media regulation and democracy

7/31/2019 Media Regulation and Democracy

1/62

COMMENTFACTOPINIONDATAF A C T O P I N I O N C O M M E N T C O MMENTFACT COMMENTOPIAND

N D A T A I N F O R M D E M O C R A C YOPINIONDATAOPINIONCONTENTFACTDATAFACTMEDIAINFORMATIONOPINIONFACTINFORMATIODATAREGULATIONOPINIONFACTDATACOMMENTDATAFACTINFORMATIONANDFACTDATAINF O R M D E M O C R A C Y C O M M E N TDATAOPINIONDEMOCRACYCOMMENTINFORMATIONDATAFACTDATAINFORMDEMOCRACYOPINONCOMMENTDATAOPINIONFACT

DATACOMMENTINFORMATION

DATAFJULYIN2012DEMOCRACYOPINIONCOMMENTTHEOPINONCOMMENTDEMOCRATICCOM

MENTDATAOPINIONSOCIETYCOM

MENTINFORMATIONDATAFACTCOMMENTDATAOPINIONFACTDATACOMMENTINFORMATIO


2/62

2

Media Regulation & DemocracyDemsoc 4

Tis content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0Licence.

You are ree to copy, distribute and transmit the work and to adapt the work as long asyou attribute the work to [Author Name] / Te Democratic Society, but not in any waythat suggests the author or Demsoc endorse you or your use o the work. You may not use

the work or commercial purposes without permission. For more details on this licence,see http://creativecommons.co.uk

For any questions about the document, contact Susie Latta at the Democratic Society,[email protected]

July 2012


3/62

3

CONTENTSForeword 5

Media Regulation and Democracy 7

What should be regulated, and how? 15

Health reporting: the case or change 27

Hey! Regulator! Leave those hyperlocals alone 33

How to clean up the mess 45

Rectiying the aw 49

A press regulator without teeth is no press regulator at all 55

Contributors 60

About the Democratic Society 61


4/62

4


5/62

5

FOREwORD

Douglas white

Te question o how the press in the UK might be regulated in the

uture is one o the critical public policy issues o 2012, and one that is

the subject o signicant debate and scrutiny at the Leveson Inquiry.

Devising such a new regulatory system will be no easy task and

nding a solution which wins the approval o citizens, the indus-

try and politicians will not be straightorward. At the Carnegie UK

rust we are concerned that the debate about press regulation has

at times threatened to become polarised between those who avour

tough new constraints to control press behaviour, and those who ar-gue that any tightening o the system will impinge upon press ree-

dom. In reality there are many dierent acets to the debate, and

we believe that civil society organisations as vital components o a

ourishing democracy have a valuable role to play in widening its

parameters.

o help encourage the process o civil society engagement with thedebate we published Regulation o the Press Nine Key Questions or

Civil Society in September last year.1 Following on rom this publi-

cation, we have supported Te Democratic Society to collate a range

o dierent viewpoints, rom across civil society, on the key issues

involved. Te collection o articles presented here represents the

1 http://dmsc.me/RemLLa


6/62

6

output rom the work that Demsoc has carried out. We hope that

these insightul, well-argued pieces will provide urther inspiration

and ideas to those citizens and civil society groups still considering

their own views on these important issues.

Te articles reect the plurality o views which exist about how

some o the challenging questions around press regulation should

be addressed. Some o these arguments align with the Carnegie UK

rusts own views on these matters which are articulated in our

recent Better Journalism in the Digital Age report written by Blair

Jenkins2 while others do not. It is not important or indeed nec-

essary or civil society to reach a consensus on these questions.

What is needed is or many dierent voices to be heard, and or us

all to debate the complex issues seriously, properly and airly, to help

identiy a way orward.

I this is achieved, then not only will it be a great example o democ-

racy in action, but the result will hopeully be a new press regulatory

ramework which supports and enhances our democracy. We hope

that this piece o work makes a useul contribution towards achiev-

ing these important objectives

Douglas White

Senior Policy Ocer

Carnegie UK rust

2 http://dmsc.me/MV4ySF


7/62

7

MEDIA REGULATION AND

DEMOCRACY

Anthony Zacharzeski and Paul Connolly

Good democracy needs good inormation. When an article starts likethat, you can bet that beore long well be talking about the right o

ree speech, and maybe bringing in a quotation rom a Founding Fa-

ther or some other Enlightenment gure, maybe Voltaire saying that

he disagrees with what someone says but will deend to the death

their right to say it.

Tats not where we want to go with this. Te inormation that gooddemocracy needs is only sporadically provided by the media today,

and developments o democracy - particularly the drive towards lo-

calism - mean that democracy and the media are moving in opposite

directions, one centralising, the other ragmenting.

Tat vision o the press as the orge o ideas and the democratic chal-

lenge to power is still strong, even i only as a promised land that to-days Jordan-obsessed tabloids can never reach, but political journal-

ism has always been an elite conversation. Nick Robinsons instant

analysis o every political interview is elite gossip-mongering, uncon-

nected to the lives o ordinary people. Te Kremlinology around the

Blair/Brown relationship could easily have been an eighteenth-cen-

tury coee-shop conversation about whether the Prussian ambassa-

dor had scandalously been seated below the Bishop o Winchester at


8/62

8

the Prince o Waless dinner.

We are not saying that there should be more policy and less person-

ality in the media - thats oten the sort o argument that those in-

terested in policy make. Policy discussion is important, but we knowthat the commercial requirement and the complexity o modern po-

litical arguments dont go together. As policy wonks, we are resigned

to heading down to the basement o the RSA to read our special

publications rather than nding a Sun pull-out on economic pro-

ductivity.

At the same time, we do not want a world where the Leader o theOpposition puts out demographically-tested statements about his

avourite avour o jam, while postponing any statement on policy

until the week beore a general election is called.

Instead, media needs to provide or better, more participative democ-

racy, and media regulation needs to support that. What does that

mean? Te purpose o the project was to gather a range o views onthat question, and they are presented here. Our thanks and those o

Demsoc go to all the contributors, and to the Carnegie UK rust,

who provided unding or our discussion event in May.

We should add a brie word about what you can nd here. Our con-

tributors produced rst drats o these pieces on the Demsoc blog, 3

in advance o the discussion event, where we discussed the issuesraised. Contributors then had the opportunity to revise their re-

marks beore we edited and collated them here or publication. As

with the Carnegie UK rust, not all these pieces reect the views o

Demsoc, but we think they are all valuable contributions to the de-

bate on media and democracy, and are delighted to be able to publish

3 http://www.demsoc.org/


9/62

9

them in this orm.

From such dierent contributions, can we draw any conclusions? We

think there are common themes.

Te concentration o media power, rather than the nature o the media,

is the problem.

Many contributors agreed that the root o the problem with media

behaviour is concentrated power - economic power o owners and

the messaging power o their outlets - which lacks accountability and

allows bad behaviour. One o our discussion contributors said:

Te issue is o concentration o power in the press, such

that it can thwart investigation into its activities. Some o

the coverage o individuals, particularly those who are not

politicians or celebrities, is highly unethical and corrosive

to society. Tere is no public interest deence to much o

it, it is there to prove the newspapers editorial line. Tesesorts o stories happen ar more than they should, and they

are corrosive and unethical.

It is hard to disentangle the concentration o power in large media

groups (which can be dealt with under competition law) rom the

unethical practices that result rom that (which are harder to reg-

ulate). Tere is, however, a lack o checks and balances within themedia, and that has skewed debate so that the media is unable to

provide an eective challenge to power on crucial issues.

Te media has multiple blind spots, or perhaps more accurately tun-

nel vision or a particular set o attitudes and liestyles - richer, older

and more to the political right than the population as a whole, re-

ecting media buying patterns. It was, or example, hard to hear the


10/62

10

voices challenging neoliberal economics beore the current economic

crisis. Te Icelandic ash cloud story was dominated by stories about

the disruption to travel rather than diculties with transporting or-

gans or transplant.4

Bring citizens into the media, and let new orms o media develop

One way o holding media to account, and broadening the coverage

they provide could be the use o ocial or unocial citizens panels

to make recommendations and comment on coverage. In the main-

stream media the only relationship between readers and journalists

is a nancial one, the only power is to buy or not. Readers view owhat they consider news and what is in the public interest is not

heard. And readers o traditional media cant reach other readers to

discuss issues with them.

O course, there are many environments where non-traditional me-

dia allows readers to do just that. More primary sources are available

to us than ever beore. We can go directly to the source, and the roleo print media is shiting rom direct reporting to nding hard to get

inormation and interpreting or commenting on that inormation.

Is Lord Leveson looking to regulate yesterdays problem? And i we

are to have regulation, what is its role around hyperlocal and online

media?

Damian Radclie (Hey! Regulator! Leave those hyperlocals aloneon page 33) makes a strong case or regulation to bite on the larger

media groups, not the hyperlocals. His pieces echoes another theme

o our discussions - whether you can draw a distinction between the

public sphere element o media (the contribution to public debate),

and sports or entertainment coverage.

4 http://dmsc.me/MV6avQ


11/62

11

Dave Boyle (Rectiying the aw on page 49) looks at the possi-

ble role o cooperatives in distributing media power away rom the

current set o dominant oligarchs to more accountable and repre-

sentative owners.

Regulation: redress harm, or uphold truth?

Most contributors seemed to believe that the instruments or con-

trolling press conduct and culture were inadequate and that some

new regulatory solution might be required. Kevin Charman-Ander-

son (How to clean up the mess on page 45) considers the rela-

tionship o press regulation to its culture, while Suw Charman-An-derson describes the inadequacies o the sanctions to which press

misdemeanours are subject (A press regulator without teeth is no

press regulator at all on page 55).

Contributors diered on where any new regulatory ocus should be.

Tere was or example much discussion over whether the issue o theharms that newspapers can do had become needlessly blurred during

the early stages o Leveson with the more rareed privacy concerns

o powerul celebrities.

Ten there was the issue o regulation and accuracy. Media makes

multiple civic contributions o one orm or another, whether a hy-

perlocal blog arguing against a planning application, or a nationalnewspaper calling or welare reorm. Te resulting debates are par-

tisan and the line between act and comment is blurred. Te truth

can get lost.

Should the emphasis o new regulation be dealing with harms, deal-

ing with accuracy, or both? How do we uphold accuracy while pro-

tecting the right o people to have an opinion? Since the harmulness


12/62

12

o press coverage may vary in relation to the power o the target,

should regulation avour the powerless private citizen or treat celeb-

rities and non-celebrities alike? What mechanisms can protect truth,

persons and reedom o expression at the same time?

All contributors elt that the issues o harm and truthulness were

important, but there were dierences o emphasis both over what

constituted harm and whether regulation could police truthulness

eectively. Paul Connolly (What should be regulated, and how? on

page 15), or example, suggests that a uture regulator should pre-

occupy itsel with the protection o vulnerable private citizens rather

than celebrities. However, he argues that while delity to a abstract

standards o truthulness and quality are desirable, they are perhaps

not best addressed (or even addressable) through regulation, but are

amenable to other remedies, such as ownership limits and market

diversication.

Miles aylor by contrast argues (Health reporting: the case or

change on page 27) that the acts problem is serious and systemic.

He highlights coverage o the MMR vaccine scare as well as a range

o issues considered by Ben Goldacre in the Guardian5 and argues

that the problem warrants a regulatory intervention and strong sanc-

tions to get editors to concern themselves with accuracy, nuance and

scientic process.

Others contributors, by contrast, were interested to explore how

standards could be upheld so as to improve the print medias contri-

bution to the eective unctioning o democracy. One issue was the

paradox o impartiality. A desire to present two sides to an argument

(even i they are oten two avours o the same side) sometimes un-

balances coverage in avour o those with minority views. Paul Krug-

5 http://dmsc.me/KU5FCd


13/62

13

man has described this sort o reporting as opinions dier on the

shape o the world.6 Te MMR vaccination scare is itsel an example

where one view was inormed by a body o validated research and the

other (minority view) was actually wrong, yet received a considera-

ble amount o airtime

Media transparency

Rather than trying to perect a dying model, we should ask what we

want our media to be. We need a national public sphere to prevent

opinion and debate rom splitting into like-minded echo chambers,

but contributors to that public sphere need more accountability orbehaviour and the consequences o their actions.

I we could see what the quality o reporting was, and what inuences

and political positions were acting on newspapers, it could support

a culture o healthy scepticism around reporting. Te Daily Show in

the United States covers news accuracy in an accessible, interesting

way. Also in the US, the Cook Index gives electoral districts and in-dividuals rolling partisan averages7 - perhaps a similar project could

give newspapers a rolling average o truthulness or bias, either as a

public benet project, or with egregious breaches drawn beore a reg-

ulator. It is hard to imagine a regulator doing this checking or them-

selves, but there is possibly scope or it to be done through crowd-

sourcing bringing the public in to hold newspapers to account is a

powerul message.

6 http://dmsc.me/Ret2q8

7 http://dmsc.me/MV7IFU


14/62

14


15/62

15

wHAT SHOULD bE REGULATED,

AND HOw?

Paul Connolly

Many people believe the phone hacking scandal and revelations in

and around the Leveson Inquiry prove things have gone wrong andthat some regulatory remedy is needed. Where they oten dier is on

whether regulation should be statutory. Tose who oppose statutory

regulation equate it with invasive political control and worry about

the phenomenon o state-licensed journalists. Tose who support

it point to the ineectiveness and producer capture o voluntary

schemes.

Tis is a simplistic division. Many regulators that are dened in stat-

ute and publicly unded are operated independently o government.

Voluntary systems can be massively onerous. Statutory regulation

does not necessarily require prior licensing o market entry. Many

publicly unded regulators do not issue permits to trade in a particu-

lar market, but rather have a presumed investigative competence over

it.

In the case o a uture press regulator, that competence could be

devised in an unobtrusive orm, with the regulator only investigat-

ing complaints and not upholding standards by inspection or other

compliance checks. By contrast, some o the levy-unded sel-regula-

tion schemes Lord Justice Leveson has been invited to consider have


16/62

16

licensing characteristics. For example, some advocates o voluntary

schemes try to overcome the issue o non-participation by suggesting

that scheme membership and the payment o an industry levy could

be necessary preconditions or obtaining certain accreditations and

privileges that are crucial to eective market participation (like ac-

cess to the Lobby). How odd in the 21st Century to hear the virtues

o guilds being extolled by certain Meistersinger von Fleetstrae. For

thats in eect what we have here: a guild, just as problematic as state

licensing, biased in avour o existing players and business models.

Moreover, since it may be possible to operate as a saleable i third-

rate newspaper without access to incentives like Lobby accreditation,a voluntary scheme could have unintended consequences or quality

and provide no real guarantee that the absenteeism currently under-

mining the PCC and its voluntary code would be solved.

Tis is probably academic anyway. As ar as one can decode Lord Jus-

tice Levesons cautious pronouncements, he appears to believe that

there is a case or regulation and seems to avour a creature o stat-ute that is not operated by government. An independent regulator

in other words. Independent o the press. Independent o ministers.

He also appears keen to devise this in such a way that it doesnt con-

strain reedom o expression. So lets take this hinted-at independent

body as a starting point and consider what really matters in the press

regulation debate.

New regulators work best where they address real contemporary

problems, are proportionate and targeted, do not tread on or conuse

the remits o other bodies, and do not overreach. Good regulatory

design accordingly invites a reductive approach, to determine exactly

what the regulator should ocus on and to eliminate other matters.

Among those things most essential to exclude rom regulatory scope

are problems which supercially seem to warrant regulatory inter-


17/62

17

vention, but whose policing might have unintended consequences.

So, assuming it is possible to devise a minimally invasive regulator

underpinned by statute that is independent o both government and

the aected industry and it denitely is the important questionis whether Leveson is right in his apparent belie that there is a reg-

ulatory gap. Are there problems in press behaviour that currently

lack eective remedy? Do they warrant regulation? I ollowing these

deliberations our answer is yes, there is a regulatory gap, then we

can dene the characteristics and behaviours the new body would

require so as to ocus narrowly on its regulatory task and not jeop-

ardize reedoms.

Tis reductive approach is especially relevant in designing a regula-

tor or print media. From one perspective Fleet Street is a dangerous

eral beast. From another, it is on its last legs. A targeted regulatory

solution could be benecial in addressing certain eral dangers. An

excessively broad one could be a back-handed compliment to a de-

clining power, and risk both overkill and rapid obsolescence. So, to

dene what a new body might regulate, we should examine the prin-

cipal contemporary concerns about press conduct, consider which

might be remediable already through existing institutional and legal

rameworks, dene the limits and problems o regulatory interven-

tions, and thus determine what, i anything, a new regulator might

do.

So: hacking, corruption, excessive power and political access. None

o these should concern a new regulator. Phone hacking is a crim-

inal oence and should be a matter or the criminal justice system,

notwithstanding police incompetence hitherto. So are allegations

o suborning public ocials. And the powerul hold certain news-

papers have enjoyed over politicians is plainly a unction o market


18/62

18

share. Tis should be addressed by the imposition o ownership lim-

its, both within print media and across news media in general, includ-

ing television, enorced by existing competition authorities. Imagine

what impact a single digit percentage share limit would have on the

power o individual press barons and on the pluralisation o media.

Next: journalistic quality.

I dont like boxing. I hate aggressive dogs. And I dont like tabloid

newspapers. But I am wary o advocating regulation against things

because I dont like them. Some recent well intentioned attempts

to delineate journalistic standards smack o regulating or the presstheir deviser likes and against the one they dont like. But you cant

regulate or taste.

So, partisanship and tendentiousness, however blinkered and un-

air, should be entirely o regulatory limits. So, as concepts in their

own right, should scurrility, mean spiritedness, vulgarity, saltiness,

bad writing, sloppiness, prurience, double standards, inconsistencyor stupidity. Without these ingredients, todays tabloid press would

be impossible. But some o these elements are also essential or hu-

mour, parody, satire, and lively political debate. We should be wary

o codes that would make it hard or Private Eye to unction. Better

training or journalists and examination o the strategies media out-

lets deploy in their use and abuse o discourse in English Language

or Citizenship classes in schools would be more eective in tackling

these issues o standards than the creaky mechanism o regulation.

Indeed, it is questionable whether one can, in certain contexts, such

as coverage o debates in the sciences and humanities, regulate or

objectivity and truthulness.

An example o a press abuse which animated discussions at the


19/62


20/62

20

proponents o minority views, who may be seeking, with good inten-

tions, to challenge scientic shibboleths or unmask abuses concealed

beneath the veneer o scientic respectability (by pharmaceutical

companies, or example). Where a new innovation has been explicit-

ly libelled, its manuacturers have recourse to the courts. (Whether

members o a misled public could take a tabloid to court in a class

action is another matter. I will touch on collective redress or harms

later. But in something like the MMR case, a judge might reasonably

ask Why did you put more aith in [insert tabloid name] than in the

Chie Medical Ocer?).

Tere are ways to protect the public and enhance their exposure to

better opinion. I was attracted at our April discussion by the idea o

establishing some orm o news review journal. Tis would moni-

tor the accuracy o reporting and the requency with which newspa-

pers ran rough-shod over the conclusions o better inormed opinion

sources, such as science. Funded by the quality papers, the journals

ndings could itsel become the story rom time to time, thereby illu-minating the mendacity o certain papers and journalists. But the ar

more important point here is that the delusional grip on issues such

as MMR exerted on public opinion by tabloids is a unction o their

market share. Break up the press oligopoly and what papers print

about MMR, climate change or imminent Martian attack becomes

less signicant.

O course, the more noxious behaviours o the tabloids in particu-

lar sometimes look like the nasty death throes o a doomed enti-

ty. Newspaper sales decline. Just as V and radio did beore, abun-

dant new sources o inormation erode print media dominance. Te

uture is online, where the curious can nd source materials (like

the reports o government, charities, think tanks, and multinational

bodies) news agency postings, and the vast array o comment, opin-


21/62

21

ion and investigations in the blogosphere.

Newspapers are o course not content with this decline and have de-

veloped strategies to halt it. All have embraced the Internet and aim

to compensate or decreasing hard copy sales with online advertisingrevenues. As these revenues depend on maximising trac, strategies

are oten artul. One newspaper in particular seems positively to rel-

ish hits rom hostile readers and so encourages its writers to pursue

wilder extremes o sel-immolating ludicrousness. But the principal

strategy to halt decline, certainly among tabloids, rom which many

o the abuses uncovered by Leveson derive, is the pursuit o lowest

common denominator sensationalism.

Should lurid stories be the target o regulation?

Well, not entirely. Certainly not i we are talking about legal activi-

ties that encroach on celebrity privacy. Early on, Leveson proceedings

were dominated by celebrity evidence. Submissions about harass-

ment, bribes, data thet and so orth were instructive and should bematters or criminal investigation. Actual libels likewise should be

the business o the courts. Less ediying was the concern one or two

luminaries showed to protect their personal lives and reputations. It

would be wrong in my view or Leveson to elaborate a new privacy

principle to be enorced by a regulator. For those who can aord to

issue legal proceedings, the balance the courts already have to strike

between human rights and public interest seems to me to obviate the

need to create a new and potentially dangerous demarcation, benet-

ing ageing lotharios but possibly having the unintended consequence

o hindering latter-day Woodwards and Bernsteins in their pursuit

o corruption.

Indeed, the horse has already bolted. Early in our debates, I pon-

dered whether the regulatory protection aorded a gure in public


22/62

22

lie might vary according to their own cultivation o the media. ab-

loids might show no mercy in exposing the peccadilloes o individuals

who exploit interest in their personal lives or gain by selling their

weddings to Hello!or example. By contrast, those whose career is by

its nature public, but who have otherwise remained private the late

actor Paul Scoeld, who rarely gave interviews throughout his dis-

tinguished career, is an example might expect a dierent treatment.

But the Ryan Giggs case shows that even i a luminary wishes to sup-

press legally obtained inormation about an aair, or example, the

issue is all over witter beore you can say hashtag. Readers may in

the end prove the only eective regulators o these matters, interest-ing themselves in those cases which are o public interest instances

o hypocrisy or example and shrugging their shoulders at those

where the moral dynamics remain, publicity notwithstanding, mat-

ters or the private judgements o those aected.

So, i criminal abuses are outside regulatory scope, and the issue

o press power should be addressed through emasculating marketshare, is there any need or a regulator to oversee the nal spasms o

a dying industry?

Actually, I believe that there is a very real need.

Consider the ollowing ctitious headlines:

EricPicklesisaFatBastardSay62%ofReaders

LabourPartyPolicyPositionCretinous

McDonaldsGreedBorderingonEvil

Now consider an unattering tabloid photo spread obtained by

doorstepping Katie Price.


23/62

23

My view is that, as the saying goes, these people and organisations

are big and ugly enough to look ater themselves. Te Pickles head-

line is unortunate, but the target is robust, amply upholstered by his

standing and power. Political parties must withstand partisanship.

However it may pain McDonalds, some people do regard it as evil.

And Katie Prices livelihood depends on her symbiosis with the me-

dia.

Now or each o the our examples substitute in sequence: the name

o an obscure private citizen, a small charity, a corner shop, and a

single mother on a council estate.

Te power dynamics are utterly changed. We are no longer in the

rareed world o celebrity annoyances. Rather we are reminded o

Christopher Jeries and countless private citizens whose reputations

have been besmirched on imsy suppositions, in pursuit o sensa-

tional headlines. As part o their attempt to halt decline, tabloids

outer pages unveil the Beckhams, while their inner pages are ull o

private individuals presented in grotesque light, sometimes with jus-

tication, sometimes to the pointless destruction o lives.

I advised against regulating scurrility, sloppy writing, and bad jour-

nalismper se. Tat is because these things can exist without doing

signicant injury. But harm and the vulnerability o citizens should

in my view concern a regulator. Ten the quality o the journalism

its public interest deensibility, accuracy etc becomes material in

assessing whether someone has been needlessly hurt.

Vulnerable citizens harmed in this way, traduced short o libel or

unable to aord to go to court, currently lack support and advocacy.

Te new regulator should be theirs.

So there it is. Te new regulator should concern itsel with the unjus-


24/62

24

tied harm newspapers can do to the vulnerable and the powerless.

o avoid producer capture and the unpredictable dynamics o vol-

untarism, in my view the body should be statutory, but independent

o ministers and administered outside the government machine. Asindicated, there are many models or this. But to address the regu-

latory gap Ive identied and nothing else, and to guarantee wider

press reedom, the new body must be narrowly ocused. It would

not licence, would not inspect routinely, would not interest itsel in

dening business models, and would not elaborate prohibitive rules,

such as a backdoor privacy law. It would instead enjoy presumed

competence over the print media market, towards which it would be

primarily reactive, investigating complaints.

Tis model resembles a particular body o quasi-regulators: the Om-

budsmen. Established by statute, these organisations are not sub-

ject to political control. Indeed, the Local Government Ombudsman

regularly nds against politicians and administrations o all political

shades. Ombudsmen do not inspect. Instead they respond to com-

plaints rom customers, service users and tax payers.

A publicly unded Press Ombudsman could develop and promulgate

a narrow but important principle: that the press has a responsibility

not to destroy the lives o private citizens in the pursuit o prot on

the basis o mere supposition, innuendo, and with wanton disregard

or a meaningul public interest. It would then receive complaints.

Established by statute, the Press Ombudsman would obviously be

non-departmental (ie not overseen by a specic minister) and be

subject to guaranteed long-term unding. Its senior ocials could be

Crown appointments, but not selected by the Prime Minister, cho-

sen instead by an independent recruitment panel drawn rom a range

o stakeholders, including the public. And the Ombudsman could


25/62

25

avoid becoming a rich celebritys privacy shield by concerning itsel

with the comparative vulnerability o claimants. From time to time

this would o course include the dependents or associates o celeb-

rities, who, as the case o Charlotte Churchs mother shows, can be

pointlessly and nastily victimised and occasionally even celebrities

themselves. But by having regard to a persons circumstances and

means, and to whether the persons standing and power justiy cov-

erage Eric Pickles rotundity as a matter o partisan abuse or satire,

as opposed to equivalent headlines about a benets claimant with

elephantiasis would lead the Ombudsman to ocus principally on

the powerless. Moreover, the powerless could make collective com-plaints. No individuals were named but lots were smeared by Te Sun

in its Hillsborough coverage. In the event o identical coverage in the

uture, an individual, perhaps a relative o a victim, or a group repre-

senting those who elt hurt by the coverage, could make representa-

tions. Te same could apply in response to unjustied coverage o

asylum seekers, LGB people, and other collective groupings, with

perhaps rather less time accorded politicians, corporations, bankersand others who have power and existing modes o redress.

And the penalties the Ombudsman might impose? Restorative jus-

tice might work or some cases. Being required to print ull ront

page apologies to individuals could cause editors to interest them-

selves in the actuality o their coverage. But the public will want real

teeth. So the Ombudsman should be able to impose nes, some verysteep, perhaps to be paid in whole or part to the injured parties.

A no change conclusion on press regulation appears politically un-

realistic or Leveson. o mitigate the harm this once and still pow-

erul (i waning) industry can cause, a regulatory solution o the sort

outlined here could help. Doing too much by contrast might restrict

desirable press reedoms, create unenorceable prohibitions, and, as


26/62

26

the print media continues to decline, risk irrelevance. Regulators sup-

port cultural change when they are narrowly bounded, but powerul

within their range. Such regulators regulate or todays problem, not

yesterdays, and they recognise that they may be irrelevant tomorrow.

A Press Ombudsman would be mostly silent. But it would carry a

big stick. I think this is a remedy which, when coupled with more

vigilant use o competition measures, is likely to have more immedi-

ate impact than imposing onerous and prescriptive restrictions, stat-

utory or otherwise, on an industry whose glory days are behind it.


27/62

27

HEALTH REPORTING: THE CASE

FOR CHANGE

Miles Taylor

I am going to write about the representation o healthcare and the

science that underpins it in the media, the potentially dangerous e-

ects this can have, and highlight some o the key discussion points

around regulation. Tere are a number o passionate journalists who

are very quick to pick up on particular misleading health stories

with amateur and proessional skeptics leading the way much bet-

ter than I could, so I will stick to the systemic issues, borrowing il-lustrative examples. What I hope to do is demonstrate that there is a

case or change to the regulation o health reporting.

As I see it, health reporting suers rom a number o key problems.

Stories tend to be simplied and sensationalised, advertorials are

used unchallenged and reporting is vulnerable to political agenda. At

the heart o healthcare reporting there are a set o crucial, perhapsirresolvable, central conicts which I will try to draw out.

Mainstream media outlets have minimal direct motivation to report

healthcare science stories well. Te primary motivation or a media

organisation is to drive revenue, and healthcare reporting is a tool by

which to do that. Whatever the chosen market, this tends toward

creating an internal culture that values output over quality and ac-


28/62

28

curacy, oten to a particular template. Tis actively prevents even the

best intentioned journalists being more thorough than the minimum

required to meet the standard or their organisation.

Te reality o the science that inorms and underpins healthcare, andthe sort o story that best sells papers, drives clicks or otherwise gets

the public attention, are wildly dierent.

On one hand, medical science progresses by small steps, with each

new result acting as just another data point in an array that should be

considered as a whole. Single acts, experiments or case studies that

radically alter the way we view healthcare are rare at best. Te key ad-vances in any science are complex, and there is a necessary technical

language built around any given area.

On the other hand, magazines write stories weekly, newspapers cre-

ate new headlines every day, and websites cant stand still or an hour.

Tis leads to a tendency to inate the claims o healthcare stories in

the search or something new to grab attention, to distinguish theinormation in this particular story rom the general background un-

derstanding. Additionally, the language and concepts must be simpli-

ed to t the audience.

However, we oten see the essence o a story damaged in this simpli-

cation process. Nuance is lost around the causality o relationships,

the condence in conclusions and the distinction between relativeand absolute risks. One example o both oversimplication and sen-

sationalism, explained by Ben Goldacre, is the use o red wine to

prevent breast cancer. Red wine contains resveratrol, a chemical that

could indirectly reduce damage to DNA, and thereore cancers. But

this is an isolated reaction between two chemicals in a lab, ignoring

the complexities o the human body and the wine. Te other ingre-

dients in red wine, particularly alcohol, cause cancer. Te evidence


29/62

29

Ben cites suggest that red wine is known to cause cancer, yet because

o oversimplication, people are encouraged to drink it as a cancer

preventative. It is worth noting that while Ben was writing in 2008, a

quick search shows equivalent red wine prevents cancer stories still

run regularly, and I am not aware o a dramatic change in the evi-

dence base.

Due largely to the sort o output pressures described above, there is

also a tendency or journalists and media sources to accept stories at

ace value. A well written press release by an organisation with an in-

terest in promoting a particular idea will very quickly do the rounds

at all the major news outlets, not just unchallenged, but largely un-

changed. Tis process o converting a press release into a story with-

out challenge relieves the pressure on a journalist, as they have eec-

tively outsourced their job. It also means that the public is subjected

to advertorial masquerading as editorial, no journalistic investigation

applied to the representation the company would like you to see.

Particularly in the special case o publicly unded media, although not

exclusively, there is the additional problem o alse balance, whereby

all views are given equal time and space to be expressed. Tis is done

in the name o airness, although it presents a alse picture, as i the

homeopath and the GP view on treatment o particular conditions

are o equal value. It eels to me like this is changing, ollowing the

recent BBC rust Review o impartiality and accuracy o the BBCscoverage o science recommendations,8 although I would need to see a

urther study to see how well this has been enacted.

Finally, there is the potential or an agenda to intrude. Here there is

a risk that editorial positions can be imposed on what is ostensibly

science reporting in such a way as to mislead. A moral position can

8 http://dmsc.me/ReQXG0


30/62

30

lead to particular views on, or example, birth control, and so aect

the reporting o sexual health stories. A prior view on the eective-

ness and appropriateness o the ree market, or example, can lead to

misrepresentation o healthcare outcomes under dierent healthcare

delivery systems.

Tese actors, and more, mean that the healthcare reporting we see

in mainstream media is regularly inaccurate. We hope that the inac-

curacies are trivial and understandable, in that a process is simpli-

ed without loss o meaning. More commonly, there is exaggeration

and sensationalism such that the media representation is potentially

dangerous. Much has been written on the persistent misleading re-

porting in the Wakeeld and MMR case, largely uncovered by Brian

Deer, and there have been outbreaks o measles in recent years, likely

as a result. Tere is also an ongoing controversy around the clinic o

Dr. Burzynski in the USA, where unevidenced claims were support-

ed in the national press, prompting charitable donations or children

to be sent at great expense to America or treatment that has notbeen shown to work.

It is important to note that these sorts o reporting problems are

ound in all mainstream media channels I am acquainted with. Tere

is a tendency to mock the ongoing ontological oncological project

o the Daily Mail, to divide every item into something that causes

cancer, cures cancer, or both. Te Daily Mail is indeed a regular orpoor health science reporting, but is by no means alone above Ben

Goldacre is talking about an article in the Daily elegraph, and the

Observer was involved in the Burzynski controversy. Basically every

media outlet was guilty o dangerous misinormation during the

MMR crisis. Every mainstream media outlet suers these problems

to a degree.


31/62

31

We have identied some o the main concerns in health reporting,

and it is clear that each o these can lead to harm to the public. How-

ever, little has been done to rectiy these inaccurate stories, and those

dangerous reports go largely unchecked. Te PCC as it has been is

an inappropriate body to take on this role or a number o reasons

that become clear when we think o what a regulator should look

like.

Te key discussion should be around which o these interests we

should expect a regulatory system to serve, and how we would ex-

pect those to be served. Te interests o the public are in having me-

dia coverage that is accurate, accessible, complete and relevant. It is

through this sort o coverage that people decide to make the best

evidence based liestyle and healthcare decisions.

Given these aims I think a ew o the key considerations or the or-

mation o a regulatory body should be:

Degree o empowerment to impose sanctions that decrease likeli-hood o inappropriate activity, including nancial penalties

Degree o empowerment to impose sanctions that rectiy damage

corrections and clarications in at least as obvious a manner as

the original misguiding inormation

Independence rom the media sector to reduce conict o inter-ests

ransparency in and public accountability or decision making

Magnitude and impact o misrepresentation required or action

Simplicity o and mechanism or reporting (perhaps a browser

plugin that reports abuses like Fishbarrel does to the ASA)


32/62

32

I dont pretend to have the answers to the above, but with due consid-

eration, I think a body could be designed that is considerably more

eective at protecting the public rom harm and promoting quality

healthcare science reporting than the current PCC. I this isnt done,

people will continue to be harmed by poor health reporting


33/62

33

HEY! REGULATOR! LEAvE THOSE

HYPERLOCALS ALONE

Damian Radcliffe

Hyperlocal media - news or content pertaining to a town, village, sin-gle postcode or other small, geographically dened community - is

not a new sector. But a usion o technology, social media platorms

and gaps in traditional media provision, have all combined to create

the perect conditions or this sector to bloom.

As a result, hyperlocal media has grown substantially in the UK and

other countries in recent years, with concerned citizens, new entrantsand established media operators all taking advantage o this perect

storm to create and distribute locally relevant content. And despite

very real challenges in making hyperlocal pay, we are only likely to

see the sector grow, especially as smartphone technology continues

to make it easier to create, distribute and consume locally relevant

content.

Currently, the hyperlocal media sector is still relatively small. But as

it grows, the issue o regulation is likely to rise up the policy agenda.

Whether it is likely to be caught up in the slightly larger considera-

tions o the Leveson Inquiry remains to be seen, but I believe there

is a strong case or arguing against the statutory regulation o online

hyperlocal media. In act, I would go urther and argue that not only

should it be avoided, but that it would also be impossible to enorce.


34/62

34

As someone who spent just under ve years working or the UK reg-

ulator, and who now works or a dierent regulatory body in a very

dierent part o the world, that might seem a strange thing to say. So

below I will explore ve reasons why the sector should be unregu-

lated, and why I think attempts at such regulation would ultimately

prove unsuccessul.

Part One: the case against regulation

In my view there are ve key areas which need to be explored when

examining the case or regulation o this nascent sector. Tey are:

the open internet philosophy; the inapplicability o historic rules oregulation; practicalities o enorcement; the role o Citizen/Com-

munity Journalism; and innovation.

aking each o these in turn:

1. Te Open Internet Philosophy

Tis is a subject which has been written about ar more extensively

than we have space to explore here. However it is, a useul i rudi-

mentary - starting point. I you believe in the open internet, then the

web should be a predominantly unregulated space. Clearly there are

exceptions, such as the need to protect the exploitation o minors,

but most o these concerns are not applicable to hyperlocal websites.

Provided that the law o the land is not being broken, then hyperlo-cal websites should generally be let alone, ree to sel-manage, with-

out recourse to a wider regulatory power.

2.Tehistoricrulesofregulationdonotapply

In a broadcast world, regulation was used to create a ramework or


35/62

35

licensees. In return or abiding by the rules, which included signing

up to a code o conduct and agreeing terms o trade (e.g. what type

o service you are, or specic obligations such as the amount o local

news you produce), then license holders got access to a precious com-

modity: spectrum, and with it the right to broadcast direct to people

in their homes.

Tis two-way contract has been a key tool in making broadcast reg-

ulation work, but it is not a ramework which logically transers to

the online space. Online space is virtually limitless, the challenges

aced by hyperlocal practitioners such as discoverability, scale and

nancial sustainability are only recent considerations or tradition-

al media players in a multi-channel, online, world.

Without the obvious means or a similar sort o two-way contract

between the regulator and the service provider, we have to reconsider

how and why we might regulation in the Internet age.

3. Te (im)practicalities o enorcement

Anyone can set up a hyperlocal website or channel using tools like

Facebook, WordPress or witter. Tese tools are oten ree, and air-

ly easy to use, with the result that you can set up your website in min-

utes. And it also means that i your website gets into trouble, you can

dismantle and remove traces o it pretty quickly too. Tis means that

not only is it impossible to comprehensively capture what hyperlocalsites exist, it will be equally impossible to monitor them eectively.

In contrast launching a newspaper, V or radio station has oten

required specic licenses, equipment and training, as well as clear

monitoring requirements. Broadcasters, or example, have a legal re-

quirement to keep a record o what they have transmitted, whilst

newspaper owners see their physical product in the publics hands.


36/62

36

Tis makes it rather hard to hide any potential crimes and misde-

meanors.

4. Concerned Citizens and Community Journalism

Whilst commercial hyperlocal outlets and networks do exist, the

majority o hyperlocal content in the UK is produced by citizens,

oten or ree, or certainly very small sums o money. Tis in itsel is

no bad thing, indeed I have previously suggested9 that the best sites

stem rom local need, by people steeped in their communities. In

many cases, but not always, this maniests itsel in the orm o active

citizens investigating and reporting on what matters to them.

Looking at the US hyperlocal scene, the Federal Communications

Commission in their extensive report Te Inormation Needs o

Communities: Te changing media landscape in a broadband age

noted:

Even in the attest-and-happiest days o traditional media, theycould not regularly provide news on such a granular level. Proes-

sional media have been joined by a wide range o local blogs, email

lists, websites and the prolieration o local groups on national web-

sites like Facebook or Yahoo!

For the most part, hyperlocally oriented websites and blogs do not

operate as protable businesses, but they do not need to. Tis is jour-nalism as voluntarisma thousand points o news.10

Tis sentiment is equally applicable to the UK and any other county

with a growing hyperlocal scene. Te voluntarism described by the

FCC should be encouraged and nurtured, not stied. Attempts at

9 http://dmsc.me/ReS8Wa

10 http://dmsc.me/ReShc7 at page 16


37/62

37

regulation o this sector are only likely to reduce transparency and

accountability, not increase it, by discouraging citizen related activity.

Few community journalists would be able to aord any inevitable

regulatory ees, and the very presence o such ees would undoubted-ly deter some citizens setting up their own hyperlocal sites.

It is also likely that ew concerned citizens would not even know

that their Facebook Group, or blog ell under any regulatory regime.

Used to using open, social, internet platorms without restriction to

comment on issues o interest to them, why would their local website

be regulated when posts on local ood or their holidays are not?

Determining what citizen content ell in or out o any regulatory

regime would be a very dicult call.

5. Innovation

Lastly, there is the issue o innovation. Regulators always like to talk

a lot about their role in encouraging innovation, creativity and new

business models. Perhaps the extent o this is overplayed, but regu-

lators can certainly play a role in ensuring that barriers to innovation

are kept to a minimum. With the online hyperlocal sector still in its

inancy there is a very real risk that innovation would be stymied by

unnecessary regulation.

Part wo: the case or regulation

When I wrote the original blog article which ormed the basis o this


38/62

38

contribution,11 I also spent considerable time considering the reasons

or regulation. Ten, as now, I struggled somewhat both in terms

o the mechanisms or enorcement, as well as the potential benets.

For the ormer, I considered the option o income thresholds thatsites above a certain income would need to be regulated and in turn

whether sites might opt in to be regulated by the PCC or some other

body. Finally, I also wondered i there was merit in the industry com-

ing together and devising its own system o sel-regulation.

Te latter provoked some discussion, and I am grateul in particular

to William Perrin, Philip John, Judith ownend12 and Mike Rawlinsor their thoughts and contributions.

O these, I think the three strongest arguments or regulation are

around protection, credibility and parity or hyperlocal publishers.

All o these are desirable outcomes, but I am yet to be convinced that

they way to achieve them is through regulation or indeed sel-regu-lation. Rather, they require attitudinal changes and shits more than

anything else rom big media, the NUJ and in some cases media con-

sumers.

Again, taking each o these areas in turn:

1. Legalstandingandsupport

Potentially the biggest benet o regulation or the sector is that it

may make it easier to unlock union and legal support. At present

most hyperlocal writers are unrecognised by the NUJ and in con-

trast to their traditional media peers - they do not enjoy the backing

11 http://dmsc.me/MVjgct

12 http://dmsc.me/ReSM5O


39/62

39

o a large legal department.

Legal support is an area the hyperlocal sector would benet rom.

Te day will come when a hyperlocal practitioner loses their home

due to a legal dispute stemming rom content on their site. Sadly, itmay take such an incident or this issue to be given the consideration

it deserves.

We need to nd a means to redress this, as the level o legal support

or the citizen journalist/reporter is oten minimal, i indeed there is

any at all.

o counteract this, in the US, J-Lab and the Knight Foundation ran

a Legal Risk Blog13 or American citizen journalists, bloggers and so-

cial network users. Dierent media laws mean that its useulness as a

tool or UK practitioners is limited, although the site is not without

value.

One way this could work in the UK would be to encourage big me-dia groups - perhaps through a regulatory lever - to provide a certain

amount o pro-bono legal support to hyperlocal outlets.

Alternatively they may have to pay a small levy to a central legal und,

which could either ensure 24/7 legal support or hyperlocal practi-

tioners, or support a nancial pool to draw on when the litigation

starts. Such an idea is not without risk o abuse, but i we are to en-courage better relationships between community media outlets play-

ers and traditional media, providing meaningul support between

the sectors in this way would be one way o doing it.

2.Credibility

13 http://dmsc.me/Re6S1


40/62

40

Rightly or wrongly, there can be misconceptions amongst consum-

ers and traditional media alike about the content and accuracy o

hyperlocal content. Being part o a regulatory regime may help to

change that, but I am skeptical. Many regulated bodies across me-

dia, nance and other industries are severely lacking in credibility

at present. As are their regulators.

Moreover, Ocom research shows that many media consumers are

already conused and ill-inormed about regulation and unding.14 So

being part o a regulatory regime will not necessarily change public

perceptions. Or indeed those held by old media.

More eective measures could simply be cosmetic. Licheld Blog or

example renamed itsel Licheld Live, because it became hard to es-

cape the act that having blog in our name was causing problems

with how we were perceived.15

Some o the Licheld team have also posited the idea o sel-reg-

ulation, with hyperlocal players signing up to an agreed Code oConduct, in part to boost credibility. I can see the merit o such a

code, and such an approach could be especially useul or new sites

in giving them best practice and a set o standards to aspire to, but I

am not sure that it will make much o a dierence in the credibility

stakes.

Tat does not mean however that hyperlocals should not do it, andthere would be a merit to having agreed and shared text on issues

such as airness and complaint handling, but the benets o this ap-

proach are, in my view, o more benet or practitioners, than big

media partners and audiences.

14 http://dmsc.me/ReF2

15 http://dmsc.me/Ren7w


41/62

41

Instead, I would argue that activities such as public visibility re-

porting rom, or organizing local events or making your content

available ofine as well as online,16 may be much more eective at

boosting credibility and changing perceptions than being part o any

new regulatory body.

3. Creating a level playing feld

Te underlying consideration here is how to establish a more level

playing eld, particularly in terms o legal protection and credibility.

For some commentators, the only way to do this is by bringing hy-

perlocal media into any post-Leveson regulatory regime.

Tat may be so, but I think this argument is allacious and that these

objectives can be achieved through other non-regulatory means. Ex-

amples o credible, respected hyperlocal websites abound.17 As, in-

creasingly, do examples o creative partnerships between this sector

and traditional media.18

Regulation also risks having accidental consequences, rom stiing

innovation and driving small scale hyperlocal practitioners out o

business, through to creating a two tier hyperlocal sector, with some

outlets being regulated (perhaps due to their size, scale and or plat-

orm) whilst others are not (e.g. those on Facebook).

Far rom creating a level playing eld thereore, such a scenario riskswidening gaps, not reducing them.

16 http://dmsc.me/MVjFLU

17 See: http://kingscrossenvironment.com/, http://parwich.org/,

http://pitsnpots.co.uk/, http://www.london-se1.co.uk and http://

ventnorblog.com/ as just some examples.

18 http://dmsc.me/MVjIar and http://dmsc.me/MVjOPt


42/62

42

Concluding Toughts

I argued earlier that a number o actors - the open internet philos-

ophy; the inapplicability o historic rules o regulation; practicalities

o enorcement; the role o Citizen/Community Journalism; and in-novation were all good reasons, both individually and collectively,

against statutory regulation.

Similarly, I remain unconvinced at the viability o sel-regulation, or

that it is the means to deliver outcomes such as enhanced protection

or credibility.

In my experience most hyperlocal outlets take questions o balance

and accuracy very seriously and where they have an editorial agenda

it is usually pretty clear.

Just because you are unregulated, does not mean that your standards

are any lower. Nor will being regulated suddenly mean that the pub-

lic will view you content dierently, that relationships with tradition-al media will transorm overnight, or that late night telephone calls

rom aggrieved Press Ocers will cease.

Instead, we need to recognize that hyperlocal publishers are an in-

creasingly important part o our media ecosystem. Tey can, and do,

on occasion provide great content or other media outlets acting

as a local wire service. Hyperlocal outlets can also be a great way ortraditional media to nd new voices and talent, whilst or audiences

they can help plug gaps in content provision or provide a new level

o ultralocal reporting.

Nurturing and supporting the industry should be the aim o policy

makers. And it does not need regulation to make this happen. Key

challenges such as nding ways to develop partnerships, or unlocking


43/62

43

legal training and support or hyperlocal publishers, can all happen

without the need or regulatory intervention or rameworks. Lets

see i we can make it happen.


44/62

44


45/62

45

HOw TO CLEAN UP THE MESS

Kein Charman-Anderson

Te main and most pressing question in the wake o the massive

corruption scandal in the British press is how to clean up the mess.

Will it be sucient to address the problems in British press culture

by simply making sure that those who broke the law are brought to

book? Is new regulation required? I so, should the regulation simply

be a stronger orm o voluntary regulation or is some orm o statu-

tory regulation required? Would either jail time or regulation alone

bring about the needed cultural change?

Finally, ater years o delay and repeated denials, allegations o phone

hacking, email and computer hacking and bribery are being taken

seriously and investigated.

Beyond investigation into wrongdoing, it is also clear that journalists

need help understanding what is and isnt legal in the UK. Whilst

libel law is well understood by most journalists, there seems to be

little knowledge o other relevant legislation.

For example, with respect to the alleged computer and email hacking,

journalists and even legal sta seem to have been clueless about the

Computer Misuse Act, citing a public interest deence that doesnt

exist. Even more shocking, testimony given to the Leveson Inquiry

shows that some journalists believed that rather imsy public inter-


46/62

46

est considerations placed them above the law.

As computer and internet research becomes more important to jour-

nalistic investigations, its critical that journalists understand which

uses o technology are illegal, although how anyone would thinkbreaking into someones email account is legal is beyond me.

But will additional legal training or journalists be enough to change

the culture o corruption that clearly exists at some publications?

And lets be honest, this goes ar beyond News International. Op-

eration Motorman showed the use o private investigators to gatherinormation to be so wide-spread that hardly any publication is let

blameless.

Te top o the league table by not only a signicant margin, but a sig-

nicant multiple, are the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and yet we

are told that all o those requests are legal and above board. Whether

all o these requests are legal is or the police and the legal system todecide, not or the press to assert. Further investigation is necessary;

the public deserves to know exactly how ar the rot has spread and

justice must be seen to be done in those cases where the law was

broken.

Given that these dubious behaviours were so widespread, it is doubt-

ul whether legal training alone could ully address the problem.While some o the practices were clearly illegal, other practices were

legal but deeply unethical, not just in my opinion but also by gener-

al proessional journalism guidelines such as those o the National

Union o Journalists or the Society o Proessional Journalists in the

US.

So how could press regulation take on such a deep cultural issue?


47/62

47

Te Press Complaints Commission system o voluntary regulation is

obviously discredited, and simply changing the name and a ew aces

wont rehabilitate its image. Resistance to statutory regulation is high

both inside and outside the press, with Jeremy Hunt advising against

any new orm o press regulation that would be a back door imposi-

tion o broadcast-style statutory regulation.

Its dicult to nd any advocate o statutory regulation rom within

the press, but their vocierous push-back against statutory regulation

should be met with some scepticism.

As someone who has worked both or the BBC and or the Guardian,its always struck me as a hypocritical in the extreme that the British

press, chiey the tabloids, delight in taking the BBC to the whip-

ping shed over scandals both real and imagined, holding the BBC to

standards that they would never dream o holding themselves.

Te argument against statutory regulation made by the British press

is that it would undermine press independence, is a step closer togovernment censorship, and would send the wrong message to op-

pressive regimes where the press is not ree. But having worked or

the BBC, I know that is possible to do world class journalism under

the rigorous editorial standards that broadcasters have been working

with or years.

Te BBC has a rigorous two-step procedure or reviewing and allow-ing procedures such as surreptitious lming, reviewing the request

beore lming begins and content beore it is broadcast.

Even with these editorial checks, the BBC has still been able to break

major stories in the public interest, including uncovering abuse last

year at a residential home that treated people with learning disabil-

ities and autism. More recently, Panorama used secret lming dur-


48/62

48

ing an investigation into alleged acilitation o pay V hacking by a

News Corporation subsidiary.

Te truth is that independent, high-quality investigations can still be

done under statutory regulation.

Revelations o press corruption continue to be made, and or anyone

outside o the tabloid press, it is clear that the culture o the British

press needs to change.

I would argue that the press need to a period o close scrutiny by

an independent body with real enorcement and powers o sanction.Allegations o illegal activity should quickly be turned over the po-

lice instead o ineptly investigated up by a toothless sel-regulatory

body. I the press cant get its act together, then it should ace statu-

tory regulation. Te press and its owners must be motivated to root

out corrupt and illegal behaviour, otherwise, we will have missed a

golden opportunity to end the serious corruption and illegality in the

British press.


49/62

49

RECTIFYING THE FLAw

Dae boyle

In his amous mea culpa, Alan Greenspan told the US Congress that

there was a aw at the heart o his vision o capitalism, which was

that he hadnt expected shareholders o companies to be unable to

ensure their own interests were protected; in his world, such sel-in-

terest would serve to provide the wider interest in true neo-liberal

ashion.

One can quibble with how long it took Greenspan to alight on his

aw, but at least he was able to spot a problem. Not so the debate on

media regulation in the UK, which continues to imagine that despite

the maniest ailings revealed by hackgate, and the intense discussion

o what will change in the uture as a result, only privately controlled

media will be in the business o providing public interest journalism.

O course, private ownership is a act o the media landscape, and

has been or generations. Its as i our media landscape is seen to have

enough diversity in it already, because it has the BBC and the Guardi-

an, and in any case, both o those were in place by the 1930s, so clearly

our days o creating alternatives are behind us.

But to posit the continuation o this private ownership in the uture

in the ace o the economic and social challenges aced by modern


50/62

50

media organisations seems to be as tendentious an assumption as it

is unimaginative.

Tinking about alternatives opens out some very interesting pos-

sibilities, not least in terms o transorming the way the media areunded (I write much more about this in the report Ive just written

or Co-operatives UK)19 but it also has a big impact on the regulation

debate.

o regulate the media is to provide a means o holding it to account;

indeed, a key eature o hackgate is the lack o accountability at any

stage in the journalism process.

At best, we can say the privately-owned media corporation has prov-

en unable to hold its managers, editors and writers to account and

has ailed to prevent a win at all costs mentality, incubating a culture

o anything goes to get the scoop. But what i ar rom being a ail-

ure o the system such behaviour is an inevitable conclusion o a

system in which ethics and good journalism are provided as by-prod-ucts o a system based on securing shareholder value?

Tis isnt to say that owners and shareholders have instructed their

editors to lower ethical standard in pursuit o stories but that they

dont need to, as thats what the system pressurizes them to do. Tis

isnt about circulation wars, since shareholders are interested in max-

imum prot, not necessarily maximum sales. I you can cut costsaster than circulation alls, value is still created or shareholders.

Its a sel-deeating strategy rom the perspective o a robust, sus-

tainable and resourced media, but thats not actually in the DNA o

these companies. It was once part o the raisondtre o journalism

19 http://dmsc.me/ReVg4c


51/62

51

but the heart o Nick Davies concept o churnalism20 is about how

that has been driven out, down or to the side by the relentless ocus

on margins.

As a result, those with an interest in a better media, one which sup-ports civic society, have had to seek mechanisms external to media

enterprises to bring this about, namely regulation. So one o the key

notions underpinning regulation is o bringing a public interest to

bear on a private provider o a public good.

Regulation then is an attempt to deal with the consequences o the

aw, but we now have an unparalleled opportunity to rectiy it at thesource.

Co-operative media have a virtue o being accountable and demo-

cratic, responsive to the needs o their members, be they the employ-

ees, the consumers or a mixture o the two. Both have been oered

take it or leave it choices by the owners and managers o our media; i

they leave it, things dont improve, with circulation declines seeming-ly prompting even greater breaches in the dash or scoops, increasing

the pressure on reporters to conorm or get the push.

Tats not how it works at the WestHighlandFreePress 21 where the

sta bought the paper rom the ounding owners in 2009. Te al-

ternative was a buyout by one o the major groups o local news me-

dia, who would doubtless soon have cut sta numbers, their security,their salaries and their independence. Based on bitter experience in

other communities, the likelihood is they would also have cut the

local coverage and slowly withdrawn the physical presence rom the

area. Te paper, losing goodwill and readers in equal measure, might

20 http://dmsc.me/LQWcZz

21 http://dmsc.me/ReVnN2


52/62

52

have limped on, beore closing. Te owners would have blamed the

challenging economics o distributing over a wide rural area in the

age o the Internet rather than their own short-sighted ocus on the

bottom line.

Tankully, the journalists at the WestHighlandFreePress have pre-

served their numbers, their readers and their goodwill. Tey put out

a quality publication, on time, every week, and in so doing, encour-

age a productive culture o competitiveness with others in the media

ecosystem. Te BBCs presence is stronger and keener knowing that

it has a rival or good stories, and public bodies know that with such

an ecosystem, maladministration is ar likelier to be commented on.

Accountability or the paper to the interested journalists spins o to

a wider public.

Open, accountable and accessible media oers a chance to break

apart the monoculture o standard wisdom that passes or news val-

ues. Earlier in my career, I had the job o trying to get journalists

interested in news rom a small campaign group; the journalists o-

ten agreed that these were important stories but doubted that their

superiors would eel the same. Tose more senior people had a set o

news values about what was and wasnt legitimate subject matter that

they would say was based on what readers really wanted, as opposed

to what high-brow types would wish their readers were interested in.

With co-operative and accountable ownership, second-guessing the

public can give way to hearing their actual voices, not through click-

throughs and comments but through considered advocacy and en-

gagement with all stages o the production process.

How do we get there? Te advantage is the medias economic weak-

ness, with everyone pretty much agreed that to survive, existing me-

dia must undergo signicant change. So the rst hurdle or change


53/62

53

which the status quo resists is lower than it has been or gener-

ations. Add in the act that ability o the status quo to ght alterna-

tives through their entrenched position is similarly weaker, and its

clear that this is a moment to seize. Te uture is open to new models

which can be responsive, accountable and sustainable.

Public policy can assist in several ways. We can extend the deni-

tion o an asset in the Localism Act rom physical buildings, land

etc to services o value to a community, and in so doing we enable

communities to bid to take their media into their own hands. Pro-

viding nance to communities to do so through tax relies to encour-

age co-operative investment would speed the rate o change. (As the

situation with Scottish land demonstrates, the power to buy land is

negligible without the capital to achieve it). Similar to what the US

Community Reinvestment Act did or banks, existing owners could

be compelled to oer acilities and titles to the public in an area be-

ore they could be closed (or merged) to cash in.

Even i policy alls short o encouraging the creation o co-opera-

tives, it can help create more co-operative behaviours. Key amongst

them is a regulatory regime that brings a measure o accountability

to the public beyond the in eective signal o consumption.

Reader panels within newspapers could break open the cosy, sel-re-

inorcing groupthink o seasoned media proessionals, with powers

to hold executives to account on a day-to-day basis. Tey could re-

ceive complaints rom readers and pursue them with the resources

o the company, taking the unction o readers editor to a new level.

Tey could be represented within the Board, and have similar pow-

ers as an internal audit committee might.

Reader peer review has never been easier in an era o wikis and crowd

sourcing, with media outlets compelled to submit their reporting


54/62

54

to scrutiny to a wider public, with their eedback reported promi-

nently; salacious and rankly untrue exclusives would be less seen as

uniormly positive i accompanied by a story saying 90% o readers

thought we made up a lot o stu last month.

Te beauty o these ideas is that instead o making the public inter-

est itsel a subject o contestation we know it exists, is a good thing,

but arent at all agreed on what it is - it makes a space inside every

media outlet or a public to bring their interest to bear.

Te obvious rejoinder to this is that such notions are impractical.

Getting rom here to there is certainly challenging, to say the leastbut impractical has one up on impossible. Tats the reality o hoping

that private ownership can be relied on to provide the public good

as a by-product o chasing shareholder value or private inuence.

Equally impossible is the notion that whilst the threat o sanction

might stop them acting like a private Stasi, it wont bring about the

kind o media democracy we will need in the next 30 years.

Co-operation is oten described as not-or-prot, which soon looks

like never makes a surplus, a problem ar too common in the current

media. Tis is a mis-categorisation; co-operatives are about more-

than-prot. Tey must make a prot or else they die, but they must

also do more than that or theyre pointless.

Teres an honesty to co-operative ownership o media that evadesa problem o many other touted solutions, namely that the state or

charities or oundations should step in to provide people with a me-

dia they need, regardless o whether or not its what they want.

A media co-op would ail is i it produces something which not

enough people want. And i not enough people want a decent media,

then that is a greater problem than anything Leveson is uncovering.


55/62

55

A PRESS REGULATOR wITHOUT

TEETH IS NO PRESS REGULATOR

AT ALL

Su Charman-Anderson

One o the paradoxes that must be addressed i uture press regula-

tion is to be eective is that any regulator needs to have the ability to

impose sanctions. But any voluntary regulator able to impose strong

sanctions will not attract willing members and especially not those

news organisations most in need o regulation. Weve already seen

how proprietors such as Richard Desmond o Express Newspapers

can simply decide not to take part i they dont like the look o a vol-untary regulator.

We have also already seen how sections o the media have come to

see themselves as not only unbound by the PCCs Code o Con-

duct, but above the law. It goes without saying that journalists and

news organisations which break the law should be investigated by

the police, although public trust in this process has been shattered byrevelations rom the Leveson Inquiry. Regardless, illegal acts are the

purview o the authorities, not a regulator.

Yet that leaves a huge swathes o behaviours that are legal but unethi-

cal to must be addressed: Invasions o privacy, whether they target

celebrities or members o the public who simply have the misortune

to become objects o press interest. Untruths, lies and misrepresenta-


56/62

56

tions. Factual inaccuracies. Obtaining inormation through deceit.

Doorstepping. Intimidation.

Tese range rom the minor to the major, but none should be ig-

nored or even what seems like a minor inraction, such as a actu-al inaccuracy, can have severe consequences. In the case o vaccina-

tion reporting, or example, misrepresentation o the acts has led to

parents deciding not to vaccinate their children, which has resulted

in outbreaks o measles, a disease that can have very serious conse-

quences including death.

So when we come to sanctions, its clear that we need the ull range,rom apologies, corrections and retractions all the way up to puni-

tive nes. But we also need to make sure that the sanctions have the

desired eect, that they change behaviour. Fining a newspaper, or

example, may punish that newspaper but it may not have a direct

impact on the journalist whose shoddy work crossed the line and

who may still eel ree to transgress. Tis is especially problematic

when news organisations calculate that nes are simply a cost o do-

ing business and that the revenue they get rom the results o misbe-

haviour is worth the censure.

Imposing sanctions directly on journalists, however, comes with its

own issues. Accreditation o individual journalists is problematic

in a ree and open press, particularly as the denition o journalist

expands to include citizen journalists, bloggers and subject experts.

Te threat o revocation o accreditation as a sanction is unworkable,

but it would be dicult to ne individual journalists without accred-

itation.

Sanction design also has to take into account the sorry act that

some journalists are working in a toxic environment where they have

a choice o either treading unethical lines, or getting red. And in


57/62

57

the current employment climate or journalists, both in terms o the

massive job losses across the industry and the culture o bullying

prevalent in so many newsrooms, it is unsurprising that some jour-

nalists nd themselves powerless to protest when they are asked to

do unethical things.

With this in mind, there needs to be a signicant increase in protec-

tion or whistleblowers in the media and complaints rom journalists

about their employers need to be taken seriously. News organisations

that abuse their sta must be brought to book, particularly because

it is the most vulnerable who take the blame or ailures at a manage-

rial or proprietorial level.

Escalation is another key issue. Cases should not be dealt with indi-

vidually, but as part o a wider view o the news organisation involved.

Te idea that each inraction is unrelated to previous inractions is

nave, and organisations that constantly transgress should nd that

sanctions increase in severity as the transgressions tot up. Looking

at how news organisations behave by tracking misbehaviour gives a

sense o context and helps to identiy systemic problems.

One key way to change behaviour would be to create a public data-

base o every complaint, who stands accused, whether it was upheld,

what sanctions were applied or example, whether an apology was

required or ne imposed and what the outcome o that was. Any

such database should list both the news organisation and journalist

involved, the nature o the allegation, and details o managers in-

volved. It should include everything rom error correction upwards.

And not only should it provide easily digestible statistics showing

the public how each publication perorms, it should also have an API

to allow media ethics campaigners to use the data.

Fines, o course, have an important place in any schedule o sanctions,


58/62

58

but or them to be eective they need to be able to be imposed on any

organisation that transgresses, regardless o whether they want to be

part o a voluntary regulator or not. Obviously, a voluntary organisa-

tion that threatened to levy nes big enough to truly punish a news

organisation would also nd it dicult to recruit members, especial-

ly i it was serious about tackling the unethical behaviours endemic

in the media. Tat means some orm o statutory regulator with the

power to impose sanctions on any news organisation and the ability

to take the requisite legal action against those that choose to ignore

the regulations.

We have, as a society, tried sel-regulation and it has comprehensive-

ly ailed. I we care about how the public perceives the media then

we must l

media regulation and democracy

Documents