You Care

SOURE: MEDIAWISE – MIKE JEMPSON

6 August 2009 - The ‘silly season’ story no-one expected is news that the Press Complaints Commission intends to investigate itself. For the first time in 18 years an allegedly ‘independent review’ is to be led by Commissioner Vivien Hepworth who is ‘stepping down early’ to spend six months examining the way the PCC conducts its business.

There is something a tad disingenuous about appointing a member of the Commission to lead the reform group which will also include someone with ‘senior experience of the newspaper and magazine industry’. Scepticism may be assuaged if this turns out not to be an editor who has already served on the Commission, nor one whose publication has had to be censured. And it would be healthy if Ms Hepworth were to take on board one of the legion of the critics the PCC has attracted over the years.

More to the point, it is vital that those critics make their own submissions to Ms Hepworth. TheNational Union of Journalists, and other journalists’ organisations, may want to ask why working journalists have been excluded from both the PCC team and the Editors’ Code Committee which sets its terms of reference. The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom will no doubt want to press her to explain why the PCC is being shielded from Freedom of Information requests. The Media Standards Trust, still smarting from the way in which its recent criticism was dismissed by the PCC, will want to present her with the findings of its continuing enquiries about preferable alternatives.


Certainly MediaWise, perhaps the most vocal critical friend of self regulation, will have a contribution to make based on its 16 years of experience in assisting complainants.

This is also an important opportunity for campaigners and charities to speak up for the sectors of society most vulnerable to inaccurate, intrusive or downright prejudicial coverage. These civil society groups are often best placed to represent the interests of asylum-seekers and refugees, people with mental health issues, young people, hospital patents, victims of crime, relatives of disaster victims, families of prisoners, etc. Yet third party complaints are in the main, rejected by the PCC. What is more the Editors’ Code continues to allow discriminatory stories to be published so long as no individual is named – thereby sidestepping the possibility of first person complaints.

It is to be hoped that readers of newspapers and magazines will be encouraged to express their views, via the free advertising offered to the PCC. However, it is unlikely that Ms Hepworth will be afforded the funds to commission a thorough-going survey of how some 50,000 complainants think the PCC should be reformed. The PCC refused to collaborate when MediaWise sought to do this back in 2004, preferring instead to issue self-serving statistics suggesting that the majority were happy with the PCC (though they were only asked if the PCC had complied with its own procedures).

And this brings us to the real question. Why is it “the right time for a fresh and independent look” as Ms Hepworth puts it? Is it because the burgeoning scandals of press malpractice in recent years make such a review inevitable? Is it because the press fear a backlash from politicians whose own unethical antics have so recently been exposed to public scrutiny? Or is it perhaps because year on year the number of complaints the PCC is struggling to deal with is increasing in inverse proportion to falling newspaper revenues?

Who knows, the PCC may end up calling on the public to support its reform agenda if its current paymasters are reluctant to foot the bill.

Mike Jempson
Director, MediaWise

SOURCE: MEDIA GUARDIAN

Press self-regulation body reviews structure for first time since its creation

The Press Complaints Commission, the self-regulation body of the UK newspaper industry, is to launch the first independent review of its governance structure since it was created 18 years ago.

The PCC’s new chairman, Baroness Buscombe, said that the review will examine the operation of the PCC board, sub-committees and secretariat; how transparency in the system can be “enhanced”; whether its independent systems of accountability can be improved and its articles of association. Findings will be published next spring.

It will be led by Vivien Hepworth, executive chairman of the PR firm Grayling, who is a member of the PCC board but will step down before the end of her term to conduct the review. The rest of the review group will be announced in due course.

“I have been impressed… by the extent the PCC works hard behind the scenes to minimise intrusion and resolve complaints quickly and amicably,” said Buscombe, who took over from Sir Christopher Meyer at the PCC in April and is a former chief executive of the Advertising Association.

“However, I think it is important periodically to reflect on the way an organisation works to make sure we have taken account of good practice elsewhere and wider public expectations.”

The launch of the review follows increasing criticism of the PCC in some quarters. Earlier this year the Media Standards Trust published a report arguing that the press was not accountable enough. Its findings were fiercely criticised by Meyer.

Hepworth added: “I am a strong believer in self-regulation of the press but it must constantly adapt in order to prosper. It is the right time for a fresh and independent look at the areas this review will consider.”

MST, an independent journalistic ethics charity, claimed in its report released in February that self-regulation, the bedrock of the PCC’s operations, was “not sustainable in its present form”.

The MST report concluded that the PCC suffered from a lack of “transparency, a lack of accountability, conflicting interests and inadequate resources compared to equivalent organisations” and because it was a complaints body, was not set up to deal with what it claimed was a perceived decline in press standards.

However, Meyer dismissed the MST report as a “cuttings job masquerading as a serious inquiry”, which was “full of assertions, unsupported by the evidence on privacy on public confidence and transparency”.

Last month, following new revelations by the Guardian about alleged phone hacking by the News of the World, the PCC faced questions over whether it had conducted a thorough enough investigation after the paper’s royal reporter, Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed in January 2007 for illegally accessing the voicemails of royal household staff.

The PCC was criticised for failing to question Andy Coulson, who was editing the News of the World when Goodman was arrested. Coulson resigned when Goodman was jailed in January 2007 and the PCC spoke to his successor, Colin Myler. The PCC said it could not call Coulson because he was no longer a News International employee.

In a letter published in the Guardian last month Tim Toulmin, the PCC director, said the commission’s 2007 inquiry had led to six recommendations to newspaper managements to help ensure there would be no repetition of the royal phone hacking saga.

Toulmin added that in light of if there were any complaints that phone messages have been tapped since 2007 the PCC would deal with them, as well as urgently looking at whether the commisison was deliberately misled at any point during its 2007 inquiry.

MEDIA GUARDIAN – GREENSLADE BLOG

Two swift reactions to the announcement that the Press Complaints Commission is to undergo a review from bodies likely to make critical submissions.

MediaWise refers to it as welcome, if overdue –

but says: “There is something a tad disingenuous about appointing a member of the commission to lead the reform group.”

Vivien Hepworth, after seven years on the PCC board, is stepping down in order to lead the review team, which will also include two other independent members and a figure with “senior experience of the newspaper and magazine industry.”

The MediaWise director, Mike Jempson, says: “Scepticism may be assuaged if this turns out not to be an editor who has already served on the commission, nor one whose publication has had to be censured.

“And it would be healthy if Ms Hepworth were to take on board one of the legion of the critics the PCC has attracted over the years.”

He also points out that the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom will probably ask again why the PCC is shielded from freedom of information requests.

Another likely area for Hepworth’s consideration is the PCC’s refusal to accept third party complaints (a particular bone of contention for bodies that represent asylum-seekers and refugees, people with mental health issues, young people, hospital patients, victims of crime, relatives of disaster victims and the families of prisoners).


As Jempson argues, the editors’ code of practice “continues to allow discriminatory stories to be published so long as no individual is named –

thereby sidestepping the possibility of first person complaints.”

He concludes by asking a series of questions:

“Why is it ‘the right time for a fresh and independent look’ as Ms Hepworth puts it? Is it because the burgeoning scandals of press malpractice in recent years make such a review inevitable?

“Is it because the press fear a backlash from politicians whose own unethical antics have so recently been exposed to public scrutiny?

“Or is it perhaps because year on year the number of complaints the PCC is struggling to deal with is increasing in inverse proportion to falling newspaper revenues?”

The Media Standards Trust’s response is altogether more low key in welcoming the announcement of a review ordered by the PCC’s chair, Baroness (Peta) Buscombe.

It refers to its report, A more accountable press, issued in February, that called for urgent reform to the system of press self-regulation.

In its statement yesterday, the MST said:

“The current system of self-regulation… is not transparent or accountable enough, and we are very pleased that the PCC’s review will look at these issues alongside its operation and constitution.”

Martin Moore, the director of the MST, pledged to “be as helpful as we can… We look forward to discussing these issues with the PCC over the coming months.”

The choice of Hepworth’s team is, of course, crucial. Evidently, the PCC has no-one in mind for the other two independent spots. But, as Jempson says, it is the choice of the editorial figure that will indicate just how serious Buscombe is about reform.