The Effectiveness of the Current Framework of Self-regulation in dealing with Excesses of Tabloid Press
The press freedom is often presented as an integral feature of democracy. Indeed, it is often argues that censorships and other regulations put on the press are a symbol of suppressive and totalitarian regimes. In fact, this is a notion that is somewhat simplistic and censorship can be both insidious and subtle. For example in the United kingdom, the government interference with the media has most of the times taken a number of subtle forms including restricting access to information and the scene of events, and making access to accurate information extremely difficult (O’Malley and Soley, 2000).
The debate about media regulation and control however rests heavily upon the media themselves. Those who collect, edit, report and disseminate views and news have a huge responsibility of reporting views and events in an objective and accurate manner. The growing competition and tremendous requirements of the modern mass media have been thought to contribute to the spread of irresponsible practice. This is a debate that which emerged following the death the Princess of Wales in the year 1997, which raised the question of press intrusion and privacy. This case as well as many other examples press excesses resulted to repeated calls in the United Kingdom for greater state intervention in the press (Calcutt 1993).
It is undoubtedly true that popular press is often responsible for gross mistakes pertaining to taste, in terms of both the type of news it provides and the means of obtaining the news. For example, the press has exploited sex crimes as a form of titillation, in the attempt to increase circulation. In the effort to address some of the worst excesses of tabloid press, the United Kingdom has a system of self-regulation for the press. The main focus for self-regulation in the United Kingdom is the Press Complaints Commission, PCC, which handles complaints regarding newspaper coverage in addition to establishing a code of practice which the United Kingdom newspapers are expected to adhere to. Hence, self-regulation can be defined as the right of the newspaper industry to regulate itself on matters of standards, and as exemplified in the actions of the press council and its successor, the PCC (Feintuck and Varney, 2006).
While the success of press self-regulation remains a contentious point, moves towards state control and regulation of the press have faced immense opposition. When giving evidence to a Commons committee investigating policy and media intrusion in the month of March, year 2003, Rebeka Wade, the editor of the Sun Newspaper argued forcefully that the PCC had improved the pres standards dramatically and that it was inappropriate for there to be further regulation. Ultimately, the law of the marketplace prevails. This implies that the public purchase what they want, and if they do not wish to watch or read something, then they will not watch television or purchase the newspapers. This claim has some element of truth, though it does not acknowledge the fact that the media may also be instrumental in determination of public tastes. For example, the mass boycott of the Sun newspaper in Liverpool after its coverage of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster (Williams, 2000).
Effective self-regulation entails the Press Council and the PCC actively promoting the interests of the media industry as defined by them and dealing with the increasing number of complaints received regarding press conduct. Traditionally, this was effected through lobbying. The Press Council was at its most positive when intervening or monitoring in the political process, acting as a high-profile extension of the organizations that funded it. The other aspect is privacy whereby the PCC and the Council waged a much more successful campaign opposing the introduction of legislation protecting privacy. Earlier on, the Council held the view that the issue of privacy was not serious because invasions of privacy were uncommon. For example, in the year 1954, the Council made allegations that the invasion of private life is often mentioned in a general manner by speakers with a desire to censure the Press but exceedingly few specific cases have been forwarded before the Council (Engel, 1996).
Alleged invasion and privacy by the media are the integral issues in journalism ethics. The current society greatly values personal privacy and is highly concerned about intrusions into privacy from any given source, inclusive of the media. It is perhaps paradoxical that we also live in a society which thrives on publicity, or at least a society in which many people are dependent on publicity for their activities and lives. This paradox is most of the times diffused by distinguishing between the public and the private aspects of people’s lives, and by further making claims that there is indeed the right to privacy, which can be overridden in the name of public interest under certain circumstances (Calcutt 1993).
There are however some individuals who have disputed the account of privacy arguing that the right to privacy is a mere presumption, and that where some information about a person that would prefer to keep private should be disclosed to the public. Hence, there is no such a thing as justifiable invasion to privacy due to the fact that justification is demonstrating that no privacy could be claimed in the first place. Under this claim, all invasions of privacy are not justifiable (Williams, 2000).
This is particularly the case with politicians and other individual occupying similar positions. It is thus evident that politicians who have their secret love nest exposed in the press are not victims of invasion of privacy because scandalous behavior of this nature cannot claim the protection of privacy under legitimate terms. This is not simply due to the fact that politicians are in the public eye but it is because they, and others holding similar positions wield power in the society. This means that all aspects of exercising their power should be open to public scrutiny. Through this way, corruption in public life can be avoided. Despite the fact that politicians are entitled to privacy, they are not entitled to violate the right to privacy. According to democracy, people who wield power can not make a decision to draw the boundary between the private and public aspects of their lives (Wells, 2003).
The media industry is fully committed to effective self-regulation via the editors of the jurisdiction of the independent PCC and the Code of Practice, with its several lay members. It is undoubtedly clear that the standards of reporting issues have been remarkably high since the establishment of the PCC and the Code in the year 1991. There have been positive changes on various issues including harassment, treatment of children and the sick, intrusion into grief, unacceptable sue of subterfuge and protection of personal privacy in fundamental areas such as victims of sexual assault and health. There has been significant change in the mentioned areas (O’Malley, 2000).
Self-regulation of press has inculcated a culture of correcting errors and inaccuracies relating to breaches of the Code effectively and speedily. According to complaints statistics from the PCC, there are more complaints that ever being resolved. It is however important to note that majority of the companies never reach the Commission but are instead resolved by publishers to the complainant satisfaction without the need for PCC intervention. This is a hidden but substantial success of self-regulation (Dahlgren, 1992).
The PCC has shown to be an accessible and efficient regulator. The increasing number of complaints is not a sign of declining press standards but it denotes increased public awareness of the PCC. The complaints have gradually grown over the years just as PCC’s record has shown remarkable improvement in resolving the complaints. According to the 2009 statistics, over eighty percent of probable breaches of the Code were resolved. Moreover, the system has proved to have the potentiality to adapt to public expectations as well as the technological changes. In the year 2007, the remit of the PCC was extended by the media industry to incorporate online audio-visual material in a flexible and speedy manner that would never have been achieved under any other form of media regulatory system (Belsey and Chadwick, 1992).
Among the symbols of the media industry’s commitment to effective self-regulation is the substantial investment that is has made in the PCC. The industry has invested almost thirty million pounds in the work of the PCC via the Standards Board of Finance since its establishment in 1991.
To date, media regulation has done just enough to make sure that a mixed economy of commercial broadcasting and public service now exists, though there is no doubt in which direction the tide is flowing. If the tradition of public service is to be reinvigorated and defended, it is essential to go beyond the tacit and slightly apologetic defenses of it against arguments that are market-oriented, and instead argue loudly for an acceptance of the reality that only the public service tradition has proven to guarantee the quality and range of programming that reach all sectors (Feintuck, 2006).
The consequence of historical lack of effective media regulation by the state has been the modern realpolitik of the media, under the increasing control of corporate, international, profit-oriented and controlling information flaws which are subject only to vagaries of market tensions. It seems less likely that any serious commentator would argue that this is adequate to ensure that the immense power wielded by the media is sufficiently regulated to ensure fulfillment of the essential, liberal democratic principle that power should not be unlimited (O’Malley, 2000). The fact that the media is increasingly owned by the private sector need not to blind politicians to reality that the media, with their central place in democracy, continue to form an essential public resource and should hence be subject to sufficient accountability mechanisms that ensure that this public function is carried out properly.
References
Baldock, J., Manning, N., and Vickerstaff, S. 2007. Social Policy. Oxford University Press, pg 100
Belsey, A., and Chadwick, R. F. 1992. Ethical issues in journalism and the media. Routledge, pg 77
D. Calcutt. 1993. Review of Press Self-Regulation, London, HMSO
Dahlgren, P. 1992. Journalism and the popular culture. SAGE, pg 130
Feintuck, M., and Varney M. 2006. Media regulation, public interest and the law. Edinburgh University Press, pg 259
M. Engel. 1996. Tickle the Public, One hundred Years of the Popular Press. Victor Gollancz, London
O’Malley, T., and Soley, C. 2000. Regulating the press. Pluto Press, pg 120
Wells, L. 2003. The Photography reader. Routledge, pg 232
Williams, K. 2000 Read all about it!: a history of the British newspaper. Taylor and Francis, pg 173
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
