Lord Hunt’s Big Idea: An End to Bad Press or its Continuance?

As Lord Hunt (Chairman of the PCC) came to the end of his talk at the UEA, I must admit that I was disappointed. I was disappointed that the talk was over so quickly. Lord Hunt is a very interesting man and an incredibly engaging speaker. His wealth of knowledge and experience, coupled with the odd anecdote, caused me to focus on his every word. As a person, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to his Lordship, who came across as nothing but the finest of gentlemen.

However, I was also disappointed at what he substantively said. His talk was to coincide with the publication of Lord Leveson’s findings and this was the domain in which Lord Hunt would publicise his new plans to solve the increasingly common bad standards of press in the UK.

In short, the plan is to set up an independent regulatory body, which would enforce the current Editorial Code. The new body (termed ‘Newco’ by Lord Hunt) would have the teeth to enforce the code and could impose strict sanctions for any breaches. The majority of ‘Newco’ will be independent members chosen by a shadow appointments board and publishers will join up to this body through the means of commercial contracts.

Lord Hunt promoted this as a new era of self-regulation which would end bad press in the UK and restore decency to a damaged cornerstone of British society. But will this bold new plan actually change anything? And is the reasoning behind his plan valid?

1. The idea of commercial contracts sounds great…in theory. Once a publisher has signed a contract to abide by the Editorial Code any breaches can be dealt with through the Common Law of Contract without any need for statutory interference; the free press, which is still desired by many, is preserved. However, what is to stop a publisher from not signing a contract? The current ‘Desmond Dilemma’ whereby one can simply ‘opt-out’ of regulation still exists; a publisher can choose to not sign a contract and therefore will not be regulated. This may not happen straight away, but could happen when the contracts are set to be renewed and the threat of statutory regulation has passed.
2. It is all well and good having an independent regulator with teeth but this does not solve the problem of the Editorial Code itself. My problem with the Code is that it is created by the Industry. I may be nothing more than cynical in my view but I believe those who create the Code are the best placed to find ways around it. At the very least certain aspects of the Code can be designed to suit the industry’s needs.
3. His Lordship continuously referred to the bad standards of the current press as attributable only to a small minority. This may be the case, but it is not the quantity of journalists committing the breaches that is the problem; it is the positions they hold within their respective newspaper. Editors, publishers and proprietors know full well what the content of their newspapers contain, and they should be the ones who have to answer to the public. Need I mention Rebekah Brook’s impending trial?
4. When asked about Ownership, Lord Hunt responded by giving an analogy which seemed very weak at best. He compared the newspaper to football; fans of a football team don’t care who the owner is or how dodgy he may be, they still have faith in their team and support them whole heartedly. However, I seriously doubt whether this applies to the public’s perception of their chosen newspaper. A football fan’s support for his team is built up from a deep seated love. Can anyone say they love their chosen newspaper and would follow them endlessly? I highly doubt the rational person would. I feel this analogy is weakened further by the obvious public detestation for the methods used by newspapers recently and the anger clearly directed at Murdoch by many in attendance at Lord Hunt’s talk.

I do sympathise with Lord Hunt; his task of implementing a satisfactory system of self-regulation of the press is a hard one, especially given Lord Leveson’s apparent favouring of some statutory involvement.

So what do I want? I agree that we should have an independent regulatory body with the teeth to enforce the Editorial Code. Its members should be appointed independently and should include some media experts (academics, solicitors, past journalists, etc.). This regulatory body would then be responsible for setting a new Editorial Code or would, at the very least, have the final sanction on a new Code, created by the industry. In my mind, the only way around the ‘Desmond Dilemma’ is to have statutory involvement. A simple licensing system whereby a publisher keeps its licence so long as it signs a commercial contract would be effective. I also believe this would not be to the detriment of a free press; the paper is only agreeing to uphold the standards it should already be upholding.