In this blog I will make brief comments in regard to the initial general impact generated by the "Submissions Received" published on line by the Governance Review Panel. What were the different reasons that prompted submissions being sent to the Panel?. The need to show why one had an axe to grind? That was my initial reason; a vested interest to be promoted by either attempting to broadly maintain the status quo, or to initiate drastic changes in the way the press is regulated? A public spirited desire to get, what the writer or organisation thought, was the best deal for the general public? Or a combination of the reasons mentioned?
Some of the individuals and organisations that presented submissions had, to my way of thinking, awe inspiring credentials in respect of the publishing industry, an example being information that the National Union of Journalists was founded in 1907.
The following examples underscore my just born contention that the Governance Panel will need to display the wisdom of Solomon, in coming up with sound suggestions aimed at improving the standing of the PCC in the eyes of many of its critics, the need for such a power of judgement is clearly shown in my appraisal of the arguments advanced by two lawyers steeped in aspects of the law related to the publishing industry. One lawyer, in 20 pages, took the PCC apart at the seams, the other lawyer appeared to be, in general, more than happy to maintain the present system. If I may be permitted I will make a robust comment and that is "One of these lawyers is on this planet, the other is in cloud cuckoo land some where, but which one?.
The Governance Review Panel have a mammoth task to tackle, their report is expected in late spring. I feel that many people who are interested in the whole concept of press regulation must believe, as I do, that it is now or never time to come up with a system, that meets as many points as possible, in ensuring that any lessons endured in the last twenty years have been noted, and dealt with, without the need for new government imposed legislation. One such point could well be "a right of reply" and, secondly, a hobby horse of mine, "space reserved on page three for complaints against the paper" In several instances I have made it clear that I feel the press should go out of their way, to hold the moral high ground, in regard to influencing the public as to what is and what is not acceptable in relation to taste, decency and offensiveness. In that same mould I note, with something akin to absolute disgust and horror at the vulgarity, and worse, of comments unleashed on line. That, in my opinion, free speech or not, freedom of expression or not, will need drastic legislation to control it, the key words in that regard surely must be absolute zero tolerance.
Frederick W Gilling 22:30 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
Monday 8 March 2010
PCC Governance Review Part Two
My developing thought process, on the Governance Review, was not a conscious action but it MUST have occurred, I will try to explain this not planned shift in the driving force behind, and following on to, my submissions to both the Governance Panel and the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee.
The initial impetus has not changed, that being a deep feeling of injustice over a decision by the PCC in regard to a complaint I made to them. I had an axe to grind and I ground it very hard, I still have the hope that something approaching justice will result to counter balance the amount of time that I have expended in seeking justice. The shift in my thinking has been, I think, on account of my becoming aware of the of the much broader issues in respect of regulating the, potentially unbridled power of the press, with the need for press freedom. This new found appreciation of the complexity of the problems involved in attempting to find a solution to the, over simplified, POWER v FREEDOM conundrum has resulted in my newly found un- blinkered awareness, of the vitally important issues involved in attempting to regulate the press.
The submissions received by the Governance Panel are listed in two distinct groups, the first group I assume were, in the main, submitted by individuals or interested parties by post. The second group comes under the heading "on line petition".
There were 18 submissions in the first group and 23 in the second. I set about reading them all, this was, it transpired, no small task in regard to the first group, but far, far easier with the second, the reasons for this being: in the first group some of the submissions were very long and meticulously detailed, one running to about 48 pages of quite small print, my speed reading will have to be backed up with several hours more time, but at least I was able to make a few small comments in respect of each. In the second group 21 of the 23 were broadly the same but never the less some of those did add interesting comments. Many of these particular submissions were only one page in length.
I must confess that I expected to see many more submissions than those presented, there may of course be many more submissions the writers of which did not wish them to be published, one reason for this could have been that the writers were only too aware of the power of the press.The "spin" specialists could have a field day in explaining my perceived shortage of submissions; it shows that most people are happy with the way the PCC is independently self-regulating the press! People did not send in submissions because they knew it would not make a difference, take your pick. I do note however that some very large guns did open fire.
My next blog "PCC Governance Review Part Three" will express some of my views based on the general tenor of the submissions I have seen.
Frederick W Gilling 15:34 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
The initial impetus has not changed, that being a deep feeling of injustice over a decision by the PCC in regard to a complaint I made to them. I had an axe to grind and I ground it very hard, I still have the hope that something approaching justice will result to counter balance the amount of time that I have expended in seeking justice. The shift in my thinking has been, I think, on account of my becoming aware of the of the much broader issues in respect of regulating the, potentially unbridled power of the press, with the need for press freedom. This new found appreciation of the complexity of the problems involved in attempting to find a solution to the, over simplified, POWER v FREEDOM conundrum has resulted in my newly found un- blinkered awareness, of the vitally important issues involved in attempting to regulate the press.
The submissions received by the Governance Panel are listed in two distinct groups, the first group I assume were, in the main, submitted by individuals or interested parties by post. The second group comes under the heading "on line petition".
There were 18 submissions in the first group and 23 in the second. I set about reading them all, this was, it transpired, no small task in regard to the first group, but far, far easier with the second, the reasons for this being: in the first group some of the submissions were very long and meticulously detailed, one running to about 48 pages of quite small print, my speed reading will have to be backed up with several hours more time, but at least I was able to make a few small comments in respect of each. In the second group 21 of the 23 were broadly the same but never the less some of those did add interesting comments. Many of these particular submissions were only one page in length.
I must confess that I expected to see many more submissions than those presented, there may of course be many more submissions the writers of which did not wish them to be published, one reason for this could have been that the writers were only too aware of the power of the press.The "spin" specialists could have a field day in explaining my perceived shortage of submissions; it shows that most people are happy with the way the PCC is independently self-regulating the press! People did not send in submissions because they knew it would not make a difference, take your pick. I do note however that some very large guns did open fire.
My next blog "PCC Governance Review Part Three" will express some of my views based on the general tenor of the submissions I have seen.
Frederick W Gilling 15:34 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
Sunday 7 March 2010
Update on Governance Review of Press Complaints Commission
Re-capping on the title to this blog. The Chairman of the PCC, Baroness Buscombe, instigated an independent review of the governance of the PCC and a panel was formed, under the Chairmanship of Ms Vivian Hepworth, to conduct this review. Submissions were invited for consideration by the panel, the deadline for submissions being the 25th January 2010.
More or less within the same time frame, but otherwise not connected, "The Editors' Code Committee" were holding the annual review of the Code which lays down guide lines to be followed by the Publishing Industry in general. Suggestions in regard, specifically, to this Code were invited, the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee is Mr Ian Beales.
I submitted my suggestions to the Governance Review Panel and to the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee. On Friday 05 March 2010 the Governance Review published, on line, the submissions they had received from individuals/organisations who were not averse to their names being associated with their submissions. As far as I am aware the submissions were published verbatim. I wish to comment that, in my opinion, the Governance Review Panel has played with a dead straight bat and that Mr Beales has been totally professional, in his office of Secretary, in handling my submissions.
The submissions can be seen via www.pccgovernancereview.org.uk and the link Submissions Received.
This blog will be continued in "PCC Governance Review Part Two"
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 07 March 2010
More or less within the same time frame, but otherwise not connected, "The Editors' Code Committee" were holding the annual review of the Code which lays down guide lines to be followed by the Publishing Industry in general. Suggestions in regard, specifically, to this Code were invited, the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee is Mr Ian Beales.
I submitted my suggestions to the Governance Review Panel and to the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee. On Friday 05 March 2010 the Governance Review published, on line, the submissions they had received from individuals/organisations who were not averse to their names being associated with their submissions. As far as I am aware the submissions were published verbatim. I wish to comment that, in my opinion, the Governance Review Panel has played with a dead straight bat and that Mr Beales has been totally professional, in his office of Secretary, in handling my submissions.
The submissions can be seen via www.pccgovernancereview.org.uk and the link Submissions Received.
This blog will be continued in "PCC Governance Review Part Two"
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 07 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)