of it. Health and safety, I don’t know, but it probably will get stopped. I don’t think the public care one way or another as long as the show is any good.

Manchester United are threatening to sue Le Havre after widely reported allegations regarding the tapping up of one its youth players. The club deny the allegations which were widely reported in the British press this morning.

“In response to the wholly unfounded comments widely reported in the media of Le Havre AC President, Jean-Pierre Louvel, Manchester United wish to categorically confirm that as a matter of club policy and in accordance with the applicable football regulations, we do not offer inducements to the parents of players who sign for the club such as monetary payments or the purchase of houses,”

Debate around the web

Mark Pack has found that The Sun’s claims over the significance of its August poll are a little over exaggerated.

SNP Tactical Voting reports “a fascinating discussion this evening titled “Is this the end of newspapers?”, organised by the Association for Scottish Public Affairs.”

Roy Greenslade reports of British newspapers’ attempts to buy interviews with Jaycee Dugard.

The Guardian reports the latest hearing of the culture media and sport select committee inquiries into tapping and hacking.

Hadley Freeman asks when a slavering press brands kidnap victims such as Jaycee Lee Dugard ’sex slaves’, it shames them. Why don’t abducted and abused girls get the same anonymity as other rape victims?

Letters from a Tory welcomes the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision to ban a provocative ad from American Apparel and sees distinct benefits in self-regulation.

Michael Massing, writing for New York Review of Books, finds a ‘new horizon’ for news.

Targets for self-regulation

What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for an apology from a newspaper? One or two days is probably reasonable for a small, factual correction where the matter is not in dispute and a few more when the origins of a story need to be confirmed and months when the facts are disputed and the case subject to legal action.

For the ‘he said, she said’ sort of stories that are published in several newspapers, it would be a positive aspects of self-regulation if newspapers were able to resolve complaints quickly and publish an apology – perhaps within a week.

The Evening Standards published a story on 6 August which claimed that Chelsea players had had celebrated Salomon Kalou’s birthday at a club called Whisky Mist. The report claimed that the festivities had cost £120,000. The emphasis had been on the glamour of the event, and the tone of the piece was described as “generally neutral” by Chelsea fan site, Vital Chelsea.

The club issued a statement in response the very next day (7 August) in which it said: “The club and the players totally deny the facts and implications of these reports. None of the Chelsea players spent these extravagant sums. Whilst many players attended their team-mate’s party, it was in fact hosted and generously paid for by friends of Salomon and even the sums involved have been greatly exaggerated.”

The club continued:
“We are consulting our lawyers on behalf of Chelsea and the players and it is guaranteed that formal complaints will follow”.

Notwithstanding the Chelsea statement the Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Sun all ran similar stories to the Standard the day after, talking about the lavish party. The Observer and the Sunday Times followed on that weekend (9 August).

Vital Chelsea described a change in tone of the reporting:
“In particular there was a piece in the Daily Mirror that used the language of a Class War fanzine, slamming these idle rich from being so profligate at the same time as ordinary people, presumably workers, were having such difficulties paying their matchday tickets in this time of crisis. Bizarrely, the cost of this indulgence rose from £120,000 to £140,000 according to the Daily Mirror, which had no reporter at the scene but somehow manage to increase the budget of the party by £20,000

The Evening Standard apologised first, with a statement published on page five, 15 days after the original story. This was followed by the Daily Mail, five days later on page 11, the Sunday Times (page 4 of the sports section) and the Observer (page 26) on 30 August followed by The Sun on 31 August (page 15) and the Daily Express yesterday on page 18.

Vital Chelsea reported:
“Astonishingly, in the corrections, the actual sums of money that were splashed out for this party were revealed. The total takings for the club that night were £20,000, and apparently Salomon’s birthday party cost … £6,000.

According to the website, the Daily Mirror is yet to apologise for its article.

In some respects the case highlights advantages of self-regulation. There was no limit to newspapers freedom of expression. Although lawyers were involved, the case did not go to court or take months to resolve. There are no reports of money changing hands. But if it takes Chelsea FC 24 days to secure an apology, given their resources, influence and the access they provide newspapers, one wonders how long it would take a member of the public.

There are three particular issues, highlighted by this case, which are central to whether the PCC is part of a self-regulatory system or just a complaints body for those unwilling or unable to seek legal redress:

• If newspapers run follow up stories without significant extra information and the first newspaper apologises, shouldn’t they all follow suit at the earliest opportunity (the next editions)?
• The newspapers have not told readers where the original story appeared, meaning that we are unable to assess the prominence of the apology. Wouldn’t this better demonstrate the benefits of self-regulation?
• Wouldn’t it further demonstrate the benefits of self-regulation if newspapers had a target timescale for the timing of an apology and this target was regularly monitored by the PCC?

Debate around the web

Jim Godfrey, formerly of ITV, writes in defence of Ofcom suggesting it has been successful and distancing itself from DCMS and has more credibility as a result.

Derek Jameson, a former editor, writes of the plausible deniability culture which, he says, helps insulate editors from knowing what their reporters get up to. Dominic Ponsford’s reaction is also worthy of note.

An analysis of how the role of a journalist is changing thanks to modern technology. It’s interesting how often the regulatory implications get missed from these discussions.

Iain Dale highlights a survey of MPs holiday arrangements being conducted by the Daily Telegraph. It’s not clear how this attempt at compromising privacy (albeit with consent) is in the public interest.

Camilla Cavendish has won an award for her investigative reporting of family courts.

There’s some controversy over the Daily Express article reporting Richard Desmond’s failed libel action against Tom Bower. It’s not clear that the article is accurate.

Is media accountability a level playing field?

One contentious story. One complaining MP. Two different approaches to self-regulation.

In May, top Tory blogger Iain Dale broke an exclusive story about Tory MP James Gray, a member of the defence select committee. His report ‘James Gray and the photo of the dying soldier’ told the story of a delegation of MPs visiting Afghanistan. The MPs were at an airbase as a:

“very poorly soldier was wheeled across the tarmac to the plane. It was a very sombre moment. Suddenly, James Gray took out his camera and proceeded to take photos of the soldier. His colleagues looked on aghast. . . .The MPs were then summoned into a sideroom by the Brigadier in charge who yelled at them and told them that taking photos on such an occasion was totally unacceptable. He ordered whoever was taking the photos to delete them from their camera. Needless to say, Gray failed to step forward and own up. Whether he did delete the photos is not known.”

Iain Dale then followed this up with a claim that James Gray MP should have the whip withdrawn. Both stories remain on Iain Dale’s blog.

Iain updated the first post on three occasions so readers can see how the story unfolded. One update includes the rebuttal from James Gray, a second source coming forward and notification that the Daily Mail was running the story.

Today, the Press Complaints Commission published the outcome of James Gray’s complaint to The Sun regarding its story:

“ which contained the inaccurate claim that he had taken photographs of injured British soldiers while on a visit to Afghanistan.”

The newspaper said that claim came from “several sources” but published the following letter from the MP.

“Further to your report that I “had taken photographs of a dying soldier on a recent trip to Afghanistan” (Sun, 12 May), allow me to set the record straight.

“My colleagues and I had taken photographs of the C-17 cargo plane onto which some wounded soldiers were to be transferred but at the time we were 500 yards away in the pitch black. Any photographs would have been impossible and there is no evidence any of the soldiers were “dying.”

“I assure your readers I took no such photographs and as an active member of the Royal British Legion, Chairman of the Parliamentary All Party Group for the Army and a former TA soldier myself, I hope they will be ready to accept that assurance.”

The article is not available on The Sun’s website.

Iain Dale is accountable because he clearly updates his blog so you can track revisions, enables comments and trades on his reputation – though it costs nothing to read.

The Sun is accountable through the formal process of the PCC, because it publishes a rebuttal and trades on its reputation – which is dependent on sales and advertising revenue.

Both compete for readers online. One is self-regulated and the other is subject to no regulation. Is that fair? Which system is more preferable?

Debate around the web

The media select committee will take evidence from Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade), Colin Myler and Tom Crone next week as part of its investigation into the phone tapping allegations – according to the Snowblog.

A magazine for former MPs has urged sketchwriters to be less rude to MPs and says that the parliamentary standards committee should consider banning those who engage in personal abuse. The idea appears to be a clear infringement of the freedom of expression of sketchwriters – via the Londoner’s Diary.

The Lord Chief Justice has called for less lawmaking. He said that the government had created too much legislation framed in too many words creating too many crimes – via the Daily Mail. The argument supports the theme running through the debate on regulation that creating new rules does not necessarily foster a spirit of compliance.

Sarah Ditum examines the Telegraph’s business model, suggesting that it is wrong-headed to pay Boris Johnson £250,000 for a weekly column whilst inventing journalists – via Judith Townend.

Mick Fealty writes about the phonetapping story:

“the blogging phenomenon has prospered through the huge gaps left by the conventional media, this may be an opportunity to press home the advantage bloggers have of being multiple and mostly unattached to larger interests, to take up a task so unsurreptitiously being dropped by all but one of Britian’s big national newspapers, and dig around in the background to find out just what’s really been going on.”

Accountability of The Sun

The Media Standards Trust has had a lot of contact with people in response to our report: A More Accountable Press. Journalists, politicians and the public have all come forward with their views of the extent to which self-regulation is working for the press and the public.

One group of people with particular experience of holding the press to account is the third sector. In particular, those charities which represent vulnerable groups in society. We’ve now heard from more than one source that The Sun is one of the best newspapers at trying to be responsible.

Leaders in the third sector have told us how when they complain about a newspaper’s coverage, they often don’t get very far and, in some instances, have even received rude or dismissive replies. However, after some healthy nudging, The Sun has often been one of the most responsive newspapers. We’ve heard how they have gone further than anyone else to ensure their journalists use the right terminology, understand the sensitivities of certain stories and, when in doubt, that senior reporters have even proactively got in touch to seek advice.

There are, of course, people who are still unhappy with The Sun: Liverpool fans in particular. But it’s good to hear positive experiences and particularly of a newspaper which some prefer to dismiss as being part of the ‘gutter press’. Well done, The Sun.

Select committee inquiry into phonetapping story

The culture media and sport select committee began its evidence sessions in response to the phone tapping allegations in The Guardian. The evidence is being take as part of its inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. It was the first session attended by two new committee members: Tom Watson and Peter Ainsworth.

Committee chairman John Whittingdale informed members that: Les Hinton says he does not wish to change the evidence previously given to the committee. His original evidence was “sincere and comprehensive”.

We tweeted live from the event so a blow by blow account is available before the transcipts are published.

Tim Toulmin, the director of the PCC, was first to give evidence. He told the committee that:

• The PCC’s concern is with the integrity of its report into subterfuge and newsgathering and to ensure the practices are not continuing
• It will ask further questions of the Guardian and Information Commissioner if there’s any evidence it had been misled
• It has not yet uncovered any evidence that there have been further breaches of the code. Rumours that it did go on but “absolutely does not now”
• “Even if we introduced hanging for editors there would still be people who would criticise the PCC”.
• The PCC has stretched the boundaries of its remit as far as possible. “We are more like an ombudsman really”, not a regulatory body
• The PCC is set up as a mediator. Toulmin said that he had a bulging postbag of thank you letters. But it was not a legal regulator. Not set up for these sorts of inquiries.
• A number of the committee’s questions were more a matter for the information commissioner. In particular, he suggested it was odd that the commissioner had chosen not to name the journalists who had breached others’ privacy in respect for their privacy

There were a few moments where questioning was more confrontational.

• Adam Price asked: Will you follow up on Private Eye story that Glen Mulcaire was paid £200,000 post conviction? Toulmin replied that the PCC was not going to follow up on every tittle tattle and suggested the story was not pertinent to the report the PCC wrote at the time. Price responded that it was extraordinary to dismiss it like this. Surely central to whether there is a pattern of behaviour?
• Paul Farrelly suggested: This narrow view of your remit is why some people want you to take a more proactive view.
• Mike Hall said that there was a general concern that PCC has very little power.

The team from the Guardian (Alan Rusbridger, Paul Johnson and Nick Davies) were next to give evidence:

Alan Rusbridger said:

• Self-regulation only works when newspapers are open with the PCC. For example, Associated has admitted to faults and corrected them.
• Peta Buscombe should examine whether PCC needs to be re-constructed to undertake such investigations.
• News International has engaged in an aggressive campaign in response with cleverly drafted denials of allegations that weren’t made
• News International knew of involvement of other senior journalists for at least a year. Why didn’t they tell cttee or PCC?
• Press isn’t only profession looking at issues around when it is acceptable to invade privacy: so are the secret intelligence services. Struck by David Omand recommendations in a recent ippr pamphlet

Nick Davies told the committee that:

• One source thought News Int statement was “designed to deceive” and had now allowed Davies to provide evidence as a result
• He had a copy of an email sent to Mulcaire, written by a NOTW reporter, which referred to Neville Thurlbeck, a senior reporter at the newspaper
• He had a contract signed by then assistant editor Greg Miskiw with Mulcaire. In which Mulcaire had used a false name
• The police had all this evidence so either other implicated journalists had been interviewed (in which case the NOTW statement was misleading) or they hadn’t in which case, it was a concern that the police hadn’t investigated the matter further
• Senior reporters made requests, including Greg Miskiw who made 90 requests. 35 directed at databases. Coulson was not one of them
• He had copies of invoices from News International to Steve Whittemore, a private investigator who specialises in blagging. Payments were clearly made by the accounts department.
• Mulcaire submitted regular lists to the newspaper of targets of his investigations to justify his retainer.
• News International know the identity of all senior journos commissioning illegal info becuase legal docs to Taylor also went to NI
• There was a consistent and worrying pattern in statements made by News International to the committee and the public
• The statement made by assistant commissioner fails to disclose the facts of the case.

The committee is expected to have two more evidence sessions before the end of the parliamentary year next week.

Blogosphere reactions to Nick Davies’ allegations

Nick Davies’ allegations in The Guardian last week provoked a number of interesting and apparently informed comments in the blogosphere. I’ve selected some of the highlights from The Guardian, Iain Dale’s diary and ConservativeHome (not a representative sample, but I’ve tried to reflect the main perspectives).

Broadly, they fell into the following categories:

• Failure of self-regulation
• Critical of News Group
• Reaction about the political consequences
• What’s all the fuss about and;
• Where next?

Failure of self-regulation

stevehill

You are right that the PCC is dead. It always was. Here’s a thought.

After a lot of messing about, it was decided (roughly speaking) that tax accountants wishing to introduce a so-called tax avoidance scheme should pre-clear it with the Revenue, or risk being in the dock themselves for assisting in tax evasion (a crime).

There should be some successor body to the PCC, working 24/7, able to give a pretty quick decision on whether something is or is not in the public interest prior to publication.

Newspapers should be at liberty not to consult such a body if they wish. But they should know that by taking such a course they are betting the company if they call it wrong.

Jonibegood

A good article Simon. The issue about Media Regulation is going to come to the fore one day. Journalists like yourself should push for stronger and better self regulation before a government decides to step it. At that point freedom of speech would really be in jeapordy.

Zerotolerance

As for the PCC, they’ve been a joke for a very long time. Here’s hoping that this story will be the stake driven into the vampire’s heart.

Kerrygold

I remember when he got the PCC job there were jokes going round, in what was once Fleet Street, about how the Press had managed to get Bozo the Clown to head up regulation. They laughed at their colleagues in the City who faced greater scrutiny, as they felt Bozo would be more worried about his priveleges than their ethics.

Critical of News Group

PeterParker

If the 2,000 or 3,000 “celebrities” all sued, I think that would sink the NOTW.

Saying this, if an average member of the public had his phoned tapped, would he/she be able to go court over it as easily as a “celebrity”.

Answer: No.

Live long…

ellis

The real significance of this story is the light it sheds on the enormous influence of the Murdoch empire. It seems that neither the police nor the prosecutors dare to tangle with an organisation which, after all is the Police State’s best friend.

ClaireinOz

Gawd. Even though my (now ex-) husband has been on the Sunday Times for 20 years and I know plenty about the inner workings of a Murdoch organ, these revelations have left me amazed. The extent of the cover-up is quite stunning, even by Murdoch standards. Forget the Queen, it seems it’s King Rupert who is the real ruler of Britain (and presumably the US, Australia and anywhere else his repressive tentacles can reach).

factsstraight

I spent 13 years on the Sunday Mirror, People and NoW variously and ran number plates and names through the police national computer through contacts in the police on almost a daily basis, as did every other hack.I also regularly got phone, bank and medical records.

But such activities were never to obtain stories but to help stand stories up. Otherwise papers would be spending fortunes on complete scattergun approaches.

It’s how redtops have worked, in my experience, since the mid 1980s when I did my first Saturday shifts. I’ve no problem with the way things worked we turned over some real villains and often worked closely with the cops as we could do things (quite legally) that they couldn’t. A system that worked well until cops started arresting people before we went to press scuppering weeks of work.

And there is one notorious paedophile, Roger Gleaves, who is still in prison as a direct result of one on my stories that relied in part on hacking his phone. o is phone hacking in a completely different category? Discuss.

Political reaction

Anonymous

Coulson was at the head of a bugging operation targeting anyone and everybody.

This must be bigger than Watergate. It’s got shit written all over it. He’s gotta go.

Lord Elvis of Paisley

I’m going to make a prediction. This story is not going to feature on the front page of the Sun tomorrow and will subsequently die a death. Methinks the government and it’s media cohorts have picked the wrong fight on this occasion and would have done better to let sleeping dogs lie.

There can be only one winner in this battle and it sure ain’t going to be the Grauniad or the people that are backing it.

Flemingcrag

If they are seen to be in cahoots with the Labour loving Gruinard on this affair the moves by the Murdoch Media group to distance itself from the mess that Labour has become may turn into a full scale stampede.

Invasion of privacy is not the sole provenance of the Murdoch Media group, the trendsetters since coming to power has been this Labour Government, you could say the NoTW was just being fashionable.

Batteredstrat said…

Just read the Guardian story, and it’s poor, thin on facts, and little more than a smear piece.

However, that does not mean that Coulson is totally in the clear.

Did he come into the NOTW at a point where this was already happening? Journos will protect their sources, even inside an organisation and editors have to trust the judgement of their sub editors.

If Coulson came into the organisation at a time when this was already happening, it is quite realistic that the truth was kept very quiet, the investment in technology had already been made, and that individual journalists would claim to have a human source but were economical with the truth.

After all, if you had a new boss, would you tell him that you had been breaking the law for years, and that it was common practice in the firm?

The story regarding Coulson is nothing more than innuendo right now, the Guardian don’t have the absolute truth or the truth is less damning, otherwise they would have printed it!

BTW, amazing how organised the trolls are at the moment, obviously the Labour party is in full election mode.

What’s all the fuss about?

DavidoM

The comentator on sky news said the heat was going out of this story… so that must be true, so move on now as there is nothing to see here.

SirOrfeo

As for the News of the World – what shocks me is why people are so shocked.

Breaking3

Oh, the irony of it.

Government Ministers like Two Jags might have been spied on – the justice of it, I know that two wrongs dont make a right but it makes me smile, if they don’t have anything to hide why worry? – Well that’s the argument they would use against the general public with their spying.

Next steps

ryeats

roy, thank you for this most interesting assessment. what should happen now. should the police investigate this most disgraceful affair. should the editors and their lieutenants be questioned under caution if necessary. how far up does all this go. was mr murdoch himself privy to what happened. did the authorities back away as they were worried they would be taking on a mighty company. political parties require the support of newspapers. did this play a part in the decision to let off the news of the world with a ticking off. if found guilty should such leading people such as mrs wade be dismissed without compensation. the daily telegraph led the way in its stories about members of parliament. now the guardian has reminded us it has a thirst for the truth. if you take off your hat as a professor and resume your former identity as an Editor in the popular press might I ask, did you ever permit your team to acquire information using methods such as those deployed by the news of the world. do you believe news corporation is telling the truth. who is not telling the truth. having worked for the sun did its team ever use such methods. in troubled times like these all of us who value democracy and privacy are grateful for fearless watchdogs such as you.

ahack

In nick davies’ story he mentions that the Guardian’s sister paper also used the services of Steve Whittamore, the private detective used by the NoW. I hope the paper will tell us why ot needed the services of this man, what he did for the paper and whether his employent was snctioned by the editor and indeed the editor-in-chief, alan rusbridger

Phone tapping revelations shows lack of press accountability

The latest allegations in the News Group phone tapping scandal highlight the chronic lack of accountability in the press.

Not accountable to editors

The editors in the case were keen to assert that they knew nothing of the activities of the individuals involved in phone tapping. Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail (which submitted 952 transactions from 58 journalists through Operation Motorman) told the select committee: “I will be very honest with you, I had not been aware they had been that extensive”.

He went on to say that the practice of paying for data of this sort had stopped and both newspapers and the PCC had ensured proper training so that journalists complied with the law. “I cannot think of more rigorous things we could have done to ensure that all abuses were completely [stopped]”.

The current system of press self-regulation is built on the premise that editors are responsible for the activities of their newspaper. As Peter Hill told the select committee ‘I reprimanded myself because I was responsible’ (for the coverage of the McCann case). However, as Paul Dacre told the committee, “I read the features and the commentary and a lot of the news stories” and “I read more words of my paper than most editors” but it is not possible to read all of the coverage produced by a newspaper.

Not accountable to the PCC

The Press Complaints Commission is not constituted to undertake investigations of this kind. Its constitution establishes it only as a body to resolve and adjudicate on complaints about the code:

“The primary function of the Commission shall be to consider, and adjudicate, conciliate and resolve or settle by reference to the Press Code of Practice . . . complaints from the public of unjust or unfair treatment by newspapers . . .

“It shall also be the function of Commission to consider and pronounce on issues relating to the Code of Practice which the Commission, in its absolute discretion considers to be in the public interests.”

It has a small staff, with no special powers to do this sort of investigation, a small budget (£1.8m) and its purpose is to resolve and adjudicate on complaints against newspapers regarding possible breaches of the code. The PCC was simply unable to investigate this affair with the same rigour as other regulators, even though its investigation was more comprehensive than most of its activities.

Should not be accountable to government

It would be too great a limitation on freedom of expression if government were to regulate the press. The thought of a government regulator being able to fine and jail journalists for investigative reporting is undemocratic. Yet the failings identified in this case give ammunition to those who support more government regulation.

Limited accountability to the law

Everyone is accountable to the law but it is preferable that journalists have as much freedom as possible. The Data Protection Act makes it an offence to gain unauthorised access to confidential databases but carries a public interest defence. However, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (which related to phone tapping) carries no such defence.

Newspapers are already fearful of the growth of media lawyers and the emerging case law around privacy. Any judicial oversight or investigations of newspaper practices could be deeply damaging to fundamental freedoms. The investigation by the Metropolitan Police may be necessary as the law takes its course. However, it is not appropriate for the police to get involved in the business of how newspapers are produced and self-regulation ought to act as a barrier to this sort of action.

As the Media Standards Trust has warned:

“Given the success of recent cases, the legal challenges and precedents will increase, unless the system of regulation is improved to give complainants more effective remedy against invasions of privacy.”

Not accountable to readers

Only two newspapers have independent readers ombudsman, the Guardian and the Observer. No other national newspaper thinks it necessary to appoint someone to represent the interests of the reader to the newspaper. A YouGov poll commissioned by the Media Standards Trust at the end of last year found that 70% of the public believe there are “far too many instances of people’s privacy being invaded by newspaper journalists”. The same poll revealed that 75% of the public now believe ‘newspapers frequently publish stories they know are inaccurate”. Fewer people are buying newspapers each year and few people trust journalists. That would not appear to be sufficient incentive for newspapers to change their behaviour.

Accountable to the profession?

Cases like these are a compelling reason for self-regulation. The difficult balances between privacy and the public interest can be discussed internally, amongst experts and independent representatives. Those in the industry who want to ensure high standards can ensure that all adhere to a clear code of practice. And those that break the rules can be embarrassed in front of their peers. Yet it hasn’t happened in this case. The failure of the industry to hold a newspaper to account weakens the position of supporters of self-regulation.

The importance of reform

The press can continue on the current path of low trust in newspapers with the widespread opinion that journalists do not seek to tell the truth, declining readership, economic crisis and growing intervention from the courts.

Alternatively they can use the opportunity to demonstrate why journalism matters; why the skills of journalism make it more valuable than a opinionated blog; why it’s vital to democracy and why high standards in journalism are essential to being able to entertain, inform and investigate on behalf of their readers.

Self-regulation remains preferable for the press. But it must be made to work or else it will be by-passed by those whose interests are better served by the courts and those who would gladly see a less free press.

Debate around the web

City commentator Jeremy Warner believes that the City doesn’t need more regulation. His remarks in the Telegraph are interesting to consider for anyone proposing a change in regulatory structures:

“The establishment of the FSA led to an unprecedented flood of rules and regulations. If all that was required to protect the public from the folly of bankers was more rules, codes of conduct and statements of principle, then the FSA would have been a champion several times over . . . The origins of the banking crisis lie in the very human characteristic that if you take away from people all sense of responsibility for their own actions and instead make conduct enforceable through an externally imposed, all-seeing system of monitoring and rules, then you remove the element of choice that enables organisations and individuals to behave decently as a matter of conscience.

On a similar theme, Guido Fawkes reports that the House of Lords has criticised the bill to create the parliamentary standards authority. He writes:

just as the Queen wanted ’sentence first – verdict afterwards’, Gordon in Blunderland wants ‘legislation first, consideration afterwards’.

The new chief executive of the ASA has given an interview to Media Guardian. These remarks were particularly interesting for their applicability to the PCC:

“the consequences of not applying the code in such situations would, he says, see “a bit of an arms race between some, although not the majority, of advertisers to run more and more contentious, risque ads”.

Enemies of Reason follows up on the PCC’s adjudication against the Scottish Sunday Express:

“In a judgement that’s particularly stinging even for the PCC, the Express is hauled over the coals. But what punishment has it actually received, other than a pretty stingy smack across the back of the legs? Er, none. Nothing whatsoever. Hooray for an accountable British press!

Roger Cohen has written eloquently in the New York Times of the importance of journalism, drawing on a lecture from Max Weber:

“It’s more fashionable to denigrate than praise the media these days. In the 24/7 howl of partisan pontification, and the scarcely less-constant death knell din surrounding the press, a basic truth gets lost: that to be a journalist is to bear witness.

Angry Mob has compared and contrasted the different reports of national newspapers of the report, released today, by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission into the allocation of housing:

“they use the report to beat immigrants and still insist that they are taking too large a share of social housing.

Update: some interesting comments on Iain Dale’s blog about complaining to the BBC.

What does Peter Hill think of Richard Desmond’s libel action?

The proprietor of the Daily Express, Richard Desmond, is suing investigative journalist Tom Bower for libel. According to Media Guardian the case rests on a paragraph of Mr Bower’s biography of Conrad Black which alleged that Desmond interfered in editorial policy.

Mr Desmond has hired top London legal firm Schillings to represent him in a case that will be heard by Justice Eady.

The culture media and sport select committee will shortly be publishing the findings of its inquiry into press standards, privacy and libel. In particular, the committee was keen to investigate whether the libel laws in the UK were producing a chilling effect on publishers, preventing them from investigating high profile public figures.

Express Newspapers submitted written evidence to the committee and the editor of the Daily Express, Peter Hill, was called to give oral evidence to the committee to assist its inquiry.

Mr Hill told the inquiry:

“You have firms of solicitors now who go to agents of celebrities whose sole object is to run up enormous costs so that they can keep their companies going and celebrities who want to manipulate people’s opinion of them and in many ways create a fake opinion of them.

“We have the most Draconian libel laws in this country and if you do that and it is not true, you are going to get sued. Not only that, you are going to get your Carter-Rucks on the case instantaneously because they have lookouts looking out for this at all times. We do not operate in a situation of impunity. The newspapers in this country have enormous constraints.

Hill proposed that the libel laws should be reformed in order to reduce the restrictions placed on publishers.

“We have the laws of libel which are the most severe in the world . . . If you got to the United States, they have what you could call a free press. We do not have a free press in this country by any means; we have a very, very shackled press in this country. Really you should be looking at means of removing those shackles not imposing more of them, which is what seems to me to be the tone of these discussions. How can we make the press freer? How can we have a free press? A free press is the only bastion that there really is in a democratic society; there is nothing else.”

One wonders then, what Mr Hill must think of his proprietor’s libel action against Mr Bower for defamation.

Debate around the web

The PCC has upheld a complaint against the Scottish Sunday Express for an article about survivors of the Dunblane massacre. It ruled:

“Even though the images and information were available freely online, the way they were used – when there was no particular reason for the boys to be in the news – represented a fundamental failure to respect their private lives.”

The thinking of the PCC in relation to social networking is set out in its adjudication. This blog commented on Facebook and privacy challenges for the press earlier today.

David Cameron has called for the abolition of Ofcom, saying that its policymaking functions will be brought into the DCMS. The future of its regulatory role is unclear but presumably it would mean ministers have a closer relationship to broadcasting issues such as harm and offence.

Ofcom has ruled that Jonathan Ross  did not breach its code when he said that “if your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player then you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption in later life, when they settle down with a partner”. The ruling is similar to a ruling by the BBC when it found that Chris Moyles was not in breach for using the word “gay” to mean “not very good”.

The Press Council of Ireland is in dispute with two of its members who failed to publish an adjudication:

“Failure to do so not only flies in the face of the articles of association under which the Press Council has been established, but also may fall to be considered under the Code of Practice, to which all newspaper editors have signed up,” warned Mitchell (the chairman of the council).

Monica Seles has spoken about her battle with an eating disorder in The Guardian. She says that the British press were particularly cruel:

“My heaviest ever was 1997 Wimbledon: my father was very sick, the outfit I had to wear that year didn’t help, I was 35lb overweight. . . . The British press was so unbelievably cruel. And then at press conferences I would have to sit there while these guys who had written about how fat I was asked me questions. And you know sports writers are not necessarily in the best shape themselves. These enormous guys, asking me if I could be in better shape – I mean, look at yourself in the mirror! Don’t be so brutal!”

The Guardian readers editor has written about the Alfie Patten story and its impact on The Guardian in light of the Julie Meyerson report:

“The Guardian’s editor has since agreed to update the paper’s editorial code to cover journalists who write about their children. Among other things, the new provisions contain the advice that, where children are old enough, their consent to publication should be sought, and suggest that editors consider whether children’s identities should be obscured online to protect them from embarrassment or harm as they grow older.”

SepticIsle reports on the PCC’s investigation of the Alfie Patten story:

“Is the PCC a regulator or is it not? A regulator with any teeth would have demanded that the newspapers themselves reveal what was promised, and just how, if the reports of the Sun setting up a trust fund for the child are accurate, it was intending to deliver the payment.”

Alan Duncan MP has criticised some of the journalism around the MPs expenses story – via SkyNews. He calls it: “deceitful journalism of the lowest sort”

http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/blogging-circle-is-developing/

Is MI6 Facebook story an invasion of privacy?

The Mail on Sunday had a great scoop yesterday – the wife of the head of MI6 had posted family picture on Facebook which, said the Mail, made it possible to identify his family and his London address. It shows how far we’ve come from the days when the head of MI6 would be unnamed, presumably ‘in case the Russians found out’.

This might be really good public interest journalism. If the head of MI6 and his immediate family are indiscreet, the public should know and the relevant disciplinary action should be taken. Without a newspaper to commit the resources to finding out these issues, the story may never have been revealed.

Alternatively, it could be overblown hype, as the Foreign Secretary suggested to the BBC yesterday morning. Yes, the Mail on Sunday managed to find a Conservative MP to support its story, but opposition MPs usually do (of any party, on any issue). The Guardian editorial thinks it is overblown: “the revelations of Lady Shelley surely contain very little that those in search of such information could not find somewhere else in the course of an afternoon.” And it would surely be a matter of some surprise if foreign intelligence agencies were not already aware of his family and London address.

There have been many stories in the past that have come from social networking sites. Prince Harry may have been dumped via Facebook and may now be flirting with a Sky News presenter via the social networking site. If nothing else, these stories are a useful reminder to social networks of the need for a little self-regulation.

But is the Mail’s scoop an invasion of privacy? According to the Mail, his wife had “put virtually no restrictions on her account” but the page is now deleted so we can’t find out what restrictions there may have been. Is it reasonable to have an expectation of privacy for content on social networking sites?

According to research commissioned by the Press Complaints Commission 42% of web users aged 16-24 know someone who has been embarrassed by information uploaded on to the internet without their consent. And 78% of the entire adult online population would change information they publish about themselves online if they thought the material would later be reproduced in the mainstream media.

At the time, then chairman Sir Christopher Meyer said: “That is why I expect our current Code of Practice to be able to handle complaints in this area; and in the process to enable the Commission over the coming months and years to define through its decisions the boundary between the private and the public.”

Since then, the PCC has ruled on three cases regarding Facebook. Twice it did not uphold a complaint about a journalist contacting family members through a Facebook profile page. On one other occasion a newspaper apologised and made a charitable donation for reprinting condolences left by friends and a photograph on a Facebook profile page. So there is still little case law for the PCC to draw upon when investigating stories such as this.

If the story is not an invasion of privacy, justified on public interest grounds, then it is not a great piece of investigative journalism. But it is still better to have the issue out in the open. The alternative may be a world in which newspapers were not allowed to report such a story but it was common currency on internet messageboards.

UPDATE: the PCC has published a further adjudication about the use of material from Facebook. Essentially it says that if the person wasn ‘t in the public eye, or their actions have not brought them into the public eye, then they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of their privacy settings.

Debate around the web

The Independent reports that Barack Obama is ‘trying to have it both ways’ in relation to his children’s privacy. “If Mr Obama wants to protect the children from being exploited by a voracious modern-day media, he may find himself treading close to being accused of exploiting them himself, with such a controlled drip-drip of images designed to extract maximum political advantage at the lowest parental cost.”

The producer and director of a TV show has hit back at a TV review in The Guardian. He writes: “If an opera is reviewed, you get someone reviewing it who knows about opera. The same is true if dance, art, architecture is reviewed. Why is it, then, that newspapers give the TV reviewer’s job to someone who clearly doesn’t know anything about TV?”

The parliamentary debates about the new regulator has revealed some of the challenges of moving from self-regulation to statutory regulation – in particular the constitutional questions around the imposition of sanctions – The Guardian and John Rentoul.

Web advertisers are proposing a system of self-regulation, according to Reuters. Enforcement would be done by the Better Business Bureau and DMA, with non-compliant firms publicly reported, according to an advocate of the scheme. This would result in a lot of companies refusing to do business with them.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the principles “almost meaningless” and predicted that congress would pass legislation hemming in information collection by advertisers. “There’s very little appetite in Washington today for self-regulation,” he said Rotenberg.

John Redwood MP has written about financial regulation: “The issue is do the regulators have a leader or top officials with both the judgement and the confidence to use that judgement to control bank balance sheets sensibly? It does not require more people or new armies of number crunchers. You can do it by just examining the balance sheets of the top half a dozen UK based large banks.

Dave Hill has suggested that the Evening Standard’s allegations against Ken Livingstone advisor Lee Jaspar are not standing up to scrutiny.

Press Gazette has published part of its series of best ever newspaper scoops and it contains some fantastic examples of why journalism matters.

Sheffield Star: Who should be held accountable?

The Press Complaints Commission has resolved a complaint against a Sheffield Star for an article headlined ‘Migrant crime toll rising’. The source of the article was a report by the Chief Superintendent of South Yorkshire Police which said that “It takes approximately three times as long to book in a person who does not speak English as it does an English speaker.”

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper agreed to publish “a prominent clarification and apology”. It also changed the headline of its online edition. That now reads: “Police costs of dealing with non-English speakers rise”.

It appears to have been resolved relatively quickly, with the article appearing on 16 April and the ruling appearing on the commission’s website on 30 June. The clarification and apology appeared on 10 June – too late to reduce any impact it may have had on people’s voting intentions in the European election a week earlier. BNP candidates were standing in the region.

The PCC does not usually resolve or adjudicate against complaints about a headline and usually only accepts complaints from people directly involved in the story. As the media select committee heard, the PCC and editors expect more latitude to be given for a headline. Only three of the last 78 cases resolved by the PCC were directly related to the headline.

This case also highlights the challenges for newspapers and the PCC operating online. The “prominent apology” does not appear on the online version of the article and the headline remains on the site, in the URL: thestar.co.uk/headlines/Migrant-crime-toll-rising. On the article currently you would have no way of knowing that the article was the subject of a successful complaint.

The article carries the name of the journalist, Claire Lewis. She was probably not responsible for writing the headline but is the person who is publicly accountable for the article. The MST contacted her to confirm that she did not write the headline but she passed on the enquiries to the deputy editor Paul License on 30 June. He confirmed that the Star published the correction on 10 June but not who was responsible for writing the misleading headline.

The online reaction to the story is interesting, with a number of people recognising a problem with the article both on the newspaper’s own comment section and on sheffieldforum.co.uk. With the data that the newspaper captures in the comments section, it wouldn’t be too difficult for the paper to contact all of the people who commented and to draw attention to the correction.

This case shows some of the strengths of self-regulation: a successfully resolved complaint, a complaint submitted by a third party, a prominent correction offline and a free service for the complainants. However, it also shows the unresolved difficulties of correcting articles sufficiently quickly, making corrections to stories online, and the problems associated with making sure the right people are held to account.

Debate around the web

Two regional editors have joined the board of the Press Complaints Commission.

A celebrity couple are arguing for their divorce proceedings to be held in secret – via Media Guardian.

Some media lawyers said the way in which the celebrity family had conducted the case was “scandalous”, because the ban had been imposed without notifying the press or providing them with information to challenge it.

Facebook is hiring lobbyists to promote its views on internet privacy to governments.

Fake David Milibands on Twitter are calling time on their hoax:

“I’m not happy about duping the media, but they learned something,” said one of the hoaxers. All journalists had to do to realise the account was fake was to read one or two of previous updates”

Sarah Ditum asks why the Daily Mail is supporting Simon Singh in his libel case.

Nick Ferrari has quit Press TV in protest at its coverage of the Iranian election – via Press Gazette.

Does OK! image of dying Jacko breach PCC code?

OK magazine is reported to have paid $500,000 to purchase an image of Michael Jackson apparently taken whilst he was in a coma on the way to the hospital where he was to be pronounced dead. Or rather OK magazine certainly hope this is the case or else there is a flaw in its exclusive ‘last ever’ picture.

The Daily Express – part of the same stable as the OK magazine – published the image in the masthead of its newspaper yesterday in order to sell copies of the magazine. Sky News pictured the Daily Express frontpage but had blanked out the image from OK magazine. Sky has not responded to requests for clarification of why this was done.

Sky News is regulated by Ofcom, although its website is not. The broadcasting code states:

8.16 Broadcasters should not take or broadcast footage or audio of people caught up in emergencies, victims of accidents or those suffering a personal tragedy, even in a public place, where that results in an infringement of privacy, unless it is warranted or the people concerned have given consent.

Northern and Shell, the owners, come under the auspices of the Press Complaints Commission – although the publisher does not contribute financially to the PCC. The PCC clause on privacy states:

“Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent” – with an exception for the public interest.

Two further clauses of the code may also be relevant:

5.1 In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings, such as inquests.

8. i Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission from a responsible executive before entering non-public areas of hospitals or similar institutions to pursue enquiries.

ii The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.

The relevant sections of the public interest definition are:

i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.

The publication of the photograph does not meet any of these requirements.

2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.

Which would be an argument the editor would need to put to the PCC.

4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.

This is unlikely to be relevant, given the sums of money OK magazine paid for the image.

There is not a clear case against OK magazine for publishing the photograph. But there are a number of questions that deserve investigation:

• Where was the photograph taken? Was Michael Jackson in a public place?
• Was the photograph taken in a hospital and in which case, by what means did the photographer gain entry?
• Did a member of Michael Jackson’s family consent to use of the photograph?
• Did OK magazine consult the PCC prior to publication?
• If the photograph is in the public interest, on what grounds does the editor justify the photograph?

Debate around the web

William Rees-Mogg has written of concerns to the plan to create a statutory regulator for parliament. He writes:

“the Bill could disturb the existing balance of the relationship between Parliament and the courts . . . It might damage the freedom of speech of both Houses.”

The Press Complaints Commission has published a report of its open day last week.

A civil servant has been cleared under the Obscene Publications Act after content on his Girls Aloud blog discussed kidnap and murder of the group. His barrister, Tim Owen QC, argued:

“He had written what he had described as an adult celebrity parody and was only meant to be for an audience of like-minded people . . . This type of writing is widely available on the internet in an unregulated and uncensored form. In terms of its alleged obscenity, it is frankly no better or worse than other articles.” – via BBC News.

Judith Townend has summarised the debate on Media Guardian following its report of the BBC expenses story. From what I could see, the majority of readers did not agree with the Guardian’s prominence of the story or its subsequent explanations.

Paul Waugh uncovers that Michael Gove MP is paid £1250 per hour for his regular column in The Times.

Guido has caught out lots of large media organisations for reporting – and failing to check – a Tweet from David Miliband that was a hoax.

Sarah Ditum on Liberal Consipracy writes about Justice Eady and his reputation in the media:

In an ideal world, privacy law and libel would never have come into these decisions. A robust Press Complaint Commission, for example, might be able to force all newspapers to look on the right to a private life as a default and demand that any breach of that right should fulfil the highest standards of public interest.

But while the PCC is what it is, Eady’s decisions have formed the best line of defence against intrusion, and newspapers are incentivised to go after only those who don’t have the means to sue.

Tom Harris MP writes of the challenges for the print media in covering Michael Jackson’s death.

The Rochdale Observer is publishing a frontpage correction following its coverage of Paul Rowen MP’s expenses – via Press Gazette.

Metro is publishing an apology and costs to a Doctor – via Press Gazette.

Gabriele Marcotti has written of the challenges of Cesc Fabregas responding to questions about Pep Guardiola (one of his idols) without being misrepresented:

“What are you supposed to say? No, screw him, he’s a weirdo with an ugly leather tie? That’s why you either get players saying things which are anodyne, boring and predictable (see Owen above) or players getting themselves into trouble. ”Yes, I’d like to play for Guardiola” becomes “Fab: I’m off” and “No, I’m happy at Arsenal” becomes “Fab Snubs Pep”. It’s a lose-lose, unless you hide behind empty cliches.

Debate around the web

Guardian readers have reacted angrily to the newspaper’s coverage of the BBC expenses story – in particular the claim from DG Mark Thompson for breaking off a holiday to deal with Sachsgate.

Andrew Mackinlay MP is seeking damages of £100,000 from Newsnight – via Press Gazette.

A senior judge has expressed concern at the lack of court reporting – just days after PCC chair Baroness Buscombe made similar remarks at the PCC open day.

Glen Johnson is suing Mirror Group newspapers for a story that (may have) implied that he might be joining Liverpool in December 2008 and acted inappropriately in doing so. Glen Johnson is expected to become a Liverpool player in the next few days.

Peter Tatchell has expressed concern at the decision on Pink News to no longer produce a physical version of the newspaper.

Peter Oborne is concerned that the move away from the self-regulation of parliament will reduce the accountability of MPs.

The BBFC has received complaints about Judi Dench swearing in a James Bond film and its classification of Batman.

The Daily Telegraph has paid libel damages to an intelligence expert it claimed had leaked information to the media before the Iraq war.

UPDATE: Alastair Campbell has blogged about how an inaccurate claim about him (and Lord Butler) from John Kampfner led to a donation from the Spectator to leukemia research.

Report on the PCC Open Day in Nottingham

The Press Complaints Commission held an Open Day yesterday in Nottingham. The day is “part of the Commission’s ongoing programme to raise awareness of its role”. I attended the event in order to understand exactly how they worked, how much interest they generated and the sorts of issues that people wanted to discuss.

The event had good billing beforehand with an interview on BBC Nottingham in the morning with PCC chair Baroness Buscombe. She chaired the day and appeared alongside PCC director Tim Toulmin, lay member Vivien Hepworth and Nottingham Evening Post editor Malcolm Pheby.

The Open Day was split into two parts – a surgery for 45 minutes, billed as an opportunity for

“members of the public to have a private, informal chat with a member of PCC staff. We are happy to discuss concerns about individual articles or have a more general discussion about how the complaints process operates.”

Surgery

I was expecting something like an MPs advice surgery (perhaps because it’s something I’ve got lots of experience of) where various members of PCC staff met with members of the public on a one to one basis to discuss specific concerns about particular newspaper reports. However, the room was already set out for the Q&A session and whilst there were between 10 and 20 people in the room, there were only a couple of people that I could see had particular stories they wanted to talk about.

There was some good literature provided at the back of the room. In addition to the annual reports of the PCC, there was a small A5 booklet ‘How to complain’ which included a helpful flowchart to set out what complainants could expect and some indication of the time it takes to deal with a complaint (the whole process complete in “an average of just thirty five working days”).

Q&A session

The question and answer session was wide ranging, from specific questions about the particular coverage of issues in Nottingham through to concerns about the reporting of inquests and coroners’ courts and wider issues about the privacy of celebrities. The panel answered all the questions in as much depth as possible and allowed questioners to make lots of follow-up points.

I counted 31 people in the audience for the Q&A session, which included some members of the public, communications professionals from the local area, a group of media students and local councillors.

One gentleman clearly disliked self-regulation and asked where the money for self-regulation came from (the press) and what was the highest sanction that had ever been levied on a transgressor of the code. On this latter point, Tim Toulmin explained that the PCC had developed a system for overseeing ex gratia payments which were regularly several thousand pounds, with the highest a £17,000 settlement.

The PCC mounted a robust defence of self-regulation, although Baroness Buscombe doesn’t like the word ‘self’ because it implies self-interest. She prefers to talk of the PCC as a proponent of independent regulation. The panel explained the damage that legislation could do to the freedom of the press, the limits it might pose on investigative journalism and the length of time that complaints would take to solve if lawyers became involved. Baroness Buscombe suggested that health and education policy had suffered because they had become too politicised whereas press self-regulation could remain independent of the government and the industry.

Assessment

I don’t know if anyone left the session having changed their mind about the PCC but the event was well run and it was an invaluable opportunity for anyone to speak directly to the PCC or their local editor about concerns about the press.

It is never easy to generate a public audience for an event of this nature. I was assured by Vivien Hepworth that they had tried to organise these events in the evening and not necessarily got any more people to attend. But even if the PCC were to hold 3 events like this a year, it would still reach fewer than 100 people – or 1% of the total enquiries it receives each year. Perhaps if the event had been framed around a topical issue it would have generated a more focused conversation which had a more direct impact on the PCC’s thinking, although this may have frustrated those with a specific concern they had to raise.

This is the article in the Nottingham Evening Post with more from the Q&A.

Debate around the web

The Guardian Readers’ Editor explains that the newspaper decided not to publish the origin of Tweets it used to support its reporting of the Iranian protests in order to protect the Twitter users’ identity – even though it was readily available on other websites.

“The ethical obligation journalists have to protect confidential sources is included in the UK Press Complaints Commission’s code of practice. In addition, section 10 of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act provides a legal shield: a court cannot force authors and publishers to disclose confidential sources unless it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.”

Lilly Allen is suing The Sun for an article claiming she called Victoria Beckham a “monster” and The X Factor judge Cheryl Cole “stupid and superficial – via Media Guardian.

“The disputed comments attributed to Allen first appeared in an article in French sports-themed magazine So Foot entitled “Les footballeurs courent après tout ce que je deteste” – which roughly translates to “I hate footballers”. Atkins Thomson has also issued proceedings against the French title.”

Leo Hickman has criticised the Daily Mail’s campaign against wheelie bins.

“The Daily Mail loves nothing better than leaving its readers apoplectic with rage by feeding them a daily drip-feed of stories about bin stealth taxes, computer chips hidden in lids and evil fortnightly collections, but the reality is that we are still producing a huge volume of waste domestically. While we continue to do so, we need a quick and efficient way to remove this waste from our streets. And until someone comes up with a better way of doing so, the wheelie bin remains the best method.”

Adam Boulton has apologised for swearing during a live broadcast on Sunday.

Joshua Kucera points out some of the inaccuracies that were repeated in the media as a result of Twitter reports from Iran.

Drugs charity Release has taken down adverts on London buses which said: “Nice people take drugs”.

A spokesman for CBS Outdoor told MediaGuardian.co.uk the ads were being take down because of an “oversight” by the company when it booked the campaign. He said CBS should have run the copy past CAP – the Committee of Advertising Practice – which offers advice on compliance with advertising codes of practice.

Alex Bainbridge writes about the challenges of reporting on a travel blog after Travel Rants came under pressure to remove various stories / comments about DialAFlight.

“According to Travel Rants a libel suit was launched in the UK high court claiming for considerable damages as a result of a comment that someone had written on a blog post.”

Debate around the web

The Conservatives have complained to the BBC Trust about Sir Alan Sugar’s role presenting The Apprentice and advising the government. The complaint would not be permissible under the PCC code which doesn’t require newspapers to be impartial. However, by way of comparison, the Conservatives would not be able to complain (as they are not directly involved in the story) and after the PCC  ruled that there wasn’t a problem, the Tories wouldn’t be able to escalate their complaint in this way.

As an adendum to the newspaper transparency debate over the last few days between Danny Finkelstein and various bloggers, Paul Waugh reports that David Miliband’s decision to end unattributable briefings lasted just seven days.

A judge has ruled that journalist Suzanne Breen can withold details about the Real IRA from the police – via Media Guardian.

The editor in chief of the Open Information Science Journal has resigned after it accepted a bogus science journal – via Media Guardian. “The journal, which claims to subject every paper to the scrutiny of other academics, so-called “peer review”, accepted the paper. Philip Davis, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York, who was behind the hoax, said he wanted to test the editorial standards of the journal’s publisher, Bentham Science Publishers.”

The Guardian has announced that several journalists will be taking voluntary redundancy as the newspaper responds to its financial problems – via Press Gazette.

A number of Twitter users have been organising participants for a poll in the Daily Mail which asks: Should the NHS allow gipsies to jump the queue? – via @pauloCanning.

Debate around the web

Closer magazine has been found in “serious” breach of the code after “distorting” an interview with a mother about her pregnancy then standing by its story and providing “incomplete” and “inaccurate” transcripts to the PCC.

Ofcom has announced a crack down on strong sexual content. Media Guardian reports that “In the past couple of years, the regulator has fined a number of babe channels for breaches of the broadcast code.”

Robert Peston comments on the lastest banking regulation debates. “Probably the best argument for giving the Bank of England much greater sway over big banks, in partnership with the FSA. Normally duplicating the activities of regulators is a recipe for waste and even possibly for confusion. But maybe in this case, it would be better to have two sets of big boots wielded by two regulatory bodies delivering swift blows to the tender parts of a mega-bank, to keep that mega-bank in line.

Danny Finkelstein has responded to Guido Fawkes‘ suggestion that Times leader columns are signed. Finkelstein argues “If the leader was signed by the person who wrote, say, the first draft, that would give the incorrect impression that the article reflected their opinion rather than that of the paper. And it doesn’t.” which may be correct, but also appears to be an argument in favour of no article in The Times carrying a byline.

Debate around the web

Anton Vowel asks whether the decision by The Times to ‘out’ the policeman behind Night Jack means that the newspaper should reveal its sources.

The Croydonian asks how the Telegraph claimed that “The Turks & Caicos Islands lie at the tip of the Bermuda Islands Chain” despite the 915 miles between the islands.

The Beckham’s have received an apology from a nanny who sold her story to a newspaper. They have also received a payment for an inaccurate article in The People – via BBC News

Robert Peston asks ’should we trust the regulators?’ in response to proposals by the British and American governments to strengthen the role of financial regulators in light of the credit crunch.

Journalism.co.uk asks if the Telegraph failed by keeping expenses process and data to itself whilst Paul Bradshaw calls on every news organisation to have a datastore.

The Mail on Sunday has apologised to Allan Peters after a complaint to the PCC. “Mr Allan Peters complained . . .  that an article inaccurately suggested that he had attended a skiing trip for Royal Protection Officers to Klosters paid for by the taxpayer. He made clear that he was in Klosters on a private skiing trip, which he had funded entirely himself. He retired from the Police service ten years ago.”

Debate around the web

The Guardian’s Readers editor has responded to a complaint that the paper ran a video production of Caryl Churchill’s controversial work Seven Jewish Children. The piece highlights the challenges of media convergence. The decision to broadcast the video comes under the remit of the PCC rather than Ofcom but the PCC usually only accepts complaints from people directly involved in the piece. Who would be a legitimate complainant in this case? And did The Guardian provide sufficient opportunity to reply as part of its production?

Stephen Glover has responded in the row over the Guardian’s role in the failed coup against Gordon Brown. The BBC hasn’t yet responded to the accusations over its role.

There’s a dispute in the advertising world about whether Google should contribute to the Advertising Standards Authority. “Advertisers pay a levy – typically 0.1% of their annual marketing budgets – to fund the ASA’s system. However, while the ASA regulates all paid-for online search advertising – the sponsored links that pop up on the right-hand side of a browser window on Google, for example – no levy is paid on the cost of that advertising.”

BBC’s Panorama programme is examining privacy and the press but poses the current libel laws as a challenge for the press rather than its own broadcasts.

The challenges of reforming parliamentary regulation

Gordon Brown has announced proposals for an “independent statutory regulator” of parliament. The new regulator will oversee the actions of politicians in parliament and remove the self-regulatory arrangements which had overseen the expenses claims regime publicised in the Telegraph.

In his announcement he dismissed as “reminiscent of the last century (a system) where the members make up the rules and operate them among themselves”. However, in the new system, MPs may still have significant influence on the regulator – but is this such a bad thing?

1. Who owns the code of conduct?
Gordon Brown has said that the code of conduct for MPs will be drawn up after consultation with all political parties represented in the Commons. The code will be enshrined in statute, to give it the force of law and the regulator will be responsible for “applying firm and appropriate sanctions”.

Therefore, the contents of the code of conduct still remains under the discretion of MPs. This is important for democratic accountability. But what happens to the code after it has been agreed? It may be desirable, for example, for the independent regulator to have a formal role in proposing amendments to the code. And should parliamentarians have any say in the interpretation of the code? What about if elements of the code are found to be ambiguous (as all laws are)? How and where the distinction between self-regulation and statutory regulation is made will have an important bearing on whether the regulator is seen to be independent.

But the alternative is worse. If the code of conduct was imposed on MPs by the regulator, it could lead to significant problems. No one is better placed to understand the job of being an MP than MPs themselves and no one faces the anger of the people more than an MP who has acted inappropriately. A code which was written by an external regulator would be unlikely to command the respect of MPs, resulting in people following the letter rather than the spirit of the rules.

2. Who determines the sanctions?
The announcement by the prime minister seemed to suggest that MPs would determine the appropriate sanctions for people who break the code – another feature of self-regulation.

“It will codify much more clearly the different potential offences that must be addressed and the options available to sanction.”

It will be interesting to observe how wide ranging these sanctions are: whether they include criminal sanctions for example. But also whether the sanctions suggested by the regulator ever puts MPs in dispute with the regulator. This could damage the legitimacy of the whole process. Advocates of self-regulation say that the harshest penalty is facing an unfavourable finding in front of your peers. Many MPs have shuddered at the prospect of having to make a statement of apology in the House of Commons. But whilst a public apology may be sufficient for misuse of parliament stationery, is it appropriate for buying a duck house on expenses?

3. Who appoints the regulator?
Gordon Brown’s statement didn’t set out who would be responsible for appointing the regulator. In a system of self-regulation, the regulator is usually appointed by an independent appointments commission, with an overview of the whole system. Many regulators are appointed by the secretary of state (eg. the Environment Agency, the IPCC) whilst others are appointed by parliament (Ofqual) or the Privy Council (the GMC) to further safeguard their independence from politics.

It is important to get the right balance in the appointment of a regulator so that the regulated have confidence in their judgment and the public are reassured that the person can act independently.

Changing self-regulation to statutory regulation for MPs is made more complicated by the fact that they are in charge of the legislative process. But it also provides a useful case study to understand many of the challenges faced when reforming regulatory systems.

Independent statutory regulation is not inherently better than self-regulation and does not necessarily inspire greater confidence amongst the public. It is often the process of regulation as much as the regulatory structures which determine whether or not it commands respect.

Debate around the web

The Daily Mail’s HTML refuses to clear Air France ‘terror suspects according to Martin Belam. Whilst it’s not clear that it’s the Daily Mail’s fault (or a result of an editorial decision) this story highlights the significant extra layer of editorial challenges that newspapers face online – via Currybet.

Hate it when pissed off PRs Cc in my editor – the equivalent of telling my mum when I’ve been naughty – according to Hannah Prevett, a business journalist.

Telegraph ‘didn’t tell any lies but was selective in its facts’, says Lib Dem Voice site editor – via journalism.co.uk At this debate Andrew Pierce, assistant editor at the Telegraph, claimed that the paper had only made one correction. “So far we’ve printed one correction: we got a house mixed up. I’d say in terms of journalism that ain’t a bad ratio.” Which of course is true, if they only made one mistake!

Prime Minister’s spokesman ‘tells off the Telegraph’ according to Nick Assinder. “If the Daily Telegraph has specific allegations about Shahid Malik please bring them forward. We would expect all government ministers to comply with the independent regulator and there’s no reason to believe that has not been the case with Shahid Malik – it’s not for the Daily Telegraph to be the judge and the jury about this.”

Debate around the web

Gordon Brown has said that “we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information” and instructed the Justice Secretary to set out further plans for “broadening the application of freedom of information to include additional bodies which also need to be subject to greater transparency and accountability”.  The Economist has suggested that the Press Complaints Commission is an “intriguing anomaly” given its exemption from FOI legislation.

Stephen Glover has suggested that the Scott Trust “should question whether the (Guardian) newspaper in general, and Polly Toynbee in particular, were acting in accordance with best journalistic practice in deserting their seats in the arena, and becoming part of the action on the pitch.” – via @arusbridger. Roy Greenslade has also added his thoughts on the row with an interesting contribution from Paul Linford.

Martin Belam suggests editorial confusion at the Daily Mail regarding the newspaper’s stance on energy saving lightbulbs. But does it matter if newspapers are inconsistent? Or should it be praised for its about-turn?

Peter Kirwan believes that more newspaper editors should live on streets like his because it would keep them more in touch with real life.

Debate around the web

Danny Finkelstein publishes an open letter to Roger Alton criticising The Independent’s use of polling data.

Gordon Brown’s brother has won a case against Scotland on Sunday for inaccurate claims concerning the handling of costs for the PM’s cleaner.

Roy Greenslade asks if the future of journalism is journalists as individual brands – which would presumably require a fundamental shift in regulation from the newspaper to the individual (more like the GMC?)

The Centre for Social Cohesion has asked whether some research from Cambridge University has been compromised by the university’s relationship with its funders.

Jon Slattery reports back on last night’s debate at the Frontline Club on journalism and MPs expenses. There appears to have been some controversy over the Telegraph’s payment for the data although overwhelming support for it being in the public interest.

This article suggests that newspaper reports about recovery in the housing market may not be all they seem.

Debate around the web

Kate Moss is threatening to sue IPC media over false reports that she is pregnant – via Media Guardian.

Peter Preston has praised the PCC for proactively taking action to defend the privacy of Susan Boyle.

Ben Goldacre writes about inaccurate press coverage of ‘the cost of illegal downloads’ following a press release (later corrected) which used inaccurate figures. He also tells of an extraordinary exchange with a press officer.

Anton Vowel looks at mainstream media attitudes towards the BNP suggesting that various commentators have echoed the BNP’s policy positions whilst rejecting the party.

Martin Belam blogs about the relationship between mainstream media and new media in perpetuating inaccuracies – particularly reports of Jonathan Spector’s Twitter account.

Joanna Geary’s post about Gareth Barry’s letter in the  Birmingham Mail is an interesting case study in accountability. Geary corrected herself in the article and the editor of the BM has engaged in the comments section.

The Frontline Club is hosting a debate tonight: ‘MPs expenses: a triumph for journalism?’ – via Stephen Tall.

Bryan Appleyard suggests that the lobby system should be scrapped because its protocols prevent members (political journalists) asking tough questions of politicians.

@GeoffLloyd of Absolute Radio has Twittered about having to undergo compliance training to learn about the BNP and radio issues. It appears as though he didn’t particularly enjoy it.

Jon Reed asks what a blogger’s terms of discourse should be. He asks: “How should I balance what I love about blogging: the immediacy and the (often) outspoken nature of an entertaining blog, with the need for intellectual and factual rigor?”

Debate around the web

Martin Belam has written about some of the inconsistencies facing media regulation on election days. The issue has had more attention from Ian Burrell in The Independent.

Sunder Katwala wonders if the Daily Telegraph went easy on Boris Johnson’s expenses claim.

Marc Vallee writes about the important case of Suzanne Breen which threatns press freedom.

We’ve just discovered Who Comments – a database of the opinions of commentators and columnists who write regularly for the national press in bylined, op-ed, or other columns or blogs.

Polly Toynbee has opened her Twitter account to apologise for a crass analogy at the start of her column today.

UPDATE: Rape Crisis Scotland has published a letter highlighting problems with inaccurate and misleading reports concerning the pregnancy of a 12 year old girl. “Media accounts of this particular case have lurched in their portrayals of events from reputation-destroying vilification of the child at the centre of it, to more recent revisionist accounts which have been forced to acknowledge that the real story is one of rape – and not, as was almost universally implied in earlier accounts, moral turpitude and sexual promiscuity.”

Debate around the web

The Public Accounts Committee has criticised the BBC for failing to open up detailed financial information to public scrutiny. The PAC found that the statutory arrangements in place for the BBC were insufficient to enable its value for money to be scrutinised. The PCC is not funded by the taxpayer – a significant advantage of self-regulation according to Buscombe - but it does perform functions in the public interest. The press review group found that the “PCC’s ability to perform its functions as a self-regulator also appear to be compromised by the way its funding is controlled”.

A respected group of scientists have signed a letter by Sense About Science calling for reform of libel law so that it is not used to surpress legitimate debate about science.

The Daily Telegraph has now sold one million extra copies as a result of its MPs expenses stories.

Michael Owen has received damages from the Express after an inaccurate story regarding the future of his career – via Media Guardian.

A group of media organisations has convinced a judge to lift reporting restrictions in a criminal trial – via Press Gazette

Baroness Buscombe will give the opening lecture at the Society of Editors’ annual conference – via Press Gazette.

Samizdata finds different standards in the media reporting of the death of an abortion clinic doctor and an Islamist who killed an armed forces recruiter in the US

UPDATE: @currybet Martin Belam has made some thought provoking remarks on Twitter about media regulation and election coverage.

PCC acts in Susan Boyle story

The Press Complaints Commission has warned newspaper editors not to breach the privacy of Susan Boyle, reports Media Guardian. The Guardian reported that the PCC had been contacted by SyCo, the company behind Britain’s Got Talent (and presumably to whom Susan Boyle is contracted) on behalf of Susan Boyle. The email reminded editors not to breach Miss Boyle’s privacy in relation to her health and treatment, under clause 3 of the code, which reads:

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.

ii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent.

It’s welcome news that the PCC has acted, particularly in light of some of the coverage over the last few days. On Monday, this blog reported that there were possible invasions of Boyle’s privacy in some newspapers.

It also appears to be a really significant step forward by the PCC. By comparison, following the Alfie Patten story there were no reports that the PCC had reminded newspaper editors of the families’ rights to privacy – only that the PCC had launched an investigation into possible payments by newspapers.

It would be easier for observers of the PCC to understand its operations if they were clearer on their use of precedent. The Susan Boyle warning is not currently available on its website. The PCC could point out similar privacy cases on which it had ruled, to help inform what is and is not acceptable coverage of Miss Boyle. And it is not clear why they acted in this case, and not that of Alfie Patten. One difference between the two cases might have been the inquiry from Syco as a representative of the subject of the story. But we don’t know whether there was a similar inquiry from representatives of the families in the Patten case.

The PCC has often said that much of its most valuable work is achieved pre-publication and that this does not receive the recognition it deserves. If the case is a sign of a willingness on the part of the PCC to be proactive in the biggest news stories of the day, then it should be praised.

Debate around the web

Dan Sabbagh’s article in The Times regarding Andy Burnham’s call for Ofcom to investigate the treatment of Susan Boyle has attracted over 120 comments and was the most read article on the website this morning. In comparison, the next most read article had just 74 comments whilst a similar story in The Guardian received just 15 comments.

Ofcom has published figures revealing that Friday’s semi final of Britain’s Got Talent attracted 331 complaints whilst the final on Saturday night received 16 complaints.

Robert Flello, Hazel Blears’ PPS has said that she resigned as secretary of state for communities and local government because she was no longer able to cope with the pressure of being doorstepped each day – via PoliticsHome.

The Croydonian blog has highlighted problems with fact-checking on an electoral map produced by the Daily Telegraph.

Paul Canning questions an assertion in the Telegraph that the MPs expenses story couldn’t have been broken with the help of ‘Kool-aid slurping Wikipedians’.

Debate around the web

The culture media and sport select committee has published the (uncorrected) transcript of the evidence it heard from Sir Anthony Clarke, Sir Rupert Jackson and Jack Straw.

Barbara Follett, the minister responsible for the PCC, has given oral evidence to the committee today and the highlights are captured by journalism.co.uk.

Ofcom has no plans to investigate Britain’s Got Talent after Susan Boyle was taken to hospital – via Media Guardian.

Ed Stivala (@N3W_Media) says: “Bored with MP stories now when can we turn on the Media and publicly investigate all their grubby little secrets? What do you mean we can’t?”

The PCC has censured the Sunday World for two inaccurate stories regarding the partner of Gerry McHugh MLA headlined “Sinn Fein MLA dumps wife for Brit army general’s daughter” and “Love rat McHugh dumped by Brit lover”, published in the Sunday World on 27 January 2008 and 10 August 2008.

Mark Pack writes in support of a recent judgement by Justice Eady.

Debate around the web

Ian Burrell asks if the News of the World’s investigative reporting is losing its edge.

Dr Bart Cammaerts wonders ‘why the UK media ignores Europe’ on Charlie Beckett’s blog.

The Guardian apologises to Aung San Suu kyi after a polemic contained a number of inaccuracies.

Socialist Unity believes that English libel laws are a threat to free speech.

The BBC has apologised for remarks made by a guest on Question Time.

Anton Vowel takes a dislike to a Daily Mail article about the invasion of caterpillars.

Daniel Hannan opposes the case for an external regulator of MPs arguing that the electorate is sufficient.

Should the PCC investigate Susan Boyle coverage?

Susan Boyle, of Britain’s Got Talent fame has been admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act after coming second in the TV talent contest final this weekend. ‘Raging Susan’s mega strop’ – the Daily Star reports today.

She rose from a ‘quiet life in Scotland’ to global fame in a matter of weeks but the pressure appears to have been too great. Should the Press Complaints Commission investigate the newspaper coverage of Susan Boyle?

There is a credible case against the PCC investigating the coverage of Susan Boyle. It usually will only accept a complaint from people directly involved in the story. Ms Boyle has not complained to the PCC and may not wish the additional intrusion of an investigation by the commission.

Susan Boyle was aware that she would be in the spotlight when she volunteered for the show. She consistently said that she wanted to win the show and she could have looked at former contestants for an indication of the public profile it would bring.

Much of the coverage of Susan Boyle was positive. There was, of course, lots of coverage praising her vocal talents although a glance through the clippings suggests that a lot of this juxtaposed her voice with her looks. Sometimes this was positive coverage. Many commentators and public figures praised her ‘authenticity’ and suggested she was a new kind of icon for these times of economic hardship.

Some of the newspaper coverage may have been nasty or hurtful – and much of this was focussed on her appearance. . “Susan can be the face of big tummy-tuck pants” declared a headline in The Independent. The Sun provided a step by step guide “if you fancy trying out Susan’s special look”. However, that is no reason for the PCC to investigate. The code makes no reference to taste or decency. And again, Susan Boyle has not complained.

There’s a possibility that some of the coverage did breach the code. The PCC code states:

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.
ii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent.
Note – Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Under the headline “Susan is the best bra none” The Sun reported on 13 May that “The BGT star’s unsightly pink shirt gaped open when she left home, revealing the side of her breast”. In the Mirror on 6 May, an article by Jody Thompson was headlined: ‘Susan Boyle leaves home with her trousers undone – see the pic’. It may be that being photographed on your doorstep is not private, particularly if you area participant in a TV talent contest.

On 27 April The Sun ran a picture of Susan Boyle visiting her mother’s grave. This may have been taken with her permission, or perhaps the photo was organised by the producers of the show. But a graveyard may be a public place but is also one where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Susan Boyle story has consumed media coverage over the last month and has not had a happy ending. But it does throw up some key questions for press self-regulation:

• Is the PCC right to only respond to complaints from people directly involved in a story?
• Should it pre-emptively investigate some of the possible intrusions into the privacy Susan Boyle?
• Or should it just guide journalists through the minefield of judging where public interest starts and stops in this case?

Debate around the web

John Prescott on Comment is Free has written of the need for reform of the Press Complaints Commission and cited our first report as supporting evidence

The White House press secretary has suggested of the British press: “If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first pack of clips I’d pick up” – via journalism.co.uk

Don’t get mad – get accurate is a blog dedicated to complaining to the PCC

Headlines and Deadlines reports “Media cannot stick to one form. Text, photos, video, music, audio, animation, etc are a flow.” . . . which certainly poses challenges to different regulatory regimes.

@lobbydog on Twitter reports that a Sky News presenter has called the Daily Telegraph the Torygraph, live on air. Whoops.

Debate around the web

Mark Pack has noticed a Telegraph report on Baby Peter with a small note for the legal team which was presumably meant to remain private but made it into the online version.

Journalism.co.uk has summarised the response to the conference held last week by the University of Westminster: journalism in crisis.

Gordon Taylor of the PFA is taking libel action against the Daily Mail – via Press Gazette.

Anton Vowl wonders whether the Daily Mail has used a photograph of a peaceful protest to illustrate a story about a very different protest.

UPDATE: Journalism.co.uk also has a piece on Community Care’s campaign: Stand up now for social care.

Judith Townend reminds me of this piece she wrote about the challenges UK news regulation and convergence on BeatBlogging.

Debate around the web 27.05.09

Jon Slattery reports that one newspaper group has lost £200,000 in potential revenue after banning advertisements for sex from its newspapers. The revenue has been diverted to the internet, according to the police force.

George Dearsley is a journalist and media trainer. His blog is interesting for anecdotes about ‘fleet street’

Liberal Conspiracy reports on a payout from the Daily Mail to a women who were subjects of an inaccurate Femail piece about attitudes towards adoption. Apparently the story was changed after the intervention of an unnamed executive. The Daily Mail’s apology can be viewed in full and came three months after the initial story – apparently through the PCC process. The legal action took a further three months.

The Times has paid £15,000 after being found in contempt of court – via Press Gazette.

Iain Dale disputes the Telegraph’s sequencing of events in the Simon Heffer vs Alan Hazelhurst story and suggests that the failure to put a byline by the article is an indicator of poor journalism.

Peta Buscombe: a change of style

Baroness Peta Buscombe was interviewed on 5Live on Thursday to mark her recent appointment as chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. It was a 30 minute interview by Colin Murray, standing in for Simon May. It was an interesting interview because the style was markedly different from her predecessor. You can listen again from 1.05.

Buscombe said that she joined the PCC to discover an “amazing team” at the commission and whilst the organisation faced “challenges” it had a “good story to tell”. She did accept, however, that there was “probably room for improvement”.

1. Encouraging people to use the PCC
Her focus for improvement was on encouraging the public to use us – “the most important thing”. This picks up on a theme of her predecessor, Christopher Meyer, who told the culture media and sport select committee that “the industry could do more to advertise the services that we provide”.

However, Buscombe did not place the onus on the members of the commission to boost its profile and perhaps the forthcoming open day in Ipswich is a sign that the PCC is going to be more proactive in increasing its profile.

She later cited the publication of a leaflet by the Greater Manchester Police which would be distributed to every victim of crime on how to deal with the media, as an example of promoting the role of the PCC.

2. Defining the role of the PCC
The PCC does not have a publicly available mission statement, set of principles or any other description of who it serves. However, Buscombe has a clear sense of purpose, telling 5Live that “we’re here to take on people’s complaints and concerns whenever or wherever they have them”.

3. Promoting pre-publication work
Buscombe is clearly impressed by the work of the PCC prior to publication. She said that she hadn’t been aware of the extent of the work undertaken by the “advice bureau” provided to editors who regularly consulted the PCC prior to publication of a controversial article. Buscombe said that the PCC was “good at stopping a lot of things being published”.

She also argued that if we had a privacy law, we may never have found the truth about Baby P. I inferred from this that she considered that this would have been a bad thing.

4. Promoting independence
The presenter put it to the chairman that the PCC lacked independence. Buscombe thoroughly disagreed saying that the PCC was “not on the side of newspapers . . . that’s the great thing about self-regulation”. She explained that the press funds it (saving money for the taxpayer) but does not control it – a state which Buscombe thought was the “joy of self-regulation”.

Buscombe argued that had Max Mosley gone to the PCC the newspaper would have been “seriously reprimanded” and his “privacy restored”. This was a slightly different to the impression I was given by Meyer’s remarks to the select committee which were that he “may have got a remedy at the PCC discreetly”

5. Rejecting fines
Buscombe explained that the PCC doesn’t “talk about fines” or “get involved in ex gratia payments”. Rather, its research conducted by Ipsos-Mori suggested that 68% of people would rather an apology than a fine.

Instead, she believes that fines would have a limited impact, arguing that Ofcom’s fine against the BBC didn’t punish the editors involved but the licence fee payer.

The current forms of redress were powerful, Buscombe argued. She cited the prominence of apologies which had improved significantly, and said that there were even apologies on the front page. Recently she had seen in action a negotiation involving a woman she couldn’t mention who had been wrongly involved in a story and agreed an arrangement with a newspaper that at the end of any story about the issue, there would be an explanation of her role. Buscombe argued that deal “restored” the woman’s privacy.

Buscombe argued that she would “certainly look” at issues concerning the placement of apologies “but would rather reserve judgment”.

6. A distinction of style over substance
The response from listeners didn’t appear to be significantly different from the reaction that the PCC often gets. The BBC may be under no obligation to read out a representative sample of messages but the two that the presenter chose were both negative.

Buscombe’s style was conversational and engaging – appropriate for a 5Live audience. She wasn’t confrontational and although her responses were robust, they were more confidently assertive than brash and bluster.

I finished the interview feeling as though I’d heard a different approach from the chairman of the PCC. Once she’s spent some time in the role, we will be better able to judge if there’s a change of substance.

The Daily Telegraph, the law and regulation

The Daily Telegraph took legal action against Tory MP Nadine Dorries over the weekend after comments she made on her blog. She questioned the nature of the Telegraph’s reporting of MPs’ expenses and the political motivations of its proprietors.

Earlier this month, various newspaper editors have been appearing in front of the culture, media and sport select committee to give evidence of the “chilling affect” that the operation of privacy and libel laws is having on newspapers.  The Telegraph did not submit evidence directly to the committee , although the Press Complaints Commission, Press Standards Board and Society of Editors did – and the Telegraph belongs to all of these bodies. They fear that many newspapers are deterred from being able to print controversial stories because of the costs of defending the claims in the courts.

Unlike the Daily Telegraph, Nadine Dorries’ blog is not subject to any regulation other than the law of the land and whatever codes of conduct the Tory party has in place regarding the public utterances of its MPs. Of course, had she have spoken the words in the House of Commons, they would have been beyond the reach of the Telegraph’s lawyers under parliamentary privilege.

Nadine Dorries‘ take on the story is that:

“This was just little me, and two of the richest men in the world who own a newspaper empire and can pretty much say what they want, when they want, to who they want, had, using their wealth and muscle, shut me down.”

In taking the action, the Telegraph clearly recognises that the reporting of inaccurate, false or misleading statements can damage a reputation unfairly. For that reason, the group presumably does not favour unfettered free speech. But the case still poses some interesting questions:

• What would constitute an appropriate regulatory regime?
• Is it right that a blog on the Telegraph’s website is regulated by the PCC but that Nadine Dorries’ blog is not regulated by anyone?
• Or are the courts a sufficient backstop?
• How do newspapers want to see the law reformed and would this have changed the options available to the Telegraph

Self-regulation of the lobbying industry

The lobbying industry is currently debating how it can strengthen its arrangements of self-regulation. I have researched the issues within the industry to understand what lessons can be drawn from this for self-regulation of the press.

Currently lobbying or public affairs companies can join the Association of Professional Political Consultants whilst individuals can be a member of the Charted Institute of Public Relations – which is conditional on acceptance of the institute’s code of conduct.

Membership of the APPC is dependent on signing-up to a code of conduct and declaring all of your fee paying clients and salaried staff in a publicly available register. The code is owned by the members of the APPC who can seek election to its board. Judgements for breaches of the code are made by a committee of its members. The APPC is administered from within the industry.

In addition to the code and the register, the APPC requires that:
“the member firm, its staff and non-executive political consultants should accept and agree to abide by this Code for itself and that members will be jointly and severally liable for the actions of their staff in relation to the Code. Regulated political consultants are required to endorse the Code and to adopt and observe the principles and duties set out in it in relation to their business dealings with clients and with institutions of government.”

However, after examining the relationship between lobbying and national politics, the public administration select committee found these arrangements to be insufficient. In particular the select committee found:

1. The guiding principles of conduct may not go far enough, but they are nonetheless a welcome and noteworthy step towards consistency of approach
2. The APPC does not seem to attract sufficient trust throughout the lobbying industry and among its clients for it to suggest with any authority that only its members should be eligible to apply for public contracts. But the spirit of this suggestion . . . recognises that the current situation allows consultancies to pick and choose the rules that apply to them in a way that is incompatible with effective self-regulation.
3. A complaints system that was working would have produced more than three cases in the last ten years . . . Reprimands and “severe” reprimands . . . are not of a kind that would give confidence to any outsider that disciplinary processes are robust.
4. The APPC’s policy of expecting complainants to be prepared to bear the costs of an investigation, including the legal fees of the member complained against, is unacceptable.

Next week, I will examine the debates around reform of the self-regulatory system to identify the similarities and differences with other self-regulatory systems.

Debate around the web 22.05.09

Kelvin Mackenzie wants to know about Justice Eady’s private life, via journalism.co.uk

Media Guardian reports profits at the Daily Mail group, DMGT, are down 47%

Mediating Conflict reports on the regulation of BBC journalists’ Twitter accounts

Martin Moore’s post on the Alfie Patten story has generated a discussion about the role of the PCC

Media Guardian reports that the UKRD has ‘buried the hatchet’ with Ofcom after his previous criticisms

John Rentoul comments on the corrections and apologies received by Tony Blair. He suggests that they were too late to stop the damage being done.

The New Statesman asked ‘who guards The Guardian’ after complaints from other media organisations that its media reporting and commercial practices are unfair

Debate around the web 20.05.09

Tom Watson has published a press release from Carter Ruck regarding legal action against Associated Newspapers

The Sun – Tabloid Lies blog focusses on the newspaper’s reporting of the Alfie Patten case.

John Prescott praises new media for its ability to help people like him hold the media to account.

The challenges facing regulatory reform of parliament

Gordon Brown has said that the system of self-regulation of MPs conduct, pay and expenses has to end. He told his monthly press conference:

“The keystone for any reform must be to switch from self-regulation to independent external regulation. Westminster cannot operate like some gentleman’s club where the members make up the rules and operate them among themselves.

“If MPs continue to set their own codes and rules, however objectively they try to do so, the public will always question the transparency and the standards that they rightly demand. And MPs themselves are currently put in the invidious position of having to be judge and jury of their own pay and rations.

“We will set out our proposals for an independent . . .  external to the House of Commons (which) would oversee the system . . . maintain the register of members interest and take appropriate sanctions . . .

“(in order to) respect parliamentary sovereignty it would be for parliament itself to devolve this power in these specific matters and put this on statutory footing.

There are four key questions facing parliament as it determines the nature of this regulatory body:

• If it is to be independent, who will appoint its members?
• If the rules are to be set by an external body, how will that body maintain the confidence of MPs and the public?
• If the body makes a decision that the public or an MP do not like, what means of appeal will it have?
• What powers of sanction will the body hold which still respect the democratic system eg. will it be able to force a by-election?

Gordon Brown believes that if MPs set the rules, the public will always question the transparency and standards by which the rules were set. But would an independent body maintain public confidence just because it is independent?

Any regulatory system has flaws. Just because self-regulation has failed, it does not necessarily mean that “independent external” regulation will be better, unless these key questions can be resolved and constantly reviewed.

Has self-regulation changed journalism since 1999?

Paul Bradshaw has set out 10 ways that journalism has changed in the last ten years. His full article is well worth reading.

However, there is one notable absence: self-regulation. The issues that Paul talks about are critically related to regulation:

• Journalists producing more content, for more platforms.
• Instant measurability of journalism
• Readers having a direct influence on output. Readers being able to create their own output.

But self-regulation doesn’t figure on his list. The PCC – and leading advocates such as Paul Dacre – firmly believe that the PCC has changed the industry for the better since the “excesses of the 1980s”. Have journalists noticed the difference?

Who regulates the regulators?

Does regulation stop at the role of the regulator or are regulators also regulated?

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is examining claims that the police misled the media in the aftermath of the death of Ian Tomlinson. However, the announcement does not appear to go as far as some wish. Journalists and bloggers were concerned not just that the police misled the media but that the IPCC also did so.

The IPCC does not have a regulator overseeing it. The Act which create the commission made no mention of an appeals process against the findings of the commission. Whilst its funding comes solely from the Home Office, the very same Act guarantees its independence from the police, government and any political party or interest group.

This approach is different to the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA was completely free of legislative oversight until the introduction of European law, through a statutory instrument which gave the Office of Fair Trading a right to intervene to adjudicate in cases where the ASA may have got it wrong. However, the OFT has to balance the need to take action against whether its actions would ultimately weaken the system of self-regulation.

The Press Complaints Commission has an independent arbiter who reviews the work of the PCC when a complainant has been unhappy with their treatment. It could also be subject to judicial review – although this has never been exercised.

Ofsted both has its own internal complaints service and is subject to the Ofsted Adjudication Service, which is effectively outsourced to the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and this service reports directly to the secretary of state.

I’m not aware of any resesarch which demonstrates that one of these approaches has more credibility than any others. But when the actions of regulators are of huge public interest (such as the FSA) or controversial (the IPCC) expect more people to ask: who regulates the regulators?

Regulation and the media around the web 180509

Judith Townend discovers another lawyer of complexity in regulating media convergence. TV output regulated by Ofcom, blogs not but regulated internally, Twitter not regulated at all
http://beatblogging.org/2009/05/15/uk-news-regulation-stands-in-the-way-of-newsroom-convergence/

Alastair Campbell bemoans the culture of 24 hours news
http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php?id=111

Roy Greenslade asks: why do we need newspapers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/may/18/us-press-publishing-digital-media

Fleet Street blog looks at the story behind the Daily Telegraph’s scoop:
http://fleetstreetblues.blogspot.com/2009/05/story-behind-story-of-year.html

All models of regulation have flaws

A report by the Care Quality Commission today highlights flaws with self-regulation. The NHS Trusts responsible for the care of Baby P were responsible for assessing their own performance. Those Trusts told the (then regulator) the Healthcare Commission that they were doing ok: they were meeting the national standards. In fact of all the measures over three years, the Trusts only declared two out of 60 standards unmet. The commission then rated those Trusts excellent (GOSH) Fair (Whittington) and Good (North Middlesex).

The process for determining these standards is set out by the report:

“Every NHS trust in England is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the Department of Health’s core standards.”

“As part of the current annual health check process, we ask all trusts to assess their performance against the standards and publicly declare this information . . . If the trust’s board is not satisfied that the standards are being met, it must take appropriate action.

The Commission cross-checks the declarations using publicly available information from sources such as clinical audits, surveys and performance data from other regulators. Using all of this information, the Commission’s regional teams target inspections to check that trusts have performed at the level that they actually declared. All non-compliance with the standards is followed up.”

In this instance self-regulation failed tragically but a more heavy-handed system of regulation is also not without problems.

Government regulation can lead to a diminished sense of responsibility amongst those who have to meet the rules. Because someone else is responsible for finding out if you are good enough, you take less responsibility for making sure that you are and spend more time making sure the things that the inspector might find are ok – knowing that there are some things they are less likely to find out.

At the event I attended earlier this week Robert Peston argued that the best form of regulation was one where individuals are encouraged to exercise their judgment and take responsibility for their actions. He suggested that the creation of the Financial Services Authority had led to more rules but a diminished culture of responsibility for adhering not just to the letter but the spirit of the law.

Self-regulation also enables a more proportionate regulatory process. The Healthcare Commission required far fewer inspectors, making it better value for money and was often able to inspect more hospitals, more quickly than a more thorough inspection process. Ofsted began by leading the inspection process but reformed its processes to ensure that inspections happened less frequently but self-inspection enabled inspectors to identify early problems which required greater intervention.

As Deidre Hutton said at the same event, we have a police force but we don’t expect there to be no criminals. So perhaps the failure of the regulatory system in healthcare shouldn’t lead to fundamental reform. But it will be hard for government not to take a more proactive ‘heavy handed’ approach – even though that also has difficulties.