Leveson: Editors Make Case On Regulation

Leveson Inquiry: The Options For Reform

Updated: 1:35am UK, Thursday 29 November 2012

Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations could radically change the way media organisations operate in the UK.

He has said he wants an independent body that could provide redress and a swift mechanism to resolve privacy and libel cases.

Those who complain of press harassment want a system that tackles invasions of privacy, inaccuracies and the culture that resulted in the phone hacking scandal.

But journalists and editors warn that freedom of expression will be threatened if a regulator with wide-ranging powers is set up.

Here are some of the options.

:: A "PCC-plus"

Lord Justice Leveson could call for a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission (PCC), with extra powers and resources to carry out inquiries and hand out punishments.

The general consensus is that the PCC's code of practice is a good foundation but many want it to have more power, amid criticism it has been "toothless".

Lord Black, chairman of the funding body for the PCC, has recommended a new body with the power to launch investigations and levy fines of up to £1m.

Current PCC chairman Lord Hunt of Wirral proposed turning the body into a true regulator of newspapers, with separate arms for dealing with complaints and enforcing standards.

A possible third arm could have the powers to mediate in disputes with newspapers and award compensation.

:: A PCC replacement combining self-regulation with a statutory framework

Lord Justice Leveson has stressed that he does not believe in the "binary" distinction between statutory regulation and self-regulation.

It has been suggested that a law should be passed forcing newspapers to sign up to the PCC or its successor.

Comments by the chairman during the hearings indicate he might be leaning towards the creation of an independent regulator backed by statutory powers.

These could include the ability to impose fines and insist on the prominence of corrections in papers, and a requirement to offer a "right to reply" to contentious articles.

:: Full statutory regulation

Some witnesses suggested the press should be subject to a much stricter regime, in the same way broadcasters are subject to watchdog Ofcom.

Ofcom has wide-ranging powers to investigate and penalise breaches of its detailed code - which includes strict clauses on impartiality and privacy - in TV and radio programmes.

Guardian journalists Nick Davies and David Leigh said they felt some newspapers are not capable of regulating themselves but statutory regulation was widely rejected as an option, especially by editors.

Lord Black, chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance, suggested any form of statutory intervention would struggle to cope with the pace of change.

There is also the question of cost. Ofcom carries out many other roles, but its 2011/12 budget of £115.8m dwarfs the £2m annual bill for the PCC.

Lord Justice Leveson has repeatedly stressed that he does not support the licensing of journalists or newspapers by the state, and this option looks unlikely.

:: An arbitration service outside the court system

Media groups repeatedly complained about the huge cost of defending libel claims brought in the civil courts, and the chilling effect this has on serious journalism in the public interest.

Editors say "no-win, no-fee" arrangements mean they face potentially ruinous legal costs if they fight an action and lose.

On the other hand, the cost of bringing a claim can be too great for ordinary people, rendering them helpless.

Lord Justice Leveson has spoken of the merits of "a speedier, effective and sensible mechanism for all to use and for all to take the advantage of".

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet suggested a successor to the PCC could offer a mediation service dealing with libel and privacy.

Nick Davies called for the formation of an independent panel to give journalists and members of the public confidential advice on whether a story is in the public interest.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger argued for a Press Standards and Mediations Commission with an adjudication wing, so people would not have to go to the law to address any differences with newspapers.

:: A newspaper industry ombudsman

Press regulation could be split between the PCC, dealing with day-to-day complaints, and an ombudsman with wider powers to investigate and punish.

Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre argued for a new self-regulatory body, standing alongside the PCC, to deal with standards.

He suggested the ombudsman, perhaps a retired judge or civil servant advised by former newspaper editors, could launch his or her own inquiry into potential scandals, summon journalists and editors to give evidence, and impose fines in the most serious cases.

Lord Justice Leveson is said to have looked to Ireland's press watchdog as a possible two-tier model for a new system.

The Press Council of Ireland and the Press Ombudsman were set up as a two-pronged approach to media regulation in 2008, as an alternative to costly court battles.

The Press Ombudsman deals free-of-charge with complaints from the public, considers whether they are valid, then acts to resolve them through conciliation.

Where conciliation is not possible, the ombudsman makes a decision based on the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.

He has the option of referring "significant or complex complaints" directly to the 13-member strong Press Council, drawn from the public and the media industry, for decision.

:: A new privacy law

Britain already has statutes protecting privacy through its adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights, article 8 of which covers the "right to respect for private and family life".

But critics argue this has been left open to interpretation by judges, who have in recent years tended to side with celebrities whose personal peccadilloes have been aired in newspapers.

Some witnesses called for the UK to adopt a strong law protecting personal privacy as in France.

:: A "prior notification" law

Former Formula 1 chief Max Mosley has campaigned for a law requiring newspapers to notify the subjects of damaging articles before publication since he was the subject of a News Of The World expose.

Lord Justice Leveson has expressed an interest in whether journalists contact people and organisations before running negative stories about them.

But the European Court of Human Rights has already rejected Mr Mosley's proposal, which would have major implications for freedom of expression, and there appears to be no prospect of it being introduced.

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

Leveson: Editors Make Case On Regulation

Dengan url

http://pusingkepalamu.blogspot.com/2012/12/leveson-editors-make-case-on-regulation.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

Leveson: Editors Make Case On Regulation

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

Leveson: Editors Make Case On Regulation

sebagai sumbernya