PCC IPSO effectiveness the arguments FOR

A bullet-pointed, abbreviated list; everything I refer to below is covered in more detail elsewhere in this blog and/or handouts (many of which are also embedded within posts).

IPSO
There is very little change from PCC to IPSO, but there is some:
IPSO has exercised a new power (still no sanctions if papers refuse though) to insist on front page corrections: it has forced The S*n to do this over a false claim about Jeremy Corbyn, and the Daily Express (in Dec 2016) for claiming English is dying out in schools; they have also forced The Times to do this.
The Editor's Code was revised for 2016, now including headlines within Clause 1 (Accuracy)
Part of this revision was to explicitly require SWIFT resolution of complaints.
They have increased the non-industry representation on their board
They have shown a much greater willingness to consider third party complaints, something the PCC was criticised (by the Culture Select Committee) for routinely threatening to do (The Express '311 languages spoken in our schools' story about the decline of spoken English was one example)
They have been much more assertive over website content, notably including US editions - even more notably, this includes ruling against the Mail Online, the world's leading newspaper online and the newspaper group many accuse IPSO of being run by

PCC
There are very few examples to convincingly argue that the press have been effectively regulated, but all of these points can be raised:
- the PCC consistently highlighted high 'satisfaction ratings' in their annual reviews
- despite all the contrary evidence, they did get fulsome praise from Tony Blair and David Cameron
- (and, when FINALLY responding to Calcutt's 1993 recommendation to replace the PCC with statutory regulation, the 1995 Tory gov praised the PCC)
- Prince William held a 'thankyou party' for the PCC and national editors (we'll consider this more later)
- by encouraging non-legal resolutions to disputes (ie, not the courts, expensive lawyers), they arguably made resolution more attainable for ordinary people
- a glib argument, rather hypocritically used by a press who leave to scream for state regulation of TV/film/ads/web, but still important: the press remains (notionally...) free from state/political interference; we have a 'free press' in the UK unlike many authoritarian nations (China etc)
- a linked point: it was/is self-funding: it costs the taxpayer nothing (ditto the BBFC), unlike OfCom (around £100m a year)
- the PCC argued that the numbers of cases 'resolved' itself indicated success, and that every correction or removal of article/picture proves their effectiveness
- three notable improvements from the PCC over the GCP and Press Council that preceded it: (1) lay membership become dominant; this wasn't just a press body judging the press, but also many non-press outsiders (2) it had a published 'Editor's Code' which set out the grounds on which complaints could be made and on which they would be judged [the PC did this in their final year, but essentially neither the GCP nor PC made the basis of judgements, or an open set of standards, known] (3) as is now accepted practice across the board for media regulators (the BBFC in particular highlights this, labelling their published information 'BBFC Insight' and specifically proclaiming this as a service for parents), the PCC publish their Code and judgements on a website, as well as detailed annual reports
There are few respectable sources who will offer up arguments for the PCC specifically, though there are more who will argue the wider point in favour of self-regulation; I recommend in particular looking for the 'Peter Preston' tag in the tagcloud. A former Guardian editor who also briefly served on the PCC, he continues to pen articles strongly advocating self-regulation, and even defending the record of the PCC. He insists that they do a better job than statutory regulators like OfCom. The PCC's website itself naturally contains useful material arguing that it is an effective regulator.

The counter-argument is overwhelming, but you mustn't make the mistake of simply ignoring the points above. Its also worth stressing that the apparent failure of self-regulation isn't a direct argument for statutory regulation: it is simply a reflection that the form and nature of the self-regulation we have had has been ineffective. The GCP, PC and PCC have all been largely reactive bodies, mainly responding to complaints (as explicitly highlighted in the PCC's very name), although the PCC did occasionally intervene when contacted with pre-publication concerns by those who would be impacted by planned articles. It also remained too dominated by press figures, despite the numbers of lay people involved. If a tougher regime, with the power to fine (as Leveson recommended, but the press rejected, and IPSO won't have), to enforce corrections within a timescale and on a page/size of its choosing, or even, as had been discussed, inflicting tax on papers who repeatedly breached the agreed standards or, like Desmond, just refused to come under the regulatory system ... then self-regulation may very well be effective.
So, before going into the many reasons for and examples of ineffective press self-regulation, do remember that this is not necessarily proof that self-regulation doesn't work - just that the style and approach of a system that, for example, ignores issues around press ownership, is (and surely will be with the not-so-different IPSO?) ineffective, as can clearly be seen by the consistently poor standards of our national press.

Walled, walled web and hidden censorship

The notion of the wild, wild web gets ever weaker. Regulation of the web is largely privatised, down to the whims and ideology of sites.

We should think of the walled, walled web, especially Facebook, but the policies of major social media, which seek to keep users in and on their site as long as possible, thus sucking out maximum data and advertising revenue, are the major de facto web regulator - and their supposed commitment to free speech is every bit as sincere as the press's.

That means any state regulation of them is baaaad, an attack on freedom of speech - and let's not use the t-word please...

The wild, wild web persists when it comes to tax avoidance, an issue with several of the billionaire press barons too. The industries have in common neo-liberal, fundamentalist free market owners. There is a current fightback in Europe, with several states pursuing legal cases against Google and its use of internal billing to minimise declared profit and focus this in low tax Ireland.

Contrastingly, Facebook and Instagram freak at the (female) nipple (helping to inspire the #freethenipple campaign), and in this case seem to have worked to undermine the meme protesting across a controversial rape sentencing in America, protecting the privileged (the censoring itself having gone viral, they've now said this was a technical glitch and will stop).

Interesting point on privacy - held up for private citizens but not for those in the public eye or on matters of public record.

This in the week when the EU-mandated right to forget saw Axl Rose apply for a takedown of prominent Axl is fat meme images.

See this Distractify post for more.

LEVESON Will press be forced to pay legal costs win or lose?

The history of press regulation has been one of government fear over press reprisal, thus the 60 year record of blatantly poor self-regulation failing to see any statutory change.

That could be about to change ... though I doubt it; if the Tory government did force through a proposed change on legal costs from libel cases they would unite the entire press in their fury.

The proposal is a good example of why there is no simple solution to the issue of press regulation. Self-regulation is a bad joke that has poorly served the public and clearly failed to improve press standards, although it's too early to judge IPSO which could yet change this tawdry, self-serving history.

Yet the proposed statutory regulation is an appalling, clearly unjust idea! That the bleats of the press barons about government repression and censorship, attacks on democratic principle, lack credibility is a reflection on the industry's low standing, not the arguments they're wielding.

Greenslade puts the case forcefully that allowing anyone to sue a paper without having to pay legal costs (win or lose, the paper picks up the tab) is unfair and would pose a severe threat to the financial viability of papers, never mind the scope for abuse.

Yet...without further reform the scope to wield libel law largely remains an option only for the rich. A well meaning statutory change would both fuel press determination to resist ANY further new regulation and discredit the cause of stronger press regulation!!!

Complex, as I said!

Whittingdale is right to think again about wielding the costs 'stick'.

ADS AUSTRALIA Fanta app targeting tweens banned

Australia has a voluntary self-regulation code on marketing junk food to under 12s, part of its response to the obesity crisis sweeping the Western world.

The contrast with the UK is stark: the Tory-led coalition government rather preposterously set up an advisory panel on food health regulation dominated by the food industry. Naturally enough, this has seen little movement on marketing or producing junk food.

So to see major corporations pull an expensive TV ad and app campaign is an intriguing example of seemingly robust self-regulation.

Fanta ad and app pulled for breaching guidelines on advertising to children.

A TV commercial and an iPhone app for the soft drink Fanta has been pulled after the Advertising Standards Board deemed its cartoon-style “Fanta Crew” characters were directed at children as young as nine. 

Under the self-regulation of advertising rules, junk food may not be advertised directly to children under 12. One 450ml bottle of Fanta has about 14 teaspoons of sugar. 

The commercial featured animated characters known as the Fanta Crew at the beach and riding rollercoasters while talking about the great taste of Fanta which to them is like an “awesome ride”, a “bubble explosion” and makes them feel like “busting out to my favourite beats”. 

The Fanta Fruit Slam 2 app and the Fanta “Tastes Like” TV ad were designed to sell an unhealthy product which “should not be promoted to children,” Jane Martin from the public health advocacy group, Obesity Policy Coalition, said on Wednesday.

WEB 2.0 No vicTory for not so nice Shap(ps)

Fairly remarkable tale this. Stripping away any dis/like of the party or individual involved, it can be viewed as a powerful example of self-regulation.

Grant Shapps accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals.

IN A NUTSHELL...

Key Themes

[written in 2012]

The idea of the paragraphs below is that these could go straight into exam essays; there's no extraneous material.

The themes I cover are:

• AUDIENCE THEORY
• FORMS OF REGULATION: STATUTORY [OFCOM], CO-REGULATION [BBC/OFCOM], SELF-REGULATION [BBC/PCC]; STATUTORY-BACKED SELF-REGULATION?
• COMPARED TO OFCOM, IS THE PCC ACTUALLY A REGULATOR?
• GLOBALISATION, DIGITISATION: NEW/SOCIAL MEDIA + WEB 2.0 
  
• FREEDMAN 2012 [longer post] + HEGEMONY OF FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY
   

AUDIENCE THEORY

There is a highly confused, inconsistent and generally irrational approach taken to the notion of media effects. Much of the commentary over media controversies reflects outmoded ideas and thinking developed by sociologists as far back as the 1920s and 1930. The often German Jews of the Frankfurt and Chicago Schools partly framed their ideas from personal experience of Nazi propaganda, developing concepts such as the hypodermic syringe model (the idea that the values contained within a media text could easily influence the thinking of an audience). From the outcry over Brass Eye to the more recent fuss over Rhianna/Christina Aguilera’s flimsy costumes and sexual dance moves, there is little effort to seriously investigate how children actually respond to material deemed inappropriate. As Maire Messenger-Davies, and David Buckingham, have explored in their academic work, we seriously underestimate the sophistication of children’s responses. There is a curious link between the press and the broadcast media on this issue: the press, so viciously opposed to regulation for itself, continually seeks tighter restrictions on TV/radio content –especially BBC/C4 content! As Stanley Cohen, Martin Barker and others have shown, the press continually generate moral panics by hysterically over-reacting to and exaggerating the harmfulness of singular events. Nowhere in most press reportage (at least amongst the red-tops, tabloid and mid-market alike), is there any thought given to the long development of advancements in thinking over audiences, and the growing appreciation of the ‘active’ state of the audience. The Daily Mail exemplifies this, its crude efforts at whipping up moral panics over today’s youth, causes of cancer (in one month, as BBC comedian Russell Howard documented in the YouTube hit “The Cancer Song”, they claimed being male, female, black, white and so on gave you increased chances of getting cancer!) reflecting a simplistic view of media effects that’s little-changed from the very earliest attempts at theorising audience effects.

Its worth noting, however, that Marxist media critics are also guilty of over-simplifying the issue of audience effects. Curran & Seaton focus on political and economic analysis to construct their view of the media in a way Chomsky would recognise, arguing that it works not for ‘the people’ and the public interest in a democracy, but for the hegemonic elite and their narrow interests, seeking to convince the many to support ideas that favour the few. They don’t directly tackle the issue of how diverse audiences are, or the scope for polysemy, or negotiated/oppositional readings that Stuart Hall and other semioticians have shown an individual audience member might construct, depending on their individual background and knowledge.

See this post for the Russell Howard vid and more.

FORMS OF REGULATION: STATUTORY [OFCOM], CO-REGULATION [BBC/OFCOM], SELF-REGULATION [BBC/PCC]; STATUTORY-BACKED SELF-REGULATION?
Republic of Ireland has press self-regulation, but unlike the PCC (Desmond withdrew without sanction [punishment]) its not a voluntary regulator, its set up by statute and has legal powers to enforce its sanctions. The government does not run or appoint the Irish regulator, the Irish press does, but government power, in contrast to the wagging finger of the UK's PCC, backs up its rulings. I note this because Labour leader Ed Miliband stated to Leveson this week (June 2012) thats what he wants to see here. This is described as statutory-backed self-regulation; we currently have voluntary self-regulation.
BBC self-regulates its strategic decision-making (which channels to run, how to spend the budget etc) although, unlike the press, it is 'statutory-backed', but OfCom regulates BBC content in terms of taste, accuracy and decency: UK TV therefore is co-regulated by a self-regulator and a statutory regulator.

It seems highly likely that the future points to press self-regulation continuing: Leveson made it clear when Tony Blair appeared last week that he does not wish to scrap self-regulation. However, the idea floated by Roy Greenslade and many others, and backed this week by Labour leader Ed Miliband when he appeared before Leveson, of copying the Irish model of statutory-backed self-regulation looks likely to be adopted. The PCC's cynical decision to announce its own abolition, handily pre-empting Leveson's recommendations, will help ensure that the press can successfully argue to be allowed to continue drinking in the last chance saloon (the new PCC replacement won't have had time to be tried out the argument will go). The example of Richard Desmond, withdrawing from the PCC without any consequence, in future is likely to see a punishment of VAT being applied to such papers, effectively a huge fine.

COMPARED TO OFCOM, IS THE PCC ACTUALLY A REGULATOR?
Only in a very limited sense: its very name reveals that it deals only with complaints. Whereas OfCom proactively engages in in-depth research into various strategic areas, for example its reviews of public service broadcasting, the PCC is reactive, dealing only with complaints. Given the greatest press scandal of modern times, Hackgate, the PCC's response was worse than poor: it actually attacked The Guardian, who broke the story, for damaging the reputation of the press, and its 'investigation' into News International's operations went no further than asking a few senior figures if they knew of hacking. When told, 'no, it was just the one "rogue reporter"' (royal correspondent Clive Goodman, jailed for arranging the hacking of royals' phones), the PCC accepted the line and reported that there was no further issue. When Lord Hunt announced the PCC's plan to abolish itself in March 2012, their failure over Hackgate was seen as a key factor (though many also feel this is a ploy to pre-empt Leveson and safeguard self-regulation). At best then the PCC is only a partial regulator, and even its handling of complaints has been very poor - as the 2010 Culture Select Committee noted in their highly critical report, the PCC has the power to investigate third party complaints ("in exceptional circumstances") written into its Editors' Code but routinely refuses to do so [the schoolgirl skirt-slut eg is good eg; blogger complained + rebuffed by PCC as third party; story + pics remain on Mail website].

What about OfCom then? Currently its running a formal investigation into Rupert Murdoch. If they decide he does not fit their "fit and proper person" test (a legal test as they are a statutory regulator remember), he will be forced to sell or greatly reduce his shareholding in BSkyB - otherwise they would lose their license to operate in the UK. Given that two ex-Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown and John Major, accused Murdoch of lying in his evidence (under oath) to Leveson and to the Culture Select Committee (a criminal act) just this week, that seems increasingly likely. The press licensing system was abolished in 1694. Other than Murdoch there have been many recent examples of criminal press proprietors [owners]: Robert Maxwell (Mirror) and Tiny Rowland (Observer) in the 1980s and Conrad Black (Telegraph), just recently released from a Canadian jail. It says a lot about the corrupt relationship between press and politicians that Black was made Lord Black before his criminal conviction.

Lets take another aspect of regulation: taste, accuracy and decency. OfCom regulates both commercial TV and the BBC on this; in theory at least, the PCC regulates the press over this. The contrast is almost laughable however. OfCom issues fines for breaches of the watershed rules (eg swearing by Chris Moyles on the BBC), and issued a warning after all the complaints over Rhianna and Christina Aguilera's scantily clad [wearing v little], sexualised performances at the 2011 X Factor final, reminding broadcasters of their legal requirement to protect children from explicit material before the 9pm watershed. The BBC announced in 2009, following the 'Sachsgate' scandal, its intention to tighten up and effectively extend the watershed with bleeped swearing through to 10pm.

Its worth asking if both OfCom and the BBC (who in 2004 reacted angrily to OfCom proposals to tighten up the watershed) were responding to political pressure (the Tory Party is hostile towards both organisations)? In the 1980s the IBA and the BBC stood up to intense pressure from Mrs Thatcher to ban documentaries on Northern Ireland and 'The Troubles' (Real Lives and Death on the Rocks). The entire broadcast industry fought against the 1989 Broadcasting Act which banned the voices of Irish Republican spokesmen (notably satirised in Chris Morris' The Day Today), which was quickly repealed [the ban was lifted] when John Major became PM. Thames TV paid a heavy price though: having produced Death on the Rock, they were the only major ITV company to lose their license under the new system brought in by the 1990 Broadcasting Act. Indeed, the IBA was arguably scrapped for doing too good a job as an independent media regulator, representing the public interest and not that of the media industry or of politicians - it was scrapped and replaced by the ITC through this same Act.

Politicians learned from the example of David Mellor, the Heritage Secretary now remembered for toe-sucking his Spanish mistress wearing only a Chelsea football top after he dared to warn the press it was "drinking in the last chance saloon", not to mess with the press (Tom Watson, the Labour MP who alone kept pushing the Hackgate story in Parliament, was directly threatened by News International). It seems the TV industry and its regulators have also learned not to mess with powerful politicians. When the BBC dared to (correctly) question the 'dodgy dossier' used to justify the UK's war on Iraq a furious Labour government saw to it that both the senior BBC executives resigned (Dr Kelly's 'suicide' followed); the pro-monarchy coverage of the Jubilee by the BBC in June 2012 suggests it has lost much of its independence. As Chomsky might argue, the 'flak' (one of the five filters in his propaganda model) it received ensured it reduced its broadcasting of counter-hegemonic material. The BBC has always been vulnerable to political pressure, with the government setting the license fee and thus directly controlling its budget, and they weren't the only media organisation to backtrack from criticism of Labour's war on Iraq (advertiser pressure ensured Piers Morgan was sacked as Mirror editor over a doctored photo; he had led an anti-war campaign through the paper, which was immediately abandoned once he was sacked). Even OfCom have shown why they are accurately labelled a quango - quasi-autonomous. Even before the 2010 election, they began reducing their activities and cutting their budget in response to Tory criticisms.

As I'll discuss in more detail later, such moves are highly questionable given the digitisation of TV and radio; Playboy's UK managing director (albeit having just been fined 'fined £110,000 by Ofcom for airing "adult sex" chat advertisements that featured sexually provocative footage') is one to have argued, in December 2011 [giving such dates helps show your examples are up to date] that UK-based companies were losing out to unregulated foreign web operators and that Tivo and other 'time-shifting' recording devices rendered the watershed an obsolete concept ("the watershed is a nonsense" were his precise words). Given that pornographer Richard Desmond runs two national newspapers and C5, we can't simply dismiss his argument because of his background.

The Daily Mail, typically, sought to stir up a moral panic (Stanley Cohen's concept of distorted media coverage exaggerating the frequency and threat of antisocial actions, later explored in greater detail by John Springhall) over the issue ... but its own coverage of the X Factor final included photos more explicit than those actually broadcast! The PCC, of course, was silent on this, but blogs such as TabloidWatch and even other newspapers (Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker made the point that the Mail's website lacks any age restrictions but is filled with explicit imagery) picked up on this. This is not an isolated example [take your pick from these egs], from use of upskirt photos of the 15 year-old Charlotte Church and the "isn't she chest swell" story about her the Star ran alongside its hyperbolic [OTT, exaggerated] condemnation of C4 and the regulator ITC for allowing Brass Eye's "Paedogeddon Special" to be broadcast, through to the "schoolgirl told 'you look like a slut in that short skirt'" article the Mail ran (with helpful pictures of the 13 year-old's thighs) in 2009, clear breaches of Articles 6 and 7 of the Editors' Code are commonplace but ignored by the PCC. A blogger complained about that last story, and was told by the PCC that as he was a third party his complaint would not be investigated.

The hypocrisy goes further: while the press attacks any proposal for tighter press regulation as anti-democratic, the red-tops (tabloid and mid-markets) incessantly [frequently] call for tighter regulation of broadcast media. The Mail condemned OfCom as toothless [see here for egs of fines issued by OfCom] over its handling of the X Factor final 'scandal' of Rhianna/Aguilera's costume, and loses no opportunity to attack the BBC, even if that requires a blatant lie to do so (eg the 2011 'story' about the BBC ditching the BC/AD descriptors which was simply untrue). As the Guardian's media commentator Steve Hewlett argued, this is typical of the Mail's contradictory approach to media regulation: attacking TV regulation as too soft, using explicit images to illustrate articles on TV it claims to be angry about - images which, if the PCC was ran like OfCom, it would not be allowed to run ... but then press regulation is an attack on democratic freedom! The Mail manages to agree with the MumsNet report (discussed below) calling for lads mags to be covered with paper bags whilst somehow ignoring its own explicit imagery, let alone that of the tabloids with their daily page three, subject to no age restriction whatsoever.

There is a further social issue here, and a further question mark over how effective media regulators are. Somewhat absurdly, in 2010 the Prime Minister commissioned a conservative, pro-censorship pressure group, MumsNet, to report on concerns over sexualisation of children through media content. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that there needed to be tighter censorship, not least stronger application of the watershed. PM Cameron welcomed the report and said he would implement its recommendations. Having stated its intention to scrap OfCom (rather suspiciously, just days after James Murdoch's 2009 Edinburgh speech, using similar words, called for the same thing) before the 2010 election, its not surprising that the Tory Party would seek to use like-minded right-wing organisations to 'investigate' the media rather than OfCom. OfCom have independently investigated a range of media issues since their creation through the 2003 Communications Act, often drawing upon academic experts (such as Maire Messenger-Davies and David Buckingham for research into children's use of the media). As Freedman concludes in his 2012 book, The Politics of Media Policy, media policy (both here and the US; he examines both) is not governed by rational thought and research but rather by political calculations. The daily revelations in Leveson reinforce Freedman's conclusions.

Indeed, we should by now have a new Communications Green Paper, but the scandal surrounding Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, and PM Cameron's links to Murdoch through Rebeccah Brooks, his former media advisor Andy Coulson and direct meetings with the Murdochs, has ensured that plans to further deregulate UK media (more than likely benefitting Murdoch yet again in the process, just as previous Labour bills also did; the 2003 Communications Act was dubbed by many as the Murdoch Act as it loosened cross-media ownership rules ... ironically, it was Richard Desmond who benefitted most from this, adding C5 to his Northern and Shell empire of porn plus the Star and Express).

We could also ask if advertisers are not in fact the de facto press regulators. When the News of the World was closed by Murdoch, it may have been a strategic move but it was the series of announcements by advertisers that they would boycott the paper that caused its closure. Its noticeable again that the public did not turn to the PCC to raise their concerns or disgust about the paper; it was campaigns on Facebook, and trending on Twitter that pressurised major advertisers to withdraw. Newspapers cannot survive without advertising revenue, as the cover price (already reduced by distribution costs and retailers' margin) does not come close to covering the production cost, never mind offer a profit margin. Its advertising that makes newspapers profitable or not. When the 1960s Times put on a large new C2DE readership it actually lost a lot of money: advertisers targeting ABC1s refused to pay any more for these unwanted readers, so the paper became ever more right-wing to try to lose these new readers. Curran and Seaton in their classic study of UK press and broadcasting, Power Without Responsiblity, argue that the conventional history of the press is distorted. The 1985 Peacock Report into UK TV directly cited [quoted] the creation of press freedom through the 1851 creation of a free market as a model to follow (stamp duty was scrapped in 1851, ending formal government oversight of the press and leaving it to the 'free market'). Curran and Seaton detail the parliamentary debates of the time which show the clear intention of using a supposed free market to limit the working-class readership of papers and undermine the prospects of left-wing papers, then enjoying an equal market share with more right-wing papers. Just as Chomsky also argued (advertisers are one of his five filters in the propaganda model), the patronage of advertisers would decide which papers would thrive and which would fail. As advertisers represent businesses generally in favour of low wages, low taxation, weak unions etc, they're less likely to favour left-wing papers. Even the third Royal Commission on the Press (1977), in contrast to its 1949 and 1962 predecessors, concluded that the right-wing focus of our press needs to be addressed.

GLOBALISATION, DIGITISATION: NEW/SOCIAL MEDIA + WEB 2.0
As UK audiences increasingly use the likes of Pirate Bay and BitTorrent to (often illegally) access TV and film content online, irrespective of age ratings, and global social media forums such as Twitter are perceived to operate beyond our laws (eg the 75,000 Twitter users who broke a superinjunction by tweeting the names of Ryan Giggs and Imogen Jones in January 2011), is media regulation relevant or even feasible in 2012? Newspapers are in steep decline with circulation falling fast as the web increasingly becomes the default news source, including many non-UK sources freely available online. As the web 2.0 theorists (not least O'Reilly, 2004) argue, the line between audience and producer is collapsing in our digitised, new media age; it could be argued that the evidence emerging through Leveson of the too-close links between politicians and press marks the end of an era. In the future will the bias of a tabloid matter as much as opinions trending on Twitter?

Twitter, and its users, are arguably already a more effective informal regulator than the PCC. When Lord Prescott (former Labour deputy PM) read quotes in the Sunday Times he knew he hadn't said, he didn't ring the paper or the PCC; he tweeted. Within two hours he'd received an apology and the article was removed from the Times website. Prescott argues that the traditional media have grown so large and powerful they no longer the democratic 'fourth estate' or public sphere function; they have actually become part of what we need protection against. He says that Twitter reaching 10m UK accounts makes it more likely that accurate information will be available to UK citizens. (It seems TV audiences are also as likely to take to Twitter as to contact the formal regulators: while the BBC got 3,000 complaints over its Jubilee coverage, there were more tweets about presenter Fearne Cotton alone - her response to "being bullied" became just as big a story, a good example of how far tabloidisation has gone [BBC pro-royal bias should have been the story, but instead the blonde celebrity was more widely covered]).

Having seen off the challenge from AtVOD, the online-TV regulator created by EU law, to also regulate the multimedia content on newspapers' websites, and given that it runs a detailed website, the PCC could be seen as responsive to the challenges of the new media age. However, it actually details only a small minority of the complaints received, and manages to ignore the daily distortions of the press, whether thats the Express telling its readers that the EU wants to merge France and the UK (not an April Fool's story!) or the Mail, as satirised by Russell Howard in "The Cancer Song" (a much-viewed YouTube clip), telling its readers that being male, female, black, white (... and many more factors over a single month in 2011) increased your chances of getting cancer. The PCC ignores these distortions and obviously made-up stories, and also turns a blind eye to the ideological bias of the press. You could argue then that its actually blogs such as MailWatch, TabloidWatch, The Murdoch Empire and his Nest of Vipers and more that actually effectively scrutinise and expose the shortcomings of our press.

[this point already covered above] There's a challenge for OfCom and the BBC here too. After OfCom's December 2011 warning to all UK broadcasters over breaches of the watershed, the BBC responded by proposing to effectively extend the watershed, stating that there shouldn't be a sharp, sudden swift to adult fare; more adult fare should be kept for 10pm or even later.

FREEDMAN 2012 [longer post] + HEGEMONY OF FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY:

Freedman 2012 compares US + UK media regulation and finds that both are dominated by neo-liberal, free market thinking BUT both nonetheless share significant gov intervention over content (FCC/OfCom’s decency rules) and markets (sets limits on market share). So, free market/laissez faire approach dominates here + US but each follow varieties of neo-liberalism says Freedman: ‘Neo-conservatism and third way politics could be said, in this context, to be two different variations of neoliberalism.’ (p.223)

He argues media policy is made according to political needs, and the might of media corporate lobbying:  ‘It is hard to sustain an argument that the development of media policy is a bounded, rational process that is open to multiple voices representing disparate interests. Instead, media policy appears to be a rather slippery process that favours those who share an ideological disposition towards free markets and free enterprise, rather than a commitment to public service and a conception of communicative activity in which profits and economic value are not the decisive values.’ (p.221)

STATUTORY PRESS REG pros + cons

This central debate is reflected in many posts on this blog + links lists; I'll look to bring those together here at a later date. For now, this useful argument between a victim of phone hacking and a crime writer opposed to statutory regulation of the press:

Are legal curbs the answer for Britain's errant newspapers?

Lord Justice Leveson is set to deliver his verdict on phone hacking. As politicians and journalists prepare for a battle over possible state regulation of the press, Jacqui Hames, the former Crimewatch presenter and hacking victim, debates the issues with Observer writer Nick Cohen

• • Nick Cohen and Jacqui Hames
  • The Observer, Saturday 17 November 2012 20.07 GMT

Jacqui Hames, former police officer and Crimewatch presenter, and the Observer's Nick Cohen. Photographs: Antonio Olmos and Graham Turner

Dear Nick
I'll start with a bit of background. I'm best known for my stint on Crimewatch, between 1990 and 2006, but my police career started in 1977. I joined the Met at 18 and worked my way up through the ranks, serving as a detective constable until I took early retirement in 2008.
I gave evidence at the Leveson inquiry because in 2002 I was placed under surveillance by the News of the World. Up to that point my experience of the press was generally positive. On Crimewatch I experienced first hand the enormous benefits of working with the media to solve crime. That's not to say there weren't times when the different agendas conflicted, but that has to be expected.
That was all about to change. My then husband, a detective chief superintendent, appeared on Crimewatch to appeal for information in an unsolved murder. It was a gruesome case: a man killed with an axe outside a south London pub.

FUTURE: Leveson previews his decisions

UPDATE MAY 29TH: COMPARE + CONTRAST LEVESON + HOME SECRETARY THERESA MAY'S VIEWS:

The following comes from the live blog the Guardian have run each day of the Leveson Inquiry; today the Home Secretary was appearing:

12.30pm: Leveson says his concern is that voluntary regulation that is not seen as effective "is not really regulation of any sort".

12.29pm: May says she would not rule out the new press regulator being based in statute, but warned that it should get the balance right between freedom of the press and providing redress for complainants.

11.11am: May says there were growing concerns about the media regulation system in place in July 2011, but she believed that self-regulation was the way to deal with the media.

11.02am: Leveson asks May whether she has formed views on a possible future framework for regulation of the press.

She says she has not, but warns against "state interference" of newspapers through a statutory body.

11.01am: A free press is essential in a functioning democracy, May tells the inquiry.

She says there has been a "growing concern" that the Press Complaints Commission does not do the job it was set up to do.

Repeatedly the Home Sec sets herself as in favour of self-regulation, but concerned about the PCC's performance nonetheless (suggesting a 4th self-regulator may be the government's preferred outcome?). Leveson's line that self reg not seen as effective simply "is not regulation of any sort" is absolute dynamite.

Leveson got rather chatty with Tony Blair, and chose the occasion of the former PM's appearance (this the same PM who became godfather to Murdoch children, went to their Bethlehem christening ... and mysteriously disappeared from photos of this event which appeared in the press, and of course the same PM who flew all the way to Australia in 1996 to address News Corp's annual meeting ... and not make any deal that might explain why Murdoch's papers then switched their support to Labour!) to reveal a lot about the likely direction of his eventual report...

Leveson: press regulator would have to be independent of industry

Judge hints at key issues he thinks his inquiry has to tackle, from prior notification of subjects to effective sanctions

• Dan Sabbagh and John Plunkett
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 May 2012 17.28 BST

Lord Justice Leveson has hinted at his early thinking on press regulation

Lord Justice Leveson has set out his initial thinking on the future of press regulation, telling Tony Blair that any successor to the Press Complaints Commission would have to be independent of the industry as well of the state.

The judge, concluding Blair's four-and-a-half-hour appearance before his inquiry into press standards on Monday afternoon, rehearsed a list of what he thought the key issues he had to tackle were, ranging from the need to pre-notify subjects of news stories to "sanctions that work". He also invited the former prime minister to help him build consensus on reform.

Leveson said that the future structure of press regulation would have to be "independent of the government, independent of the state, independent of parliament, but independent of the press".

He added that a new regulator had to have journalism "expertise on it or available to it" and "must command the respect of the press but equally the respect of the public".

Shortly after, in the final minutes of Blair's testimony, Leveson went on to list what appeared to be the central issues that he believed he have would touch on in his final report on recommendations to the government on reforming press regulation, due this autumn. Outlining the tentative nature of his thinking on the topic, many of his comments were half formed.

The judge began by addressing the issue of group complaints and noted that he had heard complaints from transgender campaigners, advocates of the disabled, and representatives of immigrant organisations – all of whom had no cause for redress because the PCC "doesn't take group complaints".

Leveson moved onto the issue of prior notification – a subject of personal lobbying by Max Mosely – where he believed there had to be "some way of drawing a line" to ensure that "if you can stop anyone chopping my leg off, why would you not want stop it being chopped off rather than trying to stitch it back on".

The judge also asked whether there was a need for an ombudsman to advise editors ahead of publication, advice that if followed could be used in mitigation in any ensuing legal actions.

That was followed by reference to the need for privacy and libel law reform via "another mechanism for swift resolution of privacy and small libel-type issues" that could operate as an "inquisitorial regime, which can be done without lawyers" and that contained "some mechanism for members of the public to be able to challenge decisions" made by newspapers.

Leveson then said there was a need for "mechanism that means that sanctions work". He appeared to mean fines for errant newspapers, because he went on to add "I recognise entirely the parlous financial position of much of the press but it's important that sanctions are taken seriously."

Finally, he said that he had to "add to all that mix, the internet", because "I am struck by the fact that what the BBC does is covered by quite different rules to what the Guardian or News International does, and yet you could look at their websites and on the fact of it they're doing similar things."

Giving Blair little opportunity to respond, Leveson then said that he believed that he needed "political consensus" if he was to produce a report with recommendations that were acted upon – because otherwise it could become too easy for David Cameron or the government of the day to drop the proposals.

He worried that "in the absence of such a consensus the whole thing [press reform] will become too difficult" and added that "I am not sure that this issue is high enough the agenda" to be legislated upon.

Blair, in conclusion, responded by saying "I think you're right in recognising that this will be very tough", adding that he would send the judge further thoughts in writing.