It should be a source of regret for everyone associated with the last Labour government that the only action in relation to the media for which we will be remembered is going to war with the BBC following the Iraq invasion in 2003. Of course, Downing Street hated the negativity of the press – what government wouldn't? – but to say that, with all our other priorities, the prime minister decided that reform of the press would have to take a back seat is far-fetched.
The truth is, no issue of priority or principle was involved. We simply chose to be cowed because we were too fearful to do otherwise. And David Cameron took up where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown left off.
It has taken the News International crisis for politicians to discover their courage. Now they have to ensure that it is not primarily they who are protected from the "feral beast", but the public. This requires not statutory regulation but a robust, independent process to enable individuals to make right the falsehoods that slip through, or slander that sometimes gets pumped out by news rooms in the name of "press freedom".
There is now consensus that the vehicle for self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission, is not fit for purpose. I would qualify this view by suggesting that, for example in cases involving allegations of harassment and protecting children, the PCC does a good job. Its present top team is a marked improvement on predecessors. But when it comes to respecting the privacy of public figures and individual members of the public, the system of self-regulation has been used largely to protect the self-interest of the PCC's most powerful members.
Let me offer five simple ideas to ensure that the PCC or its successor better reflects the public interest by strengthening its independence and investigatory powers.
First, follow the money. The PCC's £2m budget is raised through a levy on newspapers and publishers. The funds are organised through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), established by the industry to fund the PCC. PressBoF has on its board a number of press luminaries including the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, who, together with Les Hinton – then chief executive of News International – were the driving forces in creating the present system of self-regulation. The funding of the PCC needs to be administered by a genuinely independent body, the obvious being Ofcom, which could easily manage the system of levies.
Second, re-write the code. The editors' code of practice committee, the central self-regulating power, determines the rules that the PCC follows. This committee is chaired by Paul Dacre. Again, the rules need to be determined by a genuinely independent body, and I would suggest Ofcom appoint a panel of experienced figures to re-draw and monitor a new, tougher code.
Third, readers' editors. If newspapers really believe in self-regulation, they won't have a problem with ensuring that readers' editors are given prominent positions within their organisations and clear powers to correct published stories. I know from talking to journalists that a correction by one of their colleagues is a much more meaningful sanction than by an external body.
Fourth, pre-publication intervention. When an individual realises that a newspaper is preparing to publish something that is wrong or unjustifiably intrusive, the PCC may currently contact the paper on the individual's behalf. This needs strengthening, with bolder PCC powers and its personnel more embedded in the system of newspaper legal teams and readers' editors. The aim should be to keep newspapers on the right side both of the law and a new code of behaviour. If editors went against advice, they should face financial consequences if a story were subsequently found to be erroneous or in breach of the code.
Fifth, digitise the process. Technology has shone a much brighter light on the nooks and crannies of public life. Public bodies should be much more open about media inquiries. Media organisations should be obliged to publish online the extent to which they check stories and the full response they receive, including whole email trails if appropriate. Articles that are subject to complaints should be clearly flagged on newspaper websites. If the process of scrutiny becomes more visible and easy to follow, fact-checking and reporting will quickly improve.
These are relatively straightforward changes to a discredited system. Perhaps they do not go far enough. Ofcom would certainly not want statutory press powers, but involving Ofcom in order to buttress the PCC, making it more independent and effective, is an essential start.
Ultimately, it is cultural changes to journalists' working environment that will lift everyone's standards to those of the highest. Utilising technology to create greater transparency and using a system of newspaper fines when pre-publication intervention has failed will give the public greater confidence.
Given the PCC's current tools, its staff cannot help but fail to do their job adequately. Independent funding and code-making, as well as tougher intervention and enforcement, are what they need.
Comments in chronological order (Total 258 comments)
12 July 2011 8:24AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 July 2011 8:25AM
Hypocrite.
12 July 2011 8:28AM
So, labour is just another gang of vote seeking politicians.
Where are the statesmen? (of any gender).
12 July 2011 8:29AM
yes and get jo average to sit on some of these boards...not those with a vested interest......sick making,so this what dave and his torylibdem chums mean all in it together....the press the police......national disgrace
12 July 2011 8:30AM
Really? I can remember frenetic action with endless spin and an obsession with tomorrow’s headlines.
Leaks and briefings were part of a cynical symbiotic relationship and you went out of your way to cultivate this with "the grid" and restricting access to those who ran with favourable news. At times this behaviour trumped actual policy and government, the means became the end. Campbell, Whelan, McBride were masters although their names are mud now.
Plus we should not forget Mandelson's mortgage was flushed out by a Guardian investigation, the "pre-publication intervention" suggestion he proposes above could prevent publication of such embarrassing revelations.
No doubt the PCC could do with some improvements but Mandelson needs to steer well clear of this.
12 July 2011 8:30AM
And who do you think was to blame for that, Lord Mandelson?
12 July 2011 8:31AM
Poor timing at best........
But a cynic would argue this is designed to put the current Labour fightback against Cameron into a skid.
12 July 2011 8:32AM
Labour weren't cowed, they kowtowed and we don't need a lecture from Mandelson now.
12 July 2011 8:34AM
Disgusting and disingenuous; thy name is Peter Mandelson.
12 July 2011 8:34AM
Because as the inquiry evidence demonstrates, the press was doing its job properly rather than glossing over the faked justification for a wholly irrational and illegal war at the costs of many tens of thousands of lives. If that's negativity let's have more of it.
12 July 2011 8:36AM
At least Mandelson is owning up to Labour being under Murdoch's thumb, where's our PM lately, formulating his next U turn with Andy Coulson?
12 July 2011 8:37AM
Is the same Pete who is a frequent guest at Bilderburg? You know that place where the rich, powerful and their servants meet. That group that imposes a virtual media blackout and the media comply.
The fact that the guardian gives any coverage to this man is reprehensible and it should be ashamed of itslef
12 July 2011 8:37AM
On this particular matter "daveand his torylibdem chums" were right about "all in it together". Perhaps you should have put torylbidemlabour chums. Particularly as this is scrubby piece by Mandelson.
12 July 2011 8:37AM
what labour should do is sit down and shut up, stop pissing Murdoch off. Wait till you are in power, the pendulum will have to swing eventually. Without warning, pass tight media ownership laws, use a three line whip etc.
12 July 2011 8:38AM
A couple of points:
1. why was Mandelson not charged with obtaining money by false pretences,
2. Alistair Campbell afraid of the press!!!!!
12 July 2011 8:40AM
Perhaps the new regulatory board should not have anyone who has any connection to the press involved.
12 July 2011 8:40AM
Translation reads:
We were a gutless bunch of trimmers and opportunists who abandoned all principle, lied through our back teeth to fight America's neocon wars, wasted billions of taxpayers' money on said wars, and all but destroyed the Labour party, because we were terrified of getting a bad press from the likes of Murdoch and Dacre.
Pathetic.
12 July 2011 8:40AM
He's missing the point that Murdoch would never have gone anywhere near a Labour party that stuck up for ordinary people in this nation. He only even considered backing them after they had shown that they were reliable supporters of big business and corporate rule. Its not so much about fear as a confluence of interests. Lets face it, Labour did have the power to quell rogue elements of the press if they wished, they were the Government but they choose to behave like serfs.
12 July 2011 8:42AM
and Labour weren't afraid to go to war with the BBC
12 July 2011 8:47AM
"It should be a source of regret for everyone associated with the last Labour government that the only action in relation to the media for which we will be remembered is going to war with the BBC following the Iraq invasion in 2003."
Regret ? SHAME more like !
In the competition Blair was waging to see who's arsehole he could stuff his nose furthest up, George W Bush won the prize, but Old Roop came a close second.
12 July 2011 8:49AM
Shouldn't the Guardian up the ante' ....... and ignore contributions from the likes of Peter "Grand Pooh-Bah of British Politics" Mandelson.
12 July 2011 8:50AM
I wondered how long it would be before Labour revisionists started saying we were only shite because of the NOTW. Well it makes a lovely change from Thatch. So cheers Peter.
12 July 2011 8:53AM
Labour party. Hypocritical scum who betrayed their voters and sold themselves like street whores.
I see no change
12 July 2011 8:54AM
At least he's been honest. Labour knew all about it and did nothing.
12 July 2011 8:55AM
PETER you were (are) part of the problem. I don't expect you to recognise that but WE DO!
The idea is that politicians have their first responsibility to the people who elected them, not that they do the bidding of rich (foreign) individuals and overmighty (stateless) corporations.
Just go away and enjoy being filthy rich.
12 July 2011 8:57AM
I think what you were living in fear of was the truth and the exposure that Labour were nothing but all spin and no substance without a hint of true Labour ideals.
Apart from that you seemed to be very mendacious and calculating with your media dealings. Bestowing favours on the few the making sure those who didn't tow the line were outlawed from exclusives and career developing stories.
Labour were a particularly slimey low poiint in the media's relationship with Politics.
Personally are you worried that any of your dealings with Murdoch, NI or Brooks are about to come back and bite you?
12 July 2011 8:58AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 July 2011 8:58AM
Except that it failed to protect Gordon Brown's son from the grossest possible harassment - the illegal obtaining of his medical records and their use to intimidate his father.
Peter, well done on being honest enough to say that your party were cowards in the face of this bullying. Now that the full extent of it is coming out, I'm really not sure I blame you.
12 July 2011 8:58AM
Once upon a time, long ago, the BBC used to be staffed by independent and responsible journalists with the caliber and intellect the likes of Sir David Attenborough.
If this were still the case, predators like the drop tail lizard of Oz would be exposed from every angle.
Properly unshackle Auntie, return her teeth and you’ll have a regulator par excellence.
12 July 2011 8:59AM
@koolio at 8.30am - spot on!
12 July 2011 9:01AM
Bit like admitting your guilt from your prison cell after all appeals have failed.
12 July 2011 9:03AM
Bloody hell jsut seen AC on tv pontificating.
12 July 2011 9:04AM
@ Walkonbye
"yes and get jo average to sit on some of these boards...not those with a vested interest......sick making,so this what dave and his torylibdem chums mean all in it together....the press the police......national disgrace"
Do you actually bother to read the news or do you just cut and paste bog standard bollocks like this together in response to any news item ?
I just ask out of interest.
And
@Wessexboy
Agree wholeheartedly - Koolio at 8.30 am said everything that needed saying !
12 July 2011 9:04AM
Oroklini
That's what Gordon Brown claims.
12 July 2011 9:05AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 July 2011 9:07AM
God this is like Voldemort drawing up a plan to save Hogwarts
Actually we can review this piece in three anagrams
Lamented Person
produces
Endearment slop
worthy of
Lead pen monster
12 July 2011 9:07AM
They had Vaseline Vas on as well.
AC and the rest must be raking it in, they are never off the BBC - and to think that we are paying for them through our licence fee.
12 July 2011 9:07AM
Some good ideas. When is the Guardian going to get a reader's editor who has no previous connection with the paper?
12 July 2011 9:11AM
Given that Lord Mandelscum goes on holiday with the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been to the Bilderberg meetings and is a great pal of the Rothchilds I find it hard to believe that the best interests of the people rather than capital ever entered into his mind.
Having this creature pretend to moralise on behalf of his poor maligned cronies in New Labour makes me want to heave.
BBBBLLLLLLEEEEEEUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRGGGHHH!
12 July 2011 9:12AM
Lord Madelson, Lord Mandelson fearless protector of the public interest, as usual, probably knocked this out in between schmoozing Zac Goldsmith and the rest of the Millionaire Tendency in Montenegro over the weekend..
In his case, respecting the privacy etc means that when he wants to help out the Hindujah Brothers, or take out a mortgage without revealing that he has already borrowed money privately to finance the rest of the purchase, he doesn't want some noseyparker newspaper being allowed to reveal the fact.
Likewise, poor old John Prescott should have been free to wield his chipolata with impunity - even during working hours in a public office - without Pauline having to read about it while enjoying a full English in the conservatory at Dorneywood.
After the sanctimony of Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan, the crowing of Robert Peston and now this self-serving pap from Mandelson, I am beginning to feel a certain affection for the very straightforward dishonesty of the NoW journalists and their police informants..
12 July 2011 9:14AM
No Peter, you like Tony loved sucking up to Murdoch. You enjoyed the access to the press and their parties. You are fatally compromised as is much of the British Establishment.
But Peter can you show some real honesty and contrition? The fact is you are a friend of Elizabeth and James Murdoch and have frequently supped with them without any long spoon. How then were you in a position to regulate their activities?
New Labour entered a Faustian pact with Murdoch. 'Regret' is too little, too late.
12 July 2011 9:15AM
But i do have a feeling that Cameron isn't going to survive this.
12 July 2011 9:18AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 July 2011 9:19AM
*Labour wasn't fearful of Murdoch, what utter rubbish, the truth is that
"New Labour" shared the same ideology of Murdoch's drive for money
and power in a capitalist system.
*Blair and Mandelson wanted Labour to move to this rightwing ideology
and therefore attached themselves to Murdoch's agenda.
*Blair should come clean that he wanted the Labour Party to be like
a tory party, only "better", which was the spin at the time.
*Ed Miliband has shown great courage, and moral leadership in distancing
the Labour Party from "New Labour", and Blair and Brown.
Blair was a traitor of the labour tradition of fighting for the poor and
vunerable in society.
Labour became tory mark two, and sucked up to Murdoch.
*Labour in fear of Murdoch?
What an absurd spin, how can a concept and ideology of socialism
be affraid of a rightwing from a third world country?
12 July 2011 9:20AM
A wonderfully apt analogy sir.
12 July 2011 9:22AM
Hahaha! What a funny article from Mr Revisionist. When are we going to hear from Piers Morgan?
12 July 2011 9:24AM
Peter Mandelson went to war with the BBC.
What does he mean? Didn't he know that the BBC was the broadcasting arm of the Labour party? I get it. It was something similar to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being at each other's throat.
12 July 2011 9:25AM
If someone had the time, it would be great to find in Hansard all the politicians who:
voted against the illegal wars
demanded greater regulation of the banks
demanded greater regulation of the press
demanded public enquiries on all the dubious goings on with the arms trade, policing, oil industry etc
and sought decreasing private ownership of state property.
Sack all the rest and have those as the main core running the UK until we can appoint more stateswomen and statesmen.
12 July 2011 9:25AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
12 July 2011 9:25AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.