What are the arguments for and against specific forms of contemporary media regulation

What are the arguments for and against specific forms of contemporary media regulation

• The arguments for and against media regulation large fall into two parts,

• 1. Self regulating vs. state regulation• 2. Press Freedom vs. state control • 3. Public interest vs. Privacy• 4. How effect are regulatory practices

Remember• In the UK there are different regulatory bodies some which are

regulated by the state i.e. OFCOM which is regulated by a government body and then you have PCC and BBFC which are self regulating. Both the BBFC and OFCOM have a statutory duty to regulate, but one is regulated by the government the other industry proffesionals.

• Question 1.: What is the difference between self regulation and regulation?

• Questions 2: What are the arguments for and against regulation• Question 3: How can we have some media which are self regulated and

others which are regulated by the state?• Question 4: In an era of the world wide web with global access, and

Web 2.0 is regulation possible at all?

Self regulation and regulation• Self-regulation means that the industry or profession rather

than the government is doing the regulation.

In contrast: State or statutory regulations means an act of law or a government body regulates the industry

• RECAP• In order to understand the present media you have to understand its past• The British press operates an important position as the fourth estate.• The press is there to challenge parliament and act in the public interest.• TV, historically emerged during the world war II period, and because of its

power as a vehicle for propaganda was deemed too important to be self regulated. In its current state OFCOM regulates TV and has statatury legal powers and so does the BBFC, but PCC and BBFC are self regulating and Ofcom is a government body.

Arguments against state regulation

• British press operates an important position as the fourth estate.

• The press are there to challenge parliament and act in the public interest.

• Journalists often use the ‘public interest defence’ as a defence to publish information.

• The media needs to be free to protect and promote the rights of freedom of expression and information, not provide an opportunity for public officials to interfere in or harass the media

UK regulation and the press• Print media in the UK is not subject to any specific

statutory controls on their content and activities, other than the general criminal and civil law. Criminal and Civil law is important as newspapers can be sued for libel and also a lot of celebrities bring civil law cases against newspapers.

• At present the PCC is self regulated this means that it is regulated by an independent, non-statutory body that is responsible for maintaining an Editorial Code of Practice and investigating complaints into alleged breaches of the Code.

The PCC is a voluntary self-regulatory system, has resisted state control but their is an uneasy balance, with some pushing for a statutory alternative that has powers enshrined in law.

Continued• The 1990 Calcutt report recommended the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission

to replace the Press Council. The new Commission would be given 18 months to prove non-statutory self-regulation could work effectively and if it failed to do so, then a statutory system would be introduced.

• The press rose to the challenge. The PCC was set up at the beginning of 1991 and at the same time a team of national and regional editors produced the Code of Practice for the new Commission to administer.

• However, in his first report of 1993, the late Sir David Calcutt complained of the ineffectiveness of the PCC and called for statutory regulation. The Government delayed responding until 1995, when National Heritage Secretary Virginia Bottomley rejected regulation, proposing instead a series of reforms to the PCC.

• Following the death of Princess Diana in 1998, the PCC came under pressure to reform again, and the Code was revised again to better protect privacy and to take account of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

• To date the Code has been revised 30 times since it was first published. The latest amendment was made to the Accuracy clause in January 2011.

PCC CodeLINK or available at http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html i

PCC is an ethical rather than legal code, and has no legal power in contrast to Ofcom and the BBFC.

Princess Diana’s death what people said: Arguments for regulation?

• The death of Princess Diana caused a public outcry with people blaming journalists, and journalists blaming the paparazzi. After her death radical changes to the PCC code were introduced such as rules about an individual's private life, the treatment of children and harassment.

• At the time Lord Spencer, Diana’s brother asked for privacy to be recognised as a human right and said it would be a fitting tribute to his sister if the old ways of tabloid journalism died with her.

The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission's code committee, Sir David English, chairman said "The tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales has focused unprecedented public attention on press intrusion, harassment and respect for privacy. As those charged with defining the Code of Practice which sets the benchmarks for the ethical and professional standards of journalism, we recognise this. We are now undertaking an urgent review of the code. As an industry we emphasise the need for the code to be followed not just in the letter but in its full spirit.“

Global impact of the PCC’s decision• Lord Wakeham said when the proposals would be introduced "no

longer be a market for pictures taken by the sort of photographers who persistently pursued Princess Diana". But he added that the problem remains a global one. The proposals include a new obligation to editors to check how pictures were obtained and measures to prevent so-called media scrums, caused by large numbers of journalists working at the same time. The present section of the code on privacy is expected to be re-drawn, with a definition of an individual's private life for the first time.

• The problem with this just because the PCC is regulated does not mean other countries have the same regulation, and with the internet people can publish what they want. WEB 2.0

Privacy law and EU law• Before and just after Diana’s death the UK had no such thing as

a privacy law unlike other countries, this meant journalist could photograph celebrities and invade their private life.

• This all changed with the inclusion of EU law• Article 8 of the ECHR, (European Convention Human Right) Right

to respect for private and family life states that:• 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

life, his home and his correspondence.• 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Privacy V’s public interest• This meant for the first time Journalists had a new regulator and that

was privacy law, now came the battle of privacy v’s public interest, EU law vs. the British press. You can use these in your exam.

• Important cases for privacy• Princess Diana• The killers of Jamie Bulger • Naomi Campbell• JK Rowling• Max Mosley• John Terry• Madeleine McCann• Jan Moir Daily mail

Media Standards Trust criticism

The Media Standards Trust weighed into the debate adding that the PCC should not have serving editors on its board and revealing that newspaper and magazine editors are not bound to follow advice from the PCC. Furthermore figures from the 2008 PCC Annual Report indicate that of the 4698 complaints that were brought only 45 were adjudicated. Even though the PCC claim that a considerable number of those complaints were “resolved”, one is less confident of their ability to provide adequate redress.

Further, the PCC has no power to fine offending publications and even in successful complaints, victims are not provided any form of compensation.

See you in court

• Questions for you?• Question 1.: What is the difference between

self regulation and regulation?• Questions 2: Do you think we should have a

system of state regulation or state regulation?• Question 3: What do you think about privacy v’s

public interest?• Question 4: Do you think the current system of

media specific regulation will last.

Arguments for regulation

• After watching see you in court what do you think are the arguments for regulation

• Think about the following?• 1. Is the current system working, if not why

not?• 2. Is self regulation a problem when we have

laws that can over ride self regualtion?

Limits of Self-Regulation under English law arguments against:

•Self-Regulation involves media organisations forming an independent body, setting up their own code of conduct and operational structure as well as raising their own funds.

• In Britain, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) is an independent self-regulatory body which adjudicates complaints from the public and acts as an “informal conciliator, leaning on newspapers to admit mistakes or oversights…”

• It is funded by a levy on newspaper and magazine publishers who subscribe to its authority. Does this create bias, how can you regulate yourself, the PCC’s history has shown that it does not work with the failure of previous self regulatory bodies?

• Use your case studies that you have watched and researched to support the problems of current PCC and self regulation

Theorists in favour of self regulation• Collins (1991:61) newspapers are watchdogs of society and it is vitally important to prevent direct

government intervention to the press. It is argued that statutory regulation would make the press behave more responsibly but it does not auger for democracy when politicians start praising newspapers for behaving responsibly.

• • Collins (1991:61) “Always behind the presence of statutory press regulation hovers the prospect of

censorship”• • Collins (1991: 61) argues that statutory regulation would also open up new markets and services for

lawyers by newspapers and few citizens could enforce their right without legal aid.• • Collins (1991: 62) In a framework of self regulation which deal with editors in a direct and impartial

basis as neither friends nor foes to each other.• • • Solevay and Reed (6) “however the type of self regulation now accepted has been advocated seriously

since about the year 2000. Prior to that self regulation had a much different meaning. It meant essentially no regulation” I.e. This can be linked to the fact that companies are now asking people to say how old they are before downloading something, or with AOL and other companies disconnecting people, there is now a move towards self regulation rather than no regulation on the internet.

•

Theorists against self regulation• Robertson and Nicol who have entertained the view that the PCC is “an ineffective

regulator which fails to offer adequate redress in a great many cases”.

• Tambini et al ( 277) “The argument for self regulation of the media as an alternative to legislation means using self regulation methods ( codes bodies able to apply the code) to provide a framework of limitations which in turn provides a system of accountability.

• • Criticism• Stokes and Reading (1999:156). Newspapers argue for freedom of expression, but in doing

so they suggest that newspapers alone, other than other public bodies should stand above international law. Quiet clearly for some newspapers the ability to snoop and poke into people’s private lives is infinitely more important than carrying out serious journalism.

• A similar view was echoed by the ECHR decision in Peck v United Kingdom (2003) ECHR when it was found that “The PCC rejected the applicant’s [Peck] complaint without a hearing…” Mr Peck was caught on CCTV when he attempted to commit suicide in a public place. This footage was publicised without his permission and the ECHR upheld his claim for invasion of privacy notwithstanding the PCC’s earlier rejection of the same complaint

Arguments for self regulation In 2008 Labour MP Jim Sheridan was arguing the case for the PCC to be replaced in the House of Commons .

Sheridan was introducing the new bill, which would be the latest attempt to “introduce a statutory method for protecting the general public from inaccurate and, at times, inflammatory reports in the press and media” .

• The new proposed regulatory system said it would not have any effect on the freedom of the press and that it was the duty of a free press to “balance commercial considerations with its responsibilities to individuals and to society as a whole” .

• • The main thrust of the argument is that the PCC should have more power to enforce its code and ensure that

members correct their mistakes when proved to have transgressed. Apparently the National Union of Journalists has been calling for the PCC to become a public body which would allow its practices to be scrutinised through the Freedom of Information Act 2000[5]. The argument is that if the workings of the PCC were more transparent, then there would be less cause for complaint, in particular with regards to the amount of complaints that are actually upheld. Sheridan goes on to state that “there is an increasing body of anecdotal evidence to suggest that in situations in which victims feel that they have a strong case, they are brought off with minimal out-of-court cash settlements, and with a small retraction buried in the depths of the newspaper”[6] .

• A 2009 Select Committee report into "Press Standards, Privacy and Libel" stated that "self-regulation of the press is greatly preferable to statutory regulation, and should continue

•

Internet • The growth of the internet has brought its own

problems particularly in relation to social networking sites and the protection of privacy.

• An Ipsos MORI poll commissioned by the PCC in March 2008 revealed that 42% of web users aged 16-24 knew someone who had been embarrassed by information uploaded on to the internet without their consent. And 78% of the entire adult online population would change information they publish about themselves online if they thought the material would later be reproduced in the mainstream media.

• In addition, 89% of web users thought there should be clear guidelines about the type of personal information that can be published online so that they can complain if the material is wrong or intrusive.

Internet does it mean the only way is self regulation?

• PCC director Stephen Abell, in an interview in June 2010, said the Commission believed that the proliferation of information online "militates against statutory regulation, as the content is so diffuse that it cannot be easily constrained."

• The PCC felt therefore that only self-restraint and self-imposed standards from newspapers, magazines and their websites could really work online.

The Internet is not immune to regulation.

• Forget self regulation- is statutory regulation already regulating the industry?

• How libel law is effecting regulation Libel law is when a person writes a defamatory untrue statement about a

person, a broadcast statement is called defamation. Newspapers are normally subject to libel laws but recently, this law has been applied to the internet.

Ranting in 140 characters has cost Courtney Love $430,000 (£265,000) after she was accused of libelling a fashion designer on Twitter. The singer agreed to settle Dawn Simorangkir's libel suit rather than face a jury in a courtroom showdown. It is thought to have been the first libel settlement prompted by tweets. Love had used Twitter and her MySpace account to declare Simorangkir, who is behind the Boudoir Queen designer label, a thief and a criminal. Love's ire is said to have been sparked in 2009 by the designer's decision to send Love a bill for five outfits.

The problem is not self-regulation vs. regulation or even the internet, its the fact that regulation is medium specific

• Points • In the past regulation in this country has been media specific, however, we can see with case

studies like Jan Moir that what was perfectly acceptable for the PCC, would have been a major problem for OFCOM’s guidelines. This means that regulation is a joke because there is no consistency.

• You have the BBFC and Ofcom which both have statutory duties but, BBFC is regulated by industry professionals and Ofcom by a government body. BBFC is more like the PCC in relation to the way it regulates itself however PCC has no legal powers.

• Further, with the impact of the internet, 24 news coverage, how can you regulate or censor news, if the press are not aloud to report it because of an injunction, then people will search the internet.

• The problem with the concept that we can regulate the media, is largely in doubt now because of the impact of internet, and web 2.0 unless we regulate the internet, doing this is both difficult because different countries have different law, also because of web 2.0 and also because regulating the internet would be seen as a

Remember

• What the internet does is highlight this problem of media specific regulation firstly because it is difficult to regulate.

• Secondly it shows the problems with the current system because the internet is a medium which contains technological convergence and proliferation, i.e. it contains radio, print, TV, adverts and films.

• All of the above are regulated be a media specific regulatory system i.e. self regulated and regulated, so the internet highlights the problem with the current system.

Is the internet free• Twitter and Facebook have been lauded as the ushers of a new era

in social activism. • But when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in

Egypt this Jan. and Feb., the government switched off the Internet. The Mubarak regime disconnected 90 million people from the Web simply by calling the country’s four internet service providers and demanding they discontinue service. Perhaps social networks aren’t as decentralized as we thought.

• Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist writing for CNN, said the Internet is “entirely controlled by central authorities.” While the common person may feel a degree of liberty with their Tweets or posts, ultimately the power is vested in the corporations who own the platforms and the governments that command the kill switches.

Theorists McQuail• Internet as a new media, changes the role of the audience. The

balance of audience activity shifts from â reception to searching, consulting and interacting (Mc Quail, 2000: 120).

• Internet features three main ideas as it is interactivity, demassified nature and breaking the barrier of space and time. Audience are able to access the Internet from almost everywhere, seeking information from sources within and outside geographic barriers. The audience are not restricted to local content anymore, as the degree of freedom that is available. Despite the differences, the new media are being used and exploited in much as the same way the old media for selling, advertising, propaganda and persuasion ? (Mc Quail, 2000: 124).

Homework

• Checks this website about http://theory.org.uk/

• http://www.alevelmedia.co.uk/page_1269723589777.html