Press Complaints Commission

From Vero - Wikipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Template:Use British English Template:Use dmy dates

File:Press Complaints Commission.png
Logo

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was a voluntary regulatory body for British printed newspapers and magazines, consisting of representatives of the major publishers from 1991 until its shutdown in September 2014 following the News International phone hacking scandal in 2011. The scandal resulted in the judicial Leveson Inquiry led by Lord Justice Leveson into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press and led to the formation of the royal Charter on self-regulation of the press to oversee press regulators as they had shown to be ineffective in self-regulating without oversight.

The PCC was funded by the annual levy it charged newspapers and magazines. It had no legal powers – all newspapers and magazines voluntarily contributed to the costs of, and adhered to the rulings of, the commission, making the industry self-regulating.<ref name = "PC">Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence Template:Webarchive, House of Commons, 25 March 2003, Appendix XIX. Retrieved on 9 July 2007.</ref> Prior to its closing, Lord Hunt was appointed Chairman of PCC in October 2011.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Following the News International phone hacking scandal, PCC received heavy criticism from British Members of Parliament (MP) and Prime Minister [at the time] David Cameron, who called for it to be replaced with a new system in July 2011.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> In December 2011 Lord Hunt announced plans to replace the PCC with a new independent regulator.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Hunt also planned to introduce a voluntary, paid-for, 'kitemarking' system for blogs. The kitemark would indicate that the blogger has agreed to strive for accuracy, and to be regulated. Bloggers would lose their kitemark if complaints against them were repeatedly upheld. Hunt's plan was to start the roll-out by targeting bloggers that coverered current affairs at the time.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

The same day of PCC's closure, 8 September 2014, it was replaced by a newly formed group, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), chaired by Sir Alan Moses and previous members of the press of PCC. The new royal charter created the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) in November 2014 to provider oversight on press regulatory bodies under the royal charter. IPSO did not seek approval under the Press Recognition Panel.<ref name="NUJ"/><ref name="CAMRI2021"/>

A 2024 review by the Press Recognition Panel found that IPSO had not lived up to its promises, and was acting much like its predecessor PCC had, raising "serious concerns that IPSO represents only the latest stage in what Lord Leveson defined as a pattern of cosmetic reform by the press." The report found that IPSO had only investigated 3.82% of reports and only upheld 0.56% of complaints it received over a five-year period from 2018 to 2022, despite having received more complaints than PCC had previously. The panel compared the organization with IMPRESS, the only independent regulatory body that has sought, and received approval to regulate media it oversees, which had upheld 21.67% of complaints it received during a six-year period from 2018 to 2023.<ref name="PRP2024review"/><ref name="byline2025"/>

Chairs

History

Press Complaints Commission in Salisbury Square

The precursor to the PCC was the Press Council, a voluntary press organisation founded in 1953 with the aim of maintaining high standards of ethics in journalism. However, in the late 1980s, several newspapers breached these standards and others were unsatisfied with the effectiveness of the council. The Home Office thus set up a departmental committee, headed by Sir David Calcutt, to investigate whether a body with formal legal powers should be created to regulate the industry.

The report, published in June 1990, concluded that a voluntary body, with a full, published code of conduct should be given eighteen months to prove its effectiveness. Should it fail, the report continued, a legally empowered body would replace it. Members of the press, keen to avoid external regulation, established the Press Complaints Commission and its Code of Practice.

The first high-profile case handled by the PCC was brought by the then Duke of York who claimed that the press were invading the privacy of his small children. The complaint was upheld.

The commission's first chairman was Lord McGregor of Durris. He was succeeded by Lord Wakeham in 1995. He resigned in January 2002 after concerns over a conflict of interest when the Enron Corporation collapsed. He had been a member of the company's audit committee. Sir Christopher Meyer was appointed in 2002 following a brief period of interim chairmanship by Professor Robert Pinker, leaving in 2008.

In 2006, the PCC received 3,325 complaints from members of the public. Around two-thirds of these were related to alleged factual inaccuracies, one in five related to alleged invasions of privacy and the rest included the lack of right to reply, harassment and obtaining information using covert devices. 90% of cases were resolved to the complainants' satisfaction. 31 of the cases were adjudicated by the commission before being resolved as the complainants were initially not satisfied by the action recommended by the commission.<ref name="pcc-about">Template:Cite web</ref>

In 2009 the PCC received more than 25,000 complaints, a record number, after an article appeared in the Daily Mail written by Jan Moir about the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately. Moir had described events leading up the death as "sleazy" and "less than respectable". On 17 February the PCC confirmed that although it was "uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist's remarks", it would not uphold the complaints made.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

As of 12 January 2011, the Northern and Shell group (often referred to as the Express Group) of publications withdrew its subscription to the PCC. According to the PCC, "a refusal to support the self-regulatory system financially means that a newspaper publisher effectively withdraws from the PCC's formal jurisdiction, which the PCC considers regrettable". Consequently, the Daily & Sunday Express, Scottish Daily & Sunday Express, Daily & Sunday Star, OK!, New magazine and Star magazine are no longer bound by the PCC's code of practice, and the public no longer has recourse to making complaints through the PCC.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

The Guardian newspaper reported<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> in May 2011 that social media messages are to be brought under the remit of the PCC after it ruled in February 2011 that information posted on Twitter should be considered public and publishable by newspapers.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Following the News International phone hacking scandal in 2011, which resulted in the judicial Leveson Inquiry on the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. The Inquiry led to the formation of the royal Charter on self-regulation of the press in 2013 to form a regulatory government body that would be overseeing independent press regulators as they had shown to be ineffective in self-regulating without oversight.<ref name="CAMRI2021">Template:Cite journal</ref>

PCC subsequently shut down on 8 September 2014, and on the same day, it was replaced by a newly formed group, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), chaired by Sir Alan Moses and previous members of the press of PCC.<ref name="CAMRI2021"/>

The new royal charter created the Press Recognition Panel (PRP) in November 2014 to provider oversight on press regulatory bodies under the royal charter. PCC's successor IPSO did not seek approval under the Press Recognition Panel.<ref name="NUJ">Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="CAMRI2021"/>

A 2024 review by the Press Recognition Panel, found that the new Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) had not lived up to its promises, and was acting much like its predecessor PCC had. The review raised "serious concerns that IPSO represents only the latest stage in what Lord Leveson defined as a pattern of cosmetic reform by the press." The report found that IPSO had only investigated 3.82% of reports and only upheld 0.56% of complaints it received over a five-year period from 2018 to 2022, despite having received more complaints than PCC had previously. The panel compared the organization with IMPRESS, the only independent regulatory body that has sought, and received approval to regulate media it oversees, which had upheld 21.67% of complaints it received during a six-year period from 2018 to 2023.<ref name="PRP2024review">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="byline2025">Template:Cite web</ref>

The Code of Practice

Any member of the public, whether a relative unknown or a high-profile figure, is able to bring a complaint against a publication that had volunteered to meet the standards of the Code. Members of the Commission adjudicate whether the Code has indeed been broken, and, if so, suggest appropriate measures of correction. These have included the printing of a factual correction, an apology or letters from the original complainant. The Commission does not impose financial penalties on newspapers found to have broken the Code.

Many publishers have added clauses to the contracts of editors of newspapers and magazines giving them the option to dismiss editors who are judged to have breached the PCC Code of Practice. The PCC and its adherents claim that by attaching personal significance to the role of the PCC in the editors' mind, its role has become more effective.

The section titles of the code of practice on which judgements are made are as follows:<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

Template:Cquote

It is worth noting that reporting restrictions imposed by judges take precedence over the PCC's code. For example, under the Sexual Offences Act 1992, victims (even alleged victims) of sexual offences have lifetime anonymity. This means that a newspaper cannot print any particulars leading to the identification of a sexual offence victim.

Criticism

In 2001, Labour MP Clive Soley said that "other regulatory bodies are far stronger, far more pro-active and really do represent the consumer. There are no consumer rights people on the PCC and that is a major failing".<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Journalist Nick Davies criticised the PCC for failing to investigate the vast majority of complaints on technical grounds in his book Flat Earth News (2008), an exposé of modern British newspaper journalism.Template:Citation needed

Phone hacking scandal

Template:Main In February 2010 the commission was described as "toothless"<ref>The Guardian, 24 February 2010, MPs' verdict on News of the World phone-hacking scandal: Amnesia, obfuscation and hush money</ref> by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select committee investigating the News of the World phone hacking affair.

In a press conference on 8 July 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron described the PCC as 'inadequate' and 'absent' during the phone hacking affair.Template:Citation needed

Self-regulation

The 2009 British investigative documentary Starsuckers exposed the request to obtain medical records of celebrities by many of the red-top UK tabloids, and the lack of PCC action against the papers that had broken the PCC charter.<ref name=PCC_COP>Template:Cite web</ref> The tabloids ran the bogus stories about the likes of Amy Winehouse, Pixie Geldof and Guy Ritchie. Secretly interviewed reporters claimed that "the PCC is run by the newspaper Editors", "Getting a PCC isn't great, but, a lot of papers just brush it aside, all it is, is a little apology somewhere in the paper, you get a slap on the wrist, you get reported by the PCC, but there's no money".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> The PCC took no action against the papers that ran these stories but did respond with a letter to the Editor of The Belfast Telegraph.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The response of Chris Atkins, the documentary's director, was that the PCC had yet still not acted on the issue of several newspapers breaking their Code of conduct 8.2.<ref name=PCC_COP/>

Template:Cquote

Funding

Template:Update On 24 August 2011, the New Left Project published an article<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> by Julian Petley, arguing that the PCC is "not, and never has been, a regulator": he presents the case that the PCC is the equivalent of the customer services department of any large corporate organisation, responding to customer complaints for most of the British press. The PCC responded to this article<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> on their own website, stating that the PCC is a regulatory organisation which very regularly intervenes "proactively and pre-publication to prevent tabloid and broadsheet stories appearing". Jonathan Collett said that this method has an "almost 100% success rate". Petley responded to Collett in the New Left Project on 26 August 2011,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> stating that the PCC "lacks sufficient sanctions to be able to punish effectively those who breach its Code" and that the problem is not the PCC but its funding.

See also

Template:Portal

References

Template:Reflist

Template:Media in the United Kingdom Template:2011 News Corporation scandal Template:Authority control

Retrieved from "https://wiki.sarg.dev/index.php?title=Press_Complaints_Commission&oldid=347301"