Complaining Directly to Newspapers

Over a year ago, I sent a six page letter to the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as to eight of the national papers. The letter was prompted by a deep feeling of injustice I had over a decision by the Press Complaints Commission. This decision caused me, almost involuntarily, to really assess the press and its impact on so many aspects of our lives.

In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.

"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.

If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.

The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.

The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.

I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.

In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?

One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.

Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?

The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?

I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.

A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.

Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010