The Editors’ Code Committee and the Leveson Recommendations: another case of dumb insolence
Please note this is Hacked Off's old website, and it will soon be archived.
The British press is very good at telling others how to organise their affairs. It is not so good at putting its own house in order. Our newspapers have a long and consistent record of evasion and inaction when it comes to dealing with its own deficiencies. One interesting, and neglected example concerns the “Editors’ Code”. This is the code of standards which the discredited Press Complaints Commission claims to enforce. It is drawn up by a body known as the Editors Code Committee. This, as Lord Justice Leveson pointed out:
“is wholly made up of serving editors and is separate from the PCC. Its members are appointed by the Press Standards Board of Finance (‘PressBoF’), itself entirely made up of senior industry figures”.
Lord Justice Leveson did not like this arrangement. He suggested that
“a Code Committee would have to be established on which, I believe serving editors have an important part to play although not one that is decisive. The Code Committee should advise the new body which itself would take ultimate responsibility for its content and promulgation” (Recommendation 7).
Without making recommendations as to the content of the Code he made clear that there should be public consultation on its terms.
How did the Editors’ Code Committee react to these recommendations? Just over a fortnight after the publication of the Leveson Report it issued a Response [pdf]. This, we were told, “followed a Special Meeting” of the Committee held on 5 December 2012.
The Code Committee announced a “series of initiatives” which aimed to “ensure high standards of journalism in a fast changing media world”:
1. The Code’s definition of the public interest will be revised with urgency, in light of the Leveson Report, to take into account the definition of the public interest published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in his recent Guidelines for Prosecutors.
2. The Committee also agreed to take up Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation to appoint lay members. The Committee at present comprises 13 editors, plus the Chairman and Director of the Press Complaints Commission as observers. In future it is proposed the number of editors will be reduced by three, to 10, with five lay individuals – including the Chairman and Director of the new regulator joining the Committee as full members.
3. The Committee proposes to add a new Compliance Clause to the Editors’ Code. Under this clause all editors must offer readers a clear and effective means of making complaints, and publish corrections and apologies promptly, preferably without recourse to the new Regulator. In cases where it is not possible to reach agreement by negotiation, the clause will make it clear that editors will have to publish adjudications, and approved corrections and apologies, in positions required by the Regulator.
4. The Committee will also, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson, undertake a review of the Code. It will invite suggestions from the public and, for the first time, newspapers and magazines will be encouraged to urge their own readers to contribute.
This was on 14 December 2012. What has the Editors’ Code Committee done to implement these initiatives? In accordance with the usual approach by the press to its promises on regulation the answer is: as little as possible.
There has been no “urgent” revision of the definition of public interest. No lay members have been appointed to the Committee (although the number of editors has, mysteriously, been reduced from 12 to 11). There has been no addition of a compliance clause to the Editors’ Code.
The Committee did undertake a “review of the Code”. This was launched in December 2012 with a February deadline for responses. On 14 February 2013 this deadline was extended to 17 April 2013 [pdf]. Since then, silence. No “consultation responses” have been published and no proposed revisions to the Code. In short, once again, nothing has happened.
In short, the Committee’s practical response to the Leveson recommendations has been to do nothing at all. This is, in microcosm, the press response to external criticism: ignore the substance, pretend to take minor action and then do nothing.
Under PCC Mark II (otherwise known as IPSO) the Code Committee will continue in existence – operating under the control of the “Regulatory Funding Body” (PressBoF Mark II). Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendation that the self-regulator should, itself, take ultimate responsibility for the Code has been ignored.
Is this a system which can command the confidence of the public?
1 Comment
Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.
No-one can deny the plausibility of the PCC’s Lord Hunt, nor many his unfortunate usefulness to ‘the establishment’ that continues so to let down itself, the press and and the country.
Is there then need to enquire after any further explanation behind the inveigling of Lord Philips, and thence of a select few others of ‘established’ spirit and opinion, into the search for common ‘foundation-group’ cause with thoughts – for the Sun – on Lord Justice Leveson’s “misery”, the Royal Charter “laughing stock”, and our MPs “fiasco”?
Assuming that Lord Phillips does not share Lord Black’s sense of entitlement to ownership of ‘our free press’, or such contentment with the rule of fear and greed against which Leveson sought to bring surer accountability, the concern arises that ‘those in the know’ might have genuine fears as to the harm that other figures, like themselves but perhaps of lesser ‘independence’, might wreak upon us from within the apparently almost foolproof smallish benignity of the Royal Charter system.
Is there a clue to such harm in the latest peculiar contribution from The Observer’s Peter Peston today, mentioning that amongst ‘candidates’ for the chair of the Royal Charter Regulator (supposedly to be appointed independently of politicians), Lord Brown – now a member of the panel to select PCC/IPSO’s chair and board – “was one of No 10’s most favoured candidates”?
Other than ‘the usual’, what is the ‘ordinary person’ to make of such?