PCC Governance Review Part Three

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