Five-step plan to greater responsibility in UK print Journalism.
When the press get it wrong, as they tend to do, naming, shaming and accusing innocent people with inaccurate reporting, very often in bold front-page headlines. The apology and correction must be of a representative size and prominence to the untruth that has been printed. On many occasions (see YOUR STORIES) we have been informed by the public of circumstances where individuals/families have had their lives ruined, shunned in their communities because people still believe the untruths that have been written about a family member.
In order to protect innocent individuals, any apology or correction must be of the same size and prominence as the lie. If this policy were enforced effectively newspapers would be forced to think carefully before slandering and accusing. This would help to ensure that newspapers take the correct care in assessing whether the evidence they have is strong enough before publication of a story, which has the potential to do permanent damage to an individual’s life and reputation. As an accusational bold front page Headline when they get it wrong would demand a front-page bold apology and correction. This currently is not the case as recent scandalous reporting of Madelaine McCann’s disappearance proves. (see Media Guardian articles concerning Robert Murat and The McCann family) Accountability is a natural consequence of wrong actions; the fact that newspapers are not held accountable effectively is a major contributing factor to the decline of newspaper standards we are witnessing.
The implementation of a system where proven falsehoods are guaranteed to be corrected in print, of relative size and prominence would have the following benefits. Newspapers who will not wish their publication to be filled with corrections will be forced to take more care over the accuracy of any story. If they wish to print an accusational and potentially slanderous story about an ‘individual’ (which tends to be the focus of tabloid reporting) they should be made very aware that if they get it wrong a relative page space will be taken up by the apology and correction required by law if they get it wrong. This is the core of Youcare.com’s petition. This simple common sense policy is just and fair and will help to create greater Integrity in journalism so desperately needed in the UK.
All citizens’s need to be protected against irresponsible untrue journalism. A front-page inaccurate accusational story naturally requires a front-page correction and apology of relative size and prominence. In the interests of accurate responsible journalism and the protection of UK citizen’s rights it is high time this system was implemented.
But isn’t there a system in place already?
Currently there is a system of self-regulation in the UK and yes; relative prominence does feature in their Editor’s code which newspapers are supposed to abide by
We have all witnessed however how ineffective the current system of self-regulation has become. When a citizen currently complains about newspaper inaccuracies the PCC acts as a mediator between newspaper and complainant and often complaints are settled with private and not public apologies. Relative size and prominence to apologies and corrections is not being enforced effectively therefore newspapers are not being held accountable. This lack of effective accountability is a major cause of the irresponsible journalism we have all witnessed recently. During the process of mediation between complainant and newspaper there is much negotiation and bargaining to resolve each complaint. Each newspaper has a legal department whose job is to negotiate in these circumstances. The end result of this mediation between professional legal department and individual is that yes, often complaints are settled but not in a manor which would encourage greater integrity in future. Relative size and prominence to inaccurate reporting is not implemented. The interests of newspapers are more greatly served than ensuring justice and integrity and the rights of UK citizens.
It should not be a matter of bargaining between newspaper and complainant. But a strictly enforced code of practice so newspapers and the public know exactly where they stand and what their rights are. If newspapers were certain that any lie they printed would be addressed swiftly and effectively as a matter of law and principle they would not have felt so confident to print the unfounded lies and vicious rumour concerning the McCann family. With this system in place, The Sun newspaper would have been forced to apologise on the front page for the terrible lies they printed concerning Liverpool fans after the terrible tragedy at Hillsborough in 1989. It is not only that individual’s complaints are resolved satisfactorily; newspapers must address inaccuracies in relative size and prominence to encourage greater care in their reporting. If they are not held responsible for getting it wrong, why should they care?
The McCann’s recent apology for the accusational, lies and slanderous abuse directed at the McCann family recently is a good example of what should be required in regard to relative prominence and size of apologies to front page untrue headlines. In order for them to receive this apology and correction however the McCann’s needed to enlist the services of expensive libel lawyers, financially out of reach of the greater percentage of UK Citizens. It is clear that individuals that cannot afford the best lawyers need to be protected against this level of malicious press intrusion and falsehood.
