strengths and weaknesses of the pcc

Question 1: What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC)?

Annotated Bibliography:

Frost C. (2004), “The press Complaints Commission: a study of ten years of adjudications on press complaints”, Journalism Studies, 5: 1, pp. 101-114

Chris Frost’s review on the PCC from 1991-2001 is a short narrative of the birth of the organisation as well as a critical analysis of some of the major points that have fallen under criticism in that ten year period. Using a number of sources as well as statistical data Frost reaches the conclusion that although there have been some successes within the PCC, such as the coverage of children in today’s press, the PCC is mainly viewed as a failure and is constantly receiving criticism from the newspaper industry.

Frost argues that one of the main faults of the PCC is the issue of discrimination and states in many cases the PCC has fallen short, “Many complaints have been made about stories reporting refugees and so-called bogus asylum seekers and yet none was upheld” (p.113). Frost also undermines the two main claims that the PCC have made about their own organisation in which they describe themselves as being a “first class complaints handling organisation” that have raised “standards through its adjudications” (p.113). He writes that there is no evidence to support this when viewing the data in the PCC’S own reports and adds that British tabloids despite receiving hundreds of complaints per year only face an average of one or two.

O’Malley T, Soley C. (2000) Regulating the Press, pp. 131-147

The book Regulating the Press is an analysis on the self-regulation of the press and a review of the various organisations that regulate the press industry. The general tone taken by O’Malley and Soley when describing the PCC is a critical one. They describe the PCC as a step backwards in comparison to their predecessor the Press Council, “In fact the PCC was much better at rejecting complaints than the Council” (p.135). The PCC is also subject to scrutiny with regards to the issue of third party complaints; the case of the black American preacher Al Sharpton was used in which he was wrongly described as the “Bronx Beast” by the Daily Mail. Although the Daily Mail came forwards and apologized nothing could be done due to the complaint being that of a third party. O’Malley and Soley reach the conclusion that the PCC was set up purely to “defend proprietors, who funded it, from the encroachments of politicians, journalists and members of the public who wanted the press to be more responsible than the owners were prepared to allow”. (p.141)

Press Complaints Commission (2008) PCC Reports, London HMSO

The PCC’s annual report is an internal evaluation on the Press Complaints Commissions performance. The report, among other things, includes a number of statistical data as well as a report from Sir Brian Cubbon, the Charter Commissioner. The PCC claim that every year over the last ten year period they have “resolved more complaints than the year before” (p.26). However, the report also shows the number of total complaints has also increased, in 2008 the PCC received a “record high” amount of complaints which could signify the falling standards in the industry. When reading the report it becomes apparent that one of the key problems faced is the internet and with it the mass flow of information. The merging of public and private boundaries over the internet will surely become a large factor when adjudicating future cases.

Alexander Valerio-Smith


Media Standards Trust, A More Accountable Press, Part 1: The Need for Reform. (2009)

This is an independent review on the self-regulation of the press b y the Media Standards Trust. They believe due to an economically challenged industry, a general lack of trust towards newspapers by the general public and the House of Lords select committee’s report entitled “the Ownership of the News” that this report is necessary. The report concludes that the “existing system of press self regulation is not sustainable in its present form” (p.6). The report argues that due to the changing technology of the media, such as the internet, there is far more risk of inaccuracy which has resulted in less trust towards the media, something that the PCC has not managed to combat, “75% of people now believe newspapers frequently publish stories they know are inaccurate” (p.6).The PCC is also criticized for its lack of transparency due to it not being covered by the Freedom of Information Act and is also compared with “The credible self-regulatory scheme: a National Consumer Council checklist” to highlight a number of discrepancies.

House of Lords Select Committee on Communication, The Ownership of the News (2007-8), and “Select Regulation of the Newspaper Industry”.

“The Ownership of the News” is a report from the House of Lords select Committee on Communication discussing the state of the media during 2007-8. It covers a range of subjects such as the importance of Public Service Broadcasting as well as the nature and validity of self-regulation. The report criticizes the PCC for lacking any independence from the industry and argues that because of the make-up of the PCC being mainly editors or having strong links into the industry they are “setting the rules and policing the rules themselves and then monitoring themselves”(p67). The report also highlights the limits of the PCC in the sense that it is only designed to regard complaints and was not intended to “promote journalistic standards or...to prevent the voice of any one owner becoming too powerful” (p67).

House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Self-Regulation of the Press (2007),

This report was commissioned as a result of the harassment of Kate Middleton, Prince Williams’s girlfriend at the time. The mistreatment of Kate Middleton by the press raised questions as to whether the PCC was effective during the matter and if not what steps should be taken change this. The report criticizes the PCC for being a purely pragmatic organisation that did nothing to intervene with the misconduct of the press and paparazzi, “The PCC appears to have waited for a complaint to materialise: it could and should have intervened sooner” (p24). The report looks at the value of self regulation and concludes that the industry is far better at measuring itself than it was twenty years ago however, whether this is to do with the PCC’s policies or events such as Diana’s death and Mr Goodman’s conviction is unclear. “Mr Goodman’s...sentencing...followed by the resignation of the News of the World, is likely to have had a more lasting effect ...than sanctions imposed by the PCC” (p26).

Geoff Elliot, “The Case for Self-Regulation” (2003)

The above source is a memorandum submitted by Mr Geoff Elliot, the Broadcasting Standards Commissioner and former Press Complaints Commissioner. In it he comments on the strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation in the guise of the Press Council and the PCC. Elliot argues for the



success of the PCC and merits it on having an accessible code which he claims Editors and journalists have bought into and “allow it to govern their decision making”. Although he admits the PCC does not prevent every culpable act he argues that the alternative of statutory regulation “would threaten press freedom”.

Critical Review:

Since its creation in 1991 the Press Complaints Commission has been a subject of much controversy. Some have accused the PCC as being far too close to the industry it regulates while others claim it is the reason for a steady rise in media standards over the last twenty years. Although the PCC has failed to effectively regulate the press in a number of occasions, such as the Kate Middleton case, this does not mean that self-regulation cannot work and still plays a vital role in protection of press freedom.

Perhaps one of the most consistent criticisms of the PCC is its intimate relationship with the press industry. The PCC is made up of a large number of editors such as the Editor of the Daily Mail and News International, this essentially means the PCC is policing themselves which has caused Alastair Cambell to call it a “cosy media club” that offers no “real system of redress for people who are traduced by newspapers” (The Ownership of the News p.66). Many people believe that because of the lack of separation from the media industry it will rarely “do anything that will discomfit [the press] or make its life difficult” (The ownership of the news p.67). The close ties the PCC have with the industry can also be seen when taking a look at the financial aspects of the company,

“The newspaper and magazine industry pays for the PCC (as with other systems of self-regulation).The money is collected and distributed by the Press Board of Finance. There is no fixed or transparent mechanism for transferring funding to the PCC itself, no information on how much money is needed to fund the PCC, or on how decisions are made on spending such money as it has” (A more Accountable Press p.25)

This does not promote a very transparent image of the PCC which is yet another cause for concern. The lack of transparency displayed by the organisation is further displayed when considering the limited information available for the PCC .Most of the information available is directly from the PCC’s annual reports, “the PCC does not accept that it is covered by the Freedom of Information Act” (A More Accountable Press p.23). This obviously makes it impossible to require additional information to clarify any inconsistencies.

There are also a number of discrepancies in the PCC’S Code. This can be seen throughout a number of examples, such as that of Kate Middleton, whereby clear harassment of Kate Middleton was displayed across a wide number of newspapers however the PCC did not act but instead waited for a complaint to be made, “The PCC appears to have waited for a complaint to materialise: it could and should have intervened sooner” (Self-Regulation of the Press p24). Although the PCC eventually stepped in the damage had already been done, “While the PCC was correct in bringing editors’ attention to the letter from solicitors...it did so long after the worst abuses had occurred” (Self-Regulation of the Press p.24). It is actions such as these that have caused the PCC to be regarded as a purely reactionary body.

Further problems with the Code can be seen regarding their third party policy. The PCC can only adjudicate complaints as long as the person complaining is directly involved. This often causes a



problem when dealing with issues such as discrimination. The incident when Al Sharpton, a black American preacher, was wrongly labelled as the “Bronx Beast” could not be upheld, although the Daily Mail admitted it was a mistake, because the nature of the complaint was third party the PCC was powerless to take action. This is largely due to the nature of the PCC which is only designed to deal with complaints about editorial content, “It was never designed...to...promote journalistic standards or ethics” (The Ownership of the News p.67). This creates a very large grey area when dealing with newspaper values and ethics.

The growing technology throughout the media industry and the world also creates a huge number of problems for the PCC and the ability to judge between the public and private domain will continue to become murkier, “something that will doubtless be a factor for the courts and other bodies adjudicating on where the boundaries of what is public and what private lie” (PCC Annual report, 2008 p.22)

However, the PCC is not by all means a failure and it can be argued that awareness throughout the industry has increased over the last twenty years. The way in which the press treat children has noticeable improved and it is now common for journalists not to use a story because “it would mean naming a child” (The press Complaints Commission: a study of ten years of adjudications on press complaints p.114). However, it is hard to put this down to the PCC or by events that have occurred in the last two decades such as Lady Diana’s death or Mr Goodman’s trial, “Mr Goodman’s conviction and sentencing.....is likely to have had a more lasting effect on press behaviour than sanctions imposed by the PCC” (self regulation of the press p.26).

The PCC as an industry watchdog is far from perfect, its close ties with the media industry as well as its intransigent approach and lack of transparency is cause for concern. However, “No law prevents every breach. No body acting for peace prevents every war” (Geoff Elliot, “The Case for Self-Regulation). The PCC still represents a self-regulated press in Britain and is a model for many others like it across Europe, the alternative to statutory regulation would be to threaten the freedom of the press and the British public’s right to free access of knowledge. If we are to maintain a self-regulated press then organisations like the PCC are essential, although a number of reforms are clearly due.


strengths and weaknesses of the pcc

Documents