The Press Complaints Commission

<< A new beginning | The Power of Information >>

Jan 18 2010

The Press Complaints Commission

Category: Media — clive @ 20:33

UPDATE 22-Jan-2010 21:50

The PCC petition is currently unavailable. For more information see this post at Bloggerheads.

In the UK the press is effectively self-regulated by a body called the Press Complaints Commission. However history has shown a chronic unwillingness for the PCC to act with any real force. As Nick Davies over at Flat Earth News has noted, over a 10 year period the PCC received over 28,000 complaints regarding breaches of its code. Fully 90% of these were rejected on technical grounds without any investigation by the PCC. Of the remainder a mere 1.6% or 448 complaints went to adjudication, and more than half of these were rejected.

So the PCC is hardly an auspicious body, but what can we do?

Annually the PCC invites suggestions for improvments to the the Editors Code of Practice. This year a group of concerned bloggers have decided to make a submission, the detail of which follows below:

SUGGESTION ONE: Like-for-like placement of retractions, corrections and apologies in print and online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies should normally be at least equally prominent to the original article, in both print and online editions. Any departure from this rule should only be in exceptional circumstances, and the onus on showing such circumstances should be on the publication.

SUGGESTION TWO: Original or redirected URLs for retractions, corrections & apologies online (as standard).

Retractions, corrections, and apologies in respect of online articles should always be displayed either at the original URL or at a URL to which the reader is redirected.

SUGGESTION THREE: The current Code contains no reference to headlines, and this loophole should be closed immediately.

Headlines should be covered by the same rules as the rest of a story. Further, headlines and titles for links should never be misleading in what they imply or offer and should always be substantiated by the article/contents.

SUGGESTION FOUR: Sources to be credited unless they do not wish to be credited or require anonymity/protection.

Sources should normally be credited. Any departure from this rule should only be when the source does not wish to be credited or if the source requires anonymity/protection.

SUGGESTION FIVE: A longer and more interactive consultation period for open discussion of more fundamental issues.

We submit all of the above without implying support for the PCC, the remainder of Code as it stands, or even the concept of self-regulation, and request that the 20th year of the PCC be marked with an open debate about its progress to date, and its future direction.

Now I'm not massively optomistic about the chances of any of the above being adopted. In fact it is highly unlikely that the PCC will give anything more than lip service to any suggestions it receives. But a slim chance of success is no excuse for inaction. Make your voice heard and send a message to the PCC and the press, please sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/pcc/. The more people who sign the petition, the harder it will be for the PCC to dismiss these suggestions as the troublesome posturing of a vocal minority.

The suggestions are the result of discussions amongst the following bloggers: