|
Mark Watts
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 12:17:28 AM » |
|
In my view, state regulation of newspapers would be bad for journalism. We need self-regulation, but we need effective self-regulation. We do not have that in the PCC.
The PCC was caught napping over the issue of routine breaches of the data protection act (DPA) commissioned by newspapers. I wrote extensively about this, warning of the problem (long before it was so spectacularly forced back on the agenda recently by The Guardian). I had obtained, under FOIA, correspondence showing that the information commissioner, who regulates the DPA, trying to drag the PCC into acting.
The PCC squirmed over my revelations. (Sound familiar? Mind you, it did not go in for an all-out character assassination.) Even today, it pretends that it responded well to the challenge by changing the code. My revelations showed that it made changes reluctantly under intense pressure from the information commissioner, and ultimately failed to satisfy his office that it went far enough.
One key reform needed is for the PCC to be added to the list of organisations subject to FOIA provisions. Then we will find out more about what is going on there.
For me, we would certainly want good coverage of the PCC review. I would, for example, go through PCC commissioners, past and present, and ask them (especially NUJ members among them) to contribute articles on the reforms they would like to see.
I have referred on another thread to the select committee considering libel reforms. We really need reforms in this area, and I think we will probably have some.
Again, this is a big issue for journalism and journalists, and so should be well covered by the mag.
The big issue in libel used to be the level of damages. That has stemmed somewhat (because of a key Eady judgement involving two social workers who were dreadfully libelled by a council report and in subsequent newspaper coverage that went even further). Today, the big issue is legal costs: the defendant’s costs, but in particular the claimant’s costs with the propellant of conditional-fee arrangements.
Newspaper managements are, all too often, choosing to settle cases they would probably win at trial in order to limit the exposure to paying enormous costs. I have had experience of this phenomenon. This is a big problem for less-well resourced publications, especially provincial newspapers, which are often being cowed into silence on stories that should be being reported.
These problems are a big factor in limiting the effectiveness of journalism in the UK today.
I would seek contributions to the mag from journalists who have had direct experience of these problems. For example, Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, gave some very interesting evidence to that select committee, but little of it was reported.
|
