Tensions Rise On Press Regulation Plans

Michael Hedges May 2, 2013, 2012 Follow on Twitter

Newspaper publishers have long presented themselves as guardians of truth and freedom. In truth, they are in the business of selling newspapers, whether by investigating the wicked or titillating on page three. Politicians see a better world when the news media chases UFOs rather than them or their friends. The public, sadly, is often quiet.

In mid-March British politicians burnt the midnight oil, literally, to draft a press regulation scheme “underpinned” by a Royal Charter. Newspaper publishers were, mostly, horrified and several went on to draft their own less restrictive plan a month later, also under a Royal Charter. Reconciling the two competing plans could take years, possibly the underlying intention.

In its common modern usage, a Royal Charter in the UK distinguishes a loose set of individuals from a legal entity of some importance, not to be confused with articles of incorporation. Cities, universities and charities are recognized with Royal Charters. The Bank of England has a Royal Charter. Professional groups, from accountants to zoologists, have Royal Charters. The UK’s public broadcaster BBC has a Royal Charter, renewable every ten years.

Royal Charters in the UK are slightly more than symbolic gestures, rules set out can only be amended by the Privy Council, formally advisors to the Queen and mostly senior politicians, in effect representing the UK Parliament. Press regulation in the UK became a political issue after revelations of phone-hacking and allegations of bribing public officials linked, largely, to publisher News International, owned by News Corporation, and illuminated by a lengthy judicial inquiry that recommended “independent self-regulation” with more muscle than the dismissed Press Complaints Commission. The Privy Council will meet May 15th in regular session to take up the competing proposals.

The Parliamentary proposal, shaped by popular antipathy toward the phone-hacking misery and related political interest, would prevent amendments to the Royal Charter for newspapers without two-thirds agreement from both Houses of Parliament. Newspaper publishers hated this, saying it would lead to political interference. Newspaper publishers and editors would be precluded from vetoing members of the new regulatory, according to the government proposal, to prevent a “fox in the henhouse” situation. Obviously, the newspaper people weren’t pleased with this, either.

Under the government plan the new regulator could force newspapers to apologize for grievous harm to citizens, dictating specific placement and language of apologies. The newspaper publishers ditched that idea along with a whistleblower hotline for journalists who had been asked to break the law or take an ethical leap. A forced apology, said the newspaper publishers, would violate their human rights. Several international media watchers, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), expressed concerns about the direction of press regulation in the UK. The Committee to Protect Journalists called the government proposal “counter to bedrock principles of a democracy.”

If the new regulatory system seemed to be failing its independence, according to the government’s solution, a recognition panel could step in for “serious breaches.” Newspaper publishers limited those “breaches” to acts by journalists. The alternative proposal was put forward by News International, Associated Newspapers, Telegraph Media Group, Express Newspapers and Trinity Mirror with little input from publishers of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times. Regional publishers weren’t thrilled by the government plan, calling it expensive, and appear to favor a separate alternative.

The Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIoJ), a rather low profile organization, expressed fears over its own Royal Charter and remains “totally opposed to any state involvement in the enforcement of professional ethics, “ said its president Charlie Harris, quoted by the Guardian (April 30). “In a free society a press under state control is a far greater danger than a press out of control.”

The aforementioned publishers have mounted a public relations campaign with their own lobbying group – the Free Speech Network – and sponsoring poorly contrived astro-turf polls claiming support for their cause. Supporters of tighter controls over UK newspapers haven’t given up, either. Whether Prime Minister Cameron will further compromise or give it up is yet to be seen.

See also in ftm Knowledge

Press/Media Freedom - Challenges and Concerns

Press and media freedom worldwide is facing challenges from many corners. As authoritarian leaders impose strict control over traditional and new media with impunity, media watchers have concerns for democracy. This ftm Knowledge file accounts the troubles of this difficult decade. 88 pages. PDF (December 2011)

Order here