Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Press, state regulation of the
Section F. Culture, education and sport

Renewed interest in state regulation of the press was spurred by the 2012 Leveson Inquiry in the UK, which examined the various models by which the media can be regulated. In essence, the two basic models used in most countries are ’self-regulation’, in which the media establishes its own body to monitor and punish non-compliance with a Code of Ethics; whereas in a ’statutory regulation’ model, an independent press regulator is created by the government, but run at arm’s length. One important difference between the two systems is that with self-regulation, newspapers can opt out, so some may simply be unregulated. Statutory regulators often have greater powers, such as levelling fines, whereas self-regulators may be limited to powers of condemnation.

Pros

[1] The threat to freedom from state involvement in the media is not an automatic one; rather, it arises from the loss of independence from the government that might ensue, leading to the state being able to control what is said about it. However, this is not at all a necessary consequence of state regulation; rather, it can be prevented by a sufficient separation between the regulators and the government, such as making sure that the membership of the regulator is balanced, and none of the members can be fired by the government.

[2] The right to opt out of regulation is ultimately destructive of any system of regulation. First, it allows some people simply to get away with unacceptable stories; Britain’s Daily Express opted out of the Press Complaints Commission, in large part because it was often cautioned against its invasions of privacy of public figures. Second, once one paper can opt out, others will follow, as being outside the regulatory system is profitable; it allows newspapers to capture readers by running stories that the self-regulated press could not.

[3] Laws against libel and harassment are not sufficient to prevent the serious threats posed by the media to a free society. First, full legal proceedings can be very expensive; a regulator can offer a fast, efficient system of arbitration to allow individuals to vindicate their legal rights against the press without recourse to the courts. Second, often there are gaps in the law where individuals still deserve protection; for instance, privacy may often be unacceptably breached without violating criminal laws on harassment.

[4] A major problem with self-regulation is that the Code of Ethics that a selfregulator applies is also set by the press; this means that it is often weak, and reflects a view of the role of the media in society that places press freedom ahead of privacy and accuracy. It should be up to democratic institutions to decide how the media should be constrained, which is only done when the state lays down the rules for its operation.

Cons

[1] While it is attractive to believe that a government agency might be totally insulated from politics, this is simply not possible. Inevitably, things like funding arrangements and appointments will get some input from the government of the day, and this will allow it to influence the regulator, however indirectly. Moreover, there is no guarantee that, even if the regulator is fairly appointed, it will not be politicised in a way that reflects certain powerful interests.

[2] The right to opt out of regulation is ultimately one that newspapers must possess. While it might seem like they can never have good reasons to do so, in fact, they may wish to pursue a course of the higher-risk, more investigative journalism that a regulator may try to prevent, even though it is ultimately in the public interest. For instance, Britain’s Private Eye chose to opt out of the Press Complaints Commission because it wanted to pursue the more revelatory stories that the PCC was often dubious about.

[3] Laws against libel and criminal invasions of privacy are sufficient to provide individuals with the protection that they require from the press. If anything false and harmful is said about them, then they can sue for damages, and the same is true if their privacy is breached. In other words, if the media do anything illegal, they will be punished; but otherwise, they must be given a substantial area of freedom in which to operate.

[4] A state-imposed Code of Ethics will not be sufficiently attuned to the subtle difficulties that editors face when working under pressure, and so will not in fact be properly designed; it is better to let editors set their own code, as they are experts and understand the tasks that a newspaper is engaged in. Moreover, whereas a state- imposed code has to be written into statute and so cannot easily be changed, a self-regulated code can be more flexible, and so can be added to or adapted as circumstances change.

Possible motions

This House supports state regulation of the media.

This House would have a ’Press Law’.

Related topics

BBC, privatisation of

Privacy of public figures

Censorship by the state