How do we stop a new press regulator "going native"?

Lessons from the failings of the PCC.

If there was any question left that the British media establishment has failed to grasp the enormity of the issues raised by the hacking scandal this should have been dispelled by Presbof’s comprehensive plan for a new regulator.

There are some massive changes proposed in the new document which, if Presbof is allowed to proceed with them, will have huge ramifications for all professional journalists in the UK.

It now remains to be seen whether Lord Justice Leveson can be persuaded that the poachers really can turn gamekeepers and whether those who were ultimately responsible for the failings of the PCC are the right people to come up with a new system.

My view is that the document goes some way to addressing the failings of the PCC – particularly with its new powers to investigate major failings and ensure the industry learns the lessons of disasters like phone-hacking and the reporting of the McCann and Jefferies cases.

But there are also some  flaws in their proposals.

The document has come about as a result of private meetings between an elite group of individuals – namely the major press owners. There has been no public consultation and no effort event to canvas the views of ordinary journalists. Presbof clearly believes that he who pays the piper calls the tune – the owners are prepared to fund the £2.25m running costs of the new regulator and the no-doubt enormous set-up costs without seeking help from the State. But I doubt whether Leveson will wear a new system which remains pretty well controlled by the press owners.

The regulator’s board would comprise two public appointees, an “independent” chair and two Presbof appointees. The owners would also control the code committee by appointing the majority of editors to it and they would appoint five of the 13-member adjudications panel.

With such a large number of appointees to the regulator controlled by the owners and drawn from a small pool of elite journalists, is the new regulator really going to be able to ensure it doesn’t “go native” as has apparently been the case with the PCC?

The new regulator proposes retaining the existing PCC system for dealing with complaints – with the major sanction remaining the publication of a critical adjudication. The document does not state whether front page mistakes should now warrant front-page apologies. But I suspect for this aspect of the plan to fly that will have to be the case.

In cases of extreme wrongdoing the new regulator will be able to commission independent three-person inquiries comprising an industry representative and two independent figures. The strict terms of the contract that members of the body will sign up to should ensure compliance with these inquiries. The strictest censure will be a fine of up to one per cent of turnover to a maximum of £1m.

This detail must betray the fact that the likes of Telegraph Media Group and Associated Newspapers call the shots at Presbof. Why should massive publishers be insulated from the one per cent rule by virtue of the £1m maximum? £1m legal cases are not unusual for the big Fleet Street players.

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Presbof that the views of ordinary journalists on the shop floor need to be incorporated into their thinking. To his credit PCC chairman Lord Hunt, whose proposals are subtly different, has suggested that they should via some sort of whistleblowers’ system.

At the heart of the hacking scandal, the treatment of the McCanns and the Jefferies case were systematic failings in the industry which go right to the top. At the News of the World there was a clearly a culture of ‘get the story at whatever the cost’ which emanated from Rupert Murdoch down through the senior executives to editors and journalists on the ground.

If Fleet Street is to change its culture, and place ethics above profits and scoops, the owners need to open up this process and accept that everyone in this country has a stake in the success of the press and the maintenance of journalistic standards – not just those who bank the profits. They do this to an extent via the public appointees but I’d argue that a broader range of industry voices needs to be heard as well.

The most dramatic changes proposed by Presbof are to lock publishers into the new system by controlling access to press cards, PA and major advertising. This solves the Desmond question while allowing mavericks like Private Eye to go their own way.

What follows now will be a high stakes game of poker. Presbof has shown its hand. Leveson cannot ignore the huge amount of work and thought that has gone into this offer of reform from the industry. But neither can he ignore the many other voices he has heard over the course of his huge inquiry. There is nothing in the Presbof proposals, for instance, to tackle the widespread concerns about allegations Rupert Murdoch has traded media power for political influence.

It will be fascinating to see how this all plays out in October when Lord Justice Leveson puts forward his proposals and Parliament is then left holding the casting vote.

This article originally appeared in Press Gazette.

Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.