Newspaper Regulation

 Task One: Media Magazine article and questions

Read the Media Magazine article: From Local Press to National Regulator in MM56 (p55). You'll find the article in our Media Magazine archive here. Once you've read the article, answer the following questions:

1) Keith Perch used to edit the Leicester Mercury. How many staff did it have at its peak and where does Perch see the paper in 10 years' time?

Staff at it's peak - 130 journalists

Perch believes that if the paper is still in print in 10yrs time it will be very expensive, print weekly, have a very small circulation, and would make very little money, and so would employ as few as five or six staff

2) How does Perch view the phone hacking scandal?

A small section of the press was behaving in a totally unacceptable way, but it should have been dealt with

legally. I don’t think regulation is the answer.

3) What does IPSO stand for and how does it work?

Independent Press Standards Organisation - work? A newspaper has 28 days to deal with a complaint. If it hasn’t been resolved, the complainant can then take it to the IPSO Complaints Committee, which will decide if the Editor’s Code of Practice has been broken. If it has, the Committee can insist on corrections and demand that they be placed on a particular page.

4) What is Perch's view of newspaper ownership?

Keith does not believe that businesses such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns The Sun, The Times and 39% of Sky, should be forced to sell some of their titles to ensure that no one person or company can control too much of the media industry and therefore control the agenda.

5) Do you agree with his view that broadcast news should have less regulation so that TV channels can support particular political parties or people?

No, I think broadcast news should be regulated as it is able to reach more of the electorate and therefore can influence political outcomes, despite them being allowed to promote any one political party or person in their print products, this is because they are able to reach a smaller number of people. 

Task Two: Newspaper regulation exam question

Write an answer on your blog answering the following exam question:

What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry? [20 marks]

Aim to write an answer of around 400-500 words featuring at least three detailed paragraphs. Make sure you cover both sides of the debate. This topic could well be our 20-mark essay at the end of Paper 1, Section B so it's great preparation for the summer exams.

Statutory regulation of the newspaper industry is a hotly debated polemic, where some believe state regulation is needed to truly hold these publications to account, while others believe that there should only be independent bodies regulation them as a choice for the industry to hold itself to account. I believe in the latter in regards to the statement.

Some believe that statutory regulation of the newspaper industry is needed when it comes to elections as to stop them from influencing the electorates decision in terms of voting for a specific candidate. This is because some argue that due to the mass following they receive they may be able to swing electoral outcomes, this could be seen as undemocratic and impeding on the democratic system as the electorates vote is being influenced by an outside force. Despite such a convincing argument, I believe that statutory regulation due to electoral reasons are null and void because since the newspaper industry came about they endorsed various political parties and its candidates. For example, historically The Daily Mail endorsed and celebrated Hitler's democratic win on January 15th1934, just a year after he gained power, with the title 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!'; a more recent example of a newspaper endorsing a political candidate was during the 1997 General election, whereby The Sun endorsed Tony Blair during this Prime ministerial race. The press also have special legal status that they possess - freedom of the press - that allows them to engage in political endorsement. This is written into the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1689 Claim of Rights in Scotland that Constitutionally protects the rights of the civil rights of UK citizens. 

However, others believe that we should have statutory regulation as to prevent the spread of mis/disinformation by the press. Nonetheless, the independent body IPSO accounts for this using their powers to fine, investigate and order publications to print corrections or adjudications on the front page of the paper. Despite IPSO being run by former journalists and industry executives, the board is designed to have a majority of independent members without industry ties, it is structured to include members with senior experience in the print industry. this does not result in any conflict of interest when carrying out their duties but their previous roles in the industry make them aware of what is right from wrong when working, therefore they are able to punish those that do wrong. Also IPSO as the successor of the PPC is a way better option than statutory regulation as they are able to get to it before the police most of the time. The PPC was notoriously bad at their job, always sweeping things under the rug, for example with the phone hacking scandal. 

In conclusion due to IPSO's wider remit which includes legal ability, they are a better option than statutory regulation, as it could imped upon the freedom of the press and even lead to tyranny, dictatorship or authoritarianism; and as a democratic society we value all our democratic freedoms. 

Extension task: The role of media in democracies

Read this excellent article from the Constitution Unit on why media plays such an important role in democracies - and how regulation and affect this. Does this change your opinion on whether the newspaper industry should face statutory regulation?