PCC independent review plans a 'tad disingenuous' says MediaWise

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!

MediaWise, the UK charity providing research and advice on media ethics , has made suggestions for the 'independent review' of the UK newspaper industry's self-regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission.

The charity has spoken of scepticism over the PCC's announcement that a new six month review of its governance will be led by an outgoing board member.

"For the first time in 18 years an allegedly 'independent review' is to be led by commissioner Vivien Hepworth who is 'stepping down early' to spend six months examining the way the PCC conducts its business," the charity's director Mike Jempson said, in a statement released this afternoon. "There is something a tad disingenuous about appointing a member of the Commission to lead the reform group which will also include someone with 'senior experience of the newspaper and magazine industry'.

"Scepticism may be assuaged if this turns out not to be an editor who has already served on the Commission, nor one whose publication has had to be censured. And it would be healthy if Ms Hepworth were to take on board one of the legion of the critics the PCC has attracted over the years."

It is vital that critical organisations make submissions, Jempson said. "The National Union of Journalists, and other journalists' organisations, may want to ask why working journalists have been excluded from both the PCC team and the Editors' Code Committee which sets its terms of reference.

"The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom will no doubt want to press her to explain why the PCC is being shielded from Freedom of Information requests. The Media Standards Trust, still smarting from the way in which its recent criticism was dismissed by the PCC, will want to present her with the findings of its continuing enquiries about preferable alternatives.

"Certainly MediaWise, perhaps the most vocal critical friend of self regulation, will have a contribution to make based on its 16 years of experience in assisting complainants."

Listen to the third parties, says director

MediaWise called on campaigners and charities to 'speak up' for the sectors of society 'most vulnerable to inaccurate, intrusive or downright prejudicial coverage'.

"These civil society groups are often best placed to represent the interests of asylum-seekers and refugees, people with mental health issues, young people, hospital patients, victims of crime, relatives of disaster victims, families of prisoners, etc. Yet third party complaints are in the main, rejected by the PCC. What is more the Editors' Code continues to allow discriminatory stories to be published so long as no individual is named - thereby sidestepping the possibility of first person complaints.

"It is to be hoped that readers of newspapers and magazines will be encouraged to express their views, via the free advertising offered to the PCC. However, it is unlikely that Ms Hepworth will be afforded the funds to commission a thorough-going survey of how some 50,000 complainants think the PCC should be reformed."

Jempson criticised the PCC's refusal to collaborate with MediaWise's research in 2004

[[read about the charity's final report at this link],](http://www.mediawise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=714)

and said that it instead preferred 'to issue self-serving statistics suggesting that the majority were happy with the PCC - though they were only asked if the PCC had complied with its own procedures'.

Why now?

He questioned why the review had been called now, suggesting that the body was worried about declining political support and the impact of declining newspaper revenues.

"Is it because the burgeoning scandals of press malpractice in recent years make such a review inevitable? Is it because the press fear a backlash from politicians whose own unethical antics have so recently been exposed to public scrutiny?

"Or is it perhaps because year on year the number of complaints the PCC is struggling to deal with is increasing in inverse proportion to falling newspaper revenues?

"Who knows, the PCC may end up calling on the public to support its reform agenda if its current paymasters are reluctant to foot the bill."

Other views

Journalism professor and blogger, Roy Greenslade, welcomed news of the review as a move in the right direction, in a post on his Guardian blog ; while he raised the question of its independence, he concluded that it 'makes sense' for Hepworth to lead the review.

"The PCC's structure and operation is complex and it is important that someone with experience heads up any investigation. And she will be withdrawing from the commission ahead of the inquiry," he wrote.

Earlier in the year the PCC came under harsh criticism in a report by an independent review group initiated by the Media Standards Trust. Former chairman Sir Christopher Meyer strongly criticised the report's methods and findings, which the MST then defended in turn.

The findings of the House of Commons select committee examining press standards, privacy and libel, including the performance of the PCC, are yet to be published.