Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

« Older Entries

Andreas Whittam Smith: right and wrong on press self-regulation reform

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Andreas Whittam Smith would not welcome my views on his article about the reform of press self-regulation. He has already dismissed the views of anyone who isn’t a newspaper editor as a ‘stray passer-by’ with “little to contribute”. However, his article in the Independent isn’t totally wrong.

He believes that newspapers “have weakened self-regulation by under-resourcing it”. Like the select committee and Nick Davies, Whittam Smith is critical of the lack of involvement of ordinary journalists in the Press Complaints Commission. Mr Whittam Smith also believes that the PCC’s remedy is not used correctly. He takes aim at the prominence of adjudications:

“To make an editor print an apology in exactly the same position and with exactly the same weight as the offending article would, I know from how I used to feel when the subject came up, cause almost unbearable anguish. The humiliation of it!”

But Whittam Smith is misleading on some aspects of reform of press self-regulation. He opposes fines, which is a reasonable position, but marshalls misleading language for his argument. Whittam Smith writes that “with money at risk, newspapers would want to be represented by lawyers at hearings”. This is undoubtedly true but obscures the fact newspaper’s legal teams already deal with the PCC.

Whittam Smith believes that fines would be unfair because some newspapers are wealthy and some are less so. But if you don’t pay for a TV licence the fine is not altered according to your personal wealth. The Media Standards Trust argues for a different principle: that the fine should be different according to the seriousness of the offence, rather than the wealth of the offender.

He also argues that fines would require statutory regulation because some newspapers would refuse to pay. That’s not the case. As the Media Standards Trust’s submission to the PCC’s governance review made clear, there are other bodies which fine their members without statutory backing. The newspaper would be bound by the terms of the contract of membership to pay the fine. If they refuse, they have breached that contract. They would always be free, though, to leave the PCC. But that’s the essence of self-regulation.

Andreas Whittam Smith is wrong on two fundamental issues. Firstly, he sees the principle of self-regulation as analgous to a City private members club, where the incentive is that one is reluctant to be dismissed. That hasn’t worked for the City and that’s not sufficient incentive for the modern newspaper industry that’s competing for readers globally and is facing economic pressures from amateur journalism. Self-regulation must become a badge of honour, a competitive edge; a set of standards which gives readers (the customer) something to know that they can value what they read.

Secondly, he writes of the relationship of a newspaper with its readers as follows:

“Newspaper editors don’t have a lot of time for what lay people may think of their methods”

If he is right, perhaps Mr Whittam Smith has highlighted why newspaper readership has collapsed and newspaper groups aren’t confident that if they charged for their work anyone would pay. Perhaps newspapers need to be run by people who care more about their customers, what their customers think of their product and can make a persuasive case for claiming special privileges for their work.

Tags:
Posted in Media | No Comments »

The PCC got it right on Jan Moir complaint

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

I believe the Press Complaints Commission was right to not uphold the complaint by Stephen Gately’s partner about Jan Moir’s vicious, nasty and spiteful ‘opinion’ piece about the death of Stephen Gately. As I previously suggested by the standards the press sets itself, the judgement is consistent with the code and the freedom of expression.

However, the PCC now faces a huge challenge to rebuild public confidence in a judgement that is likely to be unpopular and misunderstood. It’s not the PCC’s fault that it received more complaints about that article than it had received over the previous five years. But many of those who complained will be dissatisfied by the process. And this case does pose challenges for the PCC to address, partly through its governance review.

The Editors Code itself needs further thought. That newspapers are free to offend should be beyond doubt. But the code allows discrimination against groups rather than individuals. This is out of step with the law, the definition of racism post-Macpherson, and societal norms. It’s also a bit silly. The code’s distinction is equivalent to allowing me to write ‘all newspaper editors are liars’, or ‘all Daily Mail journalists are homophobic’ as long as I don’t single out individual journalists.

The process by which the code can be amended has been opened up in recent years but still lacks transparency, independence and accountability. By enabling the public in to the process, the code committee recognises the importance of the code in instilling public confidence in the standards of journalism – surely a vital part of any economic recovery for the sector. But no member of the public can sit on the committee, the consultation takes place in secret and the rationale for revisions is not made clear. Until last week, the PCC still distributed the press releases for this apparently independent body.

The PCC’s lack of clarity on who is an eligible complainant meant – in this case – that it required a complaint from the grieving Andrew Cowles – for the investigation to proceed. Otherwise the complaints of 25,000 others may have been rejected. One can only imagine how the Daily Mail would have reacted if complaints by its readers about Celebrity Big Brother had been rejected because they weren’t Shilpa Shetty.

The PCC’s decision-making processes also require reform. It’s odd that we don’t know which members of the commission were present to consider the Jan Moir complaint. We’re told that despite being a member of the commission, the Mail on Sunday editor wasn’t involved in the decision. The PCC said:

“This is in line with the PCC’s normal procedures when a title edited by a Commission member is subject to a PCC complaint.”

For the avoidance of doubt, the editor of the Mail on Sunday is not the editor of the Daily Mail. Should we therefore conclude that the PCC’s normal procedures mean that the editor of the News of the World is not involved in complaints against the Sun? And with no formal minutes published, how could we find out?

With a commission that meets in secret we don’t even know when the decision was made, let alone what case was made in the prosecution or defence. The PCC argues that one of it’s benefits is that it avoids the costs of lawyers. But we may never know if Andrew Cowle’s complaint (made through a team of solicitors) was challenged by the Daily Mail’s lawyers.

We don’t know how much the Daily Mail pays for the PCC (the funding is passed through intermediaries) or whether the PCC has sufficient resource to run a system which attracts this volume of public concern.

Baroness Buscombe was brave – and right – to come out and defend the decision in other media. And hearing her defence may go some way to instilling confidence in the judgement. But I was concerned by her argument that the context of the piece was important, particularly that it had appeared in page 37. It did, of course, but there was also a banner on the frontpage drawing attention to the article. So what if the case had gone the other way? Would a ruling four months after the event have made an impact? Would an apology on page 37 – or in Moir’s column – been enough?

The PCC’s governance review – although tightly defined – is the opportunity to address these issues. Unfortunately, the submissions it has received are still awaiting publication. If this opportunity for reform is missed, confidence in self-regulation of the press will be diminished.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Media | No Comments »

Tiger Woods: private person public life

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Tiger Woods is an international superstar. His face is one of the most recognisable across the globe. He’s a figure that transcends his discipline – golf – and has become an icon to millions. Moreover despite being the most successful golfer of his generation and probably, before long, of all time, he has earned more money outside the sport than from his golfing exploits. All of these are good reasons for Tiger Woods’ private life to be a matter of considerable public interest.

But there’s an even better reason why Tiger Woods’ personal affairs are not a matter of public interest: he has never courted publicity. Yes, his wife was a matter of public record and she occasionally attended tournaments. But he did not frequently sell pictures to the media. He went to extraordinary lengths to avoid ‘the circuit’ which comes with the game. He didn’t ‘do Oprah’, Letterman or any of the other celebrity programmes where you might see a David Beckham or Tom Cruise. Nor would he be photographed in bars like a Phelps.

Tiger has never even tried to be an icon or purported to be a role model. His advertising endorsements are not based on anything other than his greatness as a golfer. Despite being the most high profile black sportsman in the game (and possibly across all sports) he kept his views on Barack Obama completely private – and never sort to provide leadership on race or integration issues. And he was playing in an sport beset with racial tensions. I looked less favourably on him for that lack of leadership – but can’t doubt his right to privacy.

Tiger Woods’ studious observance of his private life has now been destroyed. His reputation will only be repaired if he decides to further compromise his privacy by giving a ‘personal account‘ of his side of the story. And by compromising his privacy he will legitimise future breaches of his privacy.

This is not a criticism of the British press or the PCC. The UK at least has an agreed code on privacy – even some photos taken in public places are considered private. But the code does allow British papers to report stories which are already available elsewhere. The absence of a similar code in the USA – and importantly the absence of an industry consensus – means the only privacy code is the pact between PR experts and the press.

Ultimately it’s down to us as consumers to reject stories simply because they titillate. But until that point, great yet recluse sports stars will have to balance the pressure of excelling on and off the pitch. For some, that pressure will be too great.

Tags: ,
Posted in Media | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries