My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part Two.

In Part One I explained my thoughts about the expression "Independent Self-Regulating" and then went on to deride it as a charade as, I think, the expression contradicts itself and should not be used as such. In the case of the publishing industry the expression can also be described as a facade behind which the industry can hide. The PCC, which presumably the industry created, helps to prop up this facade, indeed they often pat themselves on the back as they thicken the wall by claiming the success of "Independent Self-Regulation". I repeat the question, how can the word "Independent" be used when the industry tells them what rules [Code] to follow and pays their wages to do it?

At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.

As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.

Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.

I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.

The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.

In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.

Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010