Ofcom future

http://www.ofcomwatch.co.uk/2010/05/how-should-jeremy-hunt-confront-ofcom/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/18/ofcom-cuts-threaten-freedom

The Future of Ofcom - 2009

IT IS difficult to be sure of the springboard for David Cameron's sudden assault on Ofcom, the media regulator, though I am prepared to make a guess. Before I speculate, however, let's first consider his substantive arguments.

They may not seem important just now while he is in opposition. They surely will be by this time next year when the Conservative Party leader is settling into Downing Street. Therefore, it's possible to read this as a shot across Ofcom's bows since he said that, under his administration, "Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist."
Cameron's criticism was two-pronged - the size of salaries (and, by implication, the on-cost to taxpayers), and Ofcom's role in formulating policy. The former argument does not stand up at all well.
It is true that Ed Richards, its chief executive, is handsomely rewarded with a £400,000 wage packet. Then again, that's hardly a pace-setting salary in the media world.
It should also be seen in the context of Ofcom being a net contributor to the public purse. In the last financial year, though the regulator received £81 million from the Government, it gave back £223 million in receipts from spectrum management.
Spectrum what? Well, that arcane activity may prompt the average politician (and journalist) to ask for an aspirin, but it is a key point to consider. Ofcom has spent more time and energy on the unglamorous, but hugely important, matter of ensuring that consumers benefit from competition in the internet broadband market rather than deciding what should happen to Channel 4.
To that end, it has helped to spread broadband provision across the country, not least through BT. Ofcom was also responsible for bringing broadcasters to book over bogus phone-in competitions and games. It can therefore argue that it has been directly helpful to the public.
So Cameron is on shaky ground there. For his second, and major, point he relied on his shadow secretary for culture media and sport, Jeremy Hunt. He has concluded, said Cameron, that "Ofcom currently has many other responsibilities that are matters of public policy, in areas that should be part of a national debate, for example the future of regional news or Channel 4. These should not be determined by an unaccountable bureaucracy, but by ministers accountable to Parliament".
I think Cameron is aiming his cannons in entirely the wrong direction. The problem is that the Government has failed for too long to offer a coherent media policy while Ofcom has been putting forward a variety of suggestions, as it should do under its remit.
In the absence of concrete political action, it may look as though Ofcom is making policy decisions. In fact, I cannot think of one example of it being proved to have done so.
For example, Ofcom came up with the interesting notion of creating "independently funded news consortia" as a long-term replacement for ITV regional news. That was not policy-making, but policy-suggesting. Indeed, the idea was just one of five recommendations of Ofcom's public service broadcasting review, itself a significant exercise since it has widened the understanding of what is meant by that term.
Cameron's negative views of Ofcom, and his desire to see it slimmed down, do not appear to be shared by other senior Tory MPs, including his business secretary, Ken Clarke.
In February this year, Clarke was suggesting that Ofcom should expand its remit still further by assuming responsibility for the regulation of the Royal Mail. He said at the time: "It no longer makes sense to deal with Royal Mail apart from the other responsibilities that Ofcom has."
The following month, Charles Hendry, the Tory MP for Wealden and former shadow technology minister, was moved to praise Ofcom and Richards in glowing terms. "I have had a lot of dealings with Ofcom and have found it absolutely objective and fair in all of them," he said.
Similarly, Peter Luff, MP for mid-Worcestershire and a former public relations chief, said in April: "Ofcom is a bloody great regulator".
Why then should the leader be so out of step? My hunch is that he, or his shadow minister, have given too much credence to BSkyB's complaints about Ofcom's inquiry into pay television, in which it referred pejoratively to Sky's dominance of the market in sports and movies. Back in 2001, Sky was an Ofcom supporter, rightly seeing the emergence of a single "super-regulator" as a wise move. There appears to have been a change of mind within an organisation controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
It might be far-fetched to suggest that Cameron's ear has been bent by his communications chief, Andy Coulson, a former Murdoch employee as editor of the News of the World. But you never know.
The Murdoch-Coulson-Cameron nexus should remind us, however, of Ofcom's close links to the Government. Richards was once a senior adviser to Tony Blair on media affairs, so it is unsurprising that outsiders, including Cameron, should view him as too pro-Labour.
When Colette Bowe, regarded as politically independent, took over the Ofcom chair in March, it was hoped that she would offset the image of Ofcom as a quasi-Labour body. But Richards is Ofcom's pro-active public face and his policy recommendations, though they may well be offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, do tend to dovetail with the Government policy requirements. Witness last month's Digital Britain report, a document that could well have been written by Ofcom.
Perception is not always reality, of course. But Cameron could be forgiven for assuming, in this instance, that it is.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23716777-the-battle-over-ofcoms-future-as-the-media-regulator.do

PCC

The Press Complaints Commission


'The PCC is an independent body which administers the system of self-regulation for the press.'
The PCC aims to protect the rights of the public, and through complaints to the PCC about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines (and their websites, including editorial audio-visual material) and the conduct of journalists.


The PCC acts by:

• negotiating remedial action and amicable settlements for complaints;
• issuing rulings on complaints;
• using published rulings as a means of guiding newsroom practice across the industry;
• publicly censuring editors for breaches of the Code;
• passing on pre-publication concerns to editors to prevent the Code being breached;
• passing on requests to editors that their journalists cease contacting individuals, and so prevent media harassment;
• issuing formal guidance, based on its interpretation of the Code, to the industry on important issues;
• instigating its own investigations under the Code in the public interest where appropriate;
• conducting training seminars for working journalists and editors;
• and liaising with other press councils internationally.

Standards

"The system is designed to maintain standards in the press by enforcing the terms of the Code and so holding editors to account, while still preserving appropriate freedom of expression. This is primarily achieved by the PCC administering an efficient and free complaints service. We encourage complainants, as the more people use the system, the more editors are held to account for their decisions. This will - and indeed does - lead to a rise in standards."

"Some "standards" issues fall outside the remit of the Commission: questions of taste and offence; tone of coverage; newsworthiness of stories; quality of writing. It would be inappropriate for the Commission to comment upon these issues, as they are not covered by the Code of Practice. The test for the PCC must be whether the Code has been breached."

Sanctions

The PCC can enforce a range of sanctions, summarised below:

• negotiation of an agreed remedy (apology, published correction, amendment of records, removal of article);
• publication of a critical adjudication, which may be followed by public criticism of a title by the Chairman of the PCC;
• a letter of admonishment from the Chairman to the editor;
• follow-up from the PCC to ensure that changes are made to avoid repeat errors and to establish what steps (which may include disciplinary action, where appropriate) have been taken against those responsible for serious breaches of the Code;
• formal referral of an editor to their publisher for action.

Pro-activity

"The PCC cannot act on every story or issue that arises in connection with the press. It would not be practical, or possible, to monitor the output (online and in hard copy) of newspapers and magazines, and to seek to establish whether it complies with the Code of Practice. The Code is designed to protect individuals, and the PCC needs to respect the wishes - and consider the evidence - of those individuals when investigating complaints about information relating to them."

So, if an issue relates to a named individual, the PCC will generally not conduct investigations without that person's consent. However, the Commission will not just wait for complaints to come in. We endeavour to:

• contact those at the centre of news stories to offer our services, when we become aware - either through information from individual Commissioners or the Secretariat, or third parties - of issues of possible concern relating to the application of the Code;
• act to help complainants shape their concerns, so that a complaint can be considered as efficiently as possible;
• of our own volition, initiate investigations relating to possible breaches of the Code where there are no obvious first parties who might complain (for example in cases involving payments to witnesses or criminals);
• issue guidance on best practice in areas that have caused public concern;
• help train journalists and editors about the application of the Code;
• raise awareness of the PCC with representatives of vulnerable people and interest groups, to enable them to use the service effectively;
• advertise and market our services as widely as possible.

When there is a major incident, attracting considerable media coverage, we will ensure that we act decisively and quickly.