1 February 2002 – The departure of Lord Wakeham from the chairmanship of the Press Complaints Commission in the wake of the Enron scandal is doubly significant. On the one hand it represents an all-too-rare example of an honourable and unforced resignation from public office; on the other it provides an opportunity for significant reform of the PCC.
Lord Wakeham’s role will, for the moment, be performed by Professor Robert Pinker, the PCC’s Privacy Commissioner for the past seven years. Professor Pinker is a distinguished academic who has long performed a solid PR role for the Commission, and it is probably unrealistic to expect any radical changes of policy under his leadership. Yet such change is urgently needed, and no time should be lost in finding a permanent successor to his Lordship who will have the courage and clout to implement it.
Under Lord Wakeham the PCC has been notably successful in achieving its main (though undeclared) objective: the avoidance of statutory regulation of the press. It has been less successful in protecting the ordinary citizen from the ethical misdeeds of newspapers, in spite of a reasonable Code of Practice to which, in theory, all editors subscribe. Because it is financed by the industry, because its Code is drawn up by editors, and because it lacks any disciplinary powers, the inevitable impression has been given that this is a cosy club in which the rules are weighted against the complainants – unless they happen to reside in Downing Street or Buckingham Palace.
So what is needed?
1. The Commission must have more significant lay representation of real stature, including membership of the Pressbof committee responsible for initiating the Code.
2. There must be power to levy fines on offending publications and/or order compensation for victims.
3. The Commission should be pro-active, using its discretion to take action against serious transgressions even when there has not been, and sometimes cannot be, a complaint from an injured individual. This is particularly important in cases of racial or ethnic slurs, at present ignored because of the Commission’s refusal to accept “third party” complaints.
4. There is a need for an independent investigating arm of the Commission to establish the facts in each case, with subsequent hearings when those facts are in dispute – along the lines of those conducted by the Broadcasting Services Commission. The current reliance upon written evidence, with only the newspaper involved being granted the right to appear in person, loads the scales against the complainant. Such an investigatory function would cost money, but Pressbof – which provides the Commission’s finance – might consider devoting Lord Wakeham’s £156,000 salary to the task.
5. The Code should be revised and strengthened, with consideration given, among other things, to the inclusion of guidelines for the reporting of suicide.
6. The Commission should use its influence with proprietors to argue for the insertion of a “conscience clause” in journalists’ contracts of employment, permitting them to refuse, without fear of retribution, any assignment which would breach the Code.
Why should the PCC bother to do any of these things? Simply because, with the departure of “the great fixer”, political pressure for the replacement of self-regulation with statutory control is likely to grow much stronger. Neither newspapers (nor, incidentally, PressWise) want to see this happen. The time to act is now.
Bill Norris
Associate Director
(Bulletin No 58)