PCC Case Studies

• Which clauses of the Code are relevant to these cases?
• Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases?
• Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

Case Study 1: A man vs. The Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 Children, Clause 3 Privacy and Clause 9 Reporting of Crime are all relevant to the case.
• In my opinion, the Code of Practice was not broken in any of these cases: a * next to each of these clauses clearly states that the public interest is strong enough to overrule in cases involving the detection or exposion crime, and the protection of public health and safety.
• It also states that "The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain" (which the YouTube video undisputably already was, and was uploaded by the boys themselves).
• For this reason I think that the comlaint was upheld.

Case Study 2: A man vs. Zoo magazine

• Clauses 3 and 6 are the most relevant to this case.
• I do not think that Code of Practice was broken - their loud behaviour and obscene gestures meant that they were already drawing attention to themselves, and that the father was not at that point concerned about other members of the public or who else could see them. Furthermore, her welfare is not in concern, and they were in a public place.
• For this reason I think that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 3: A man vs. The Times

• The relevant clauses are Clause 4, Harrasment, and Clause 6. Clause 4 states that "journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent persuit", and Clause 6 goes on to state that "A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents".
• This therefore means that the journalist was clearly in breach of the code, as he persisted in following the boy to an internet cafe and allegedly texted and called him, and I do not think public interest would overrule in this case. None of his comments or photographs were published, however.
• Upheld

Case Study 4: A woman vs. The Independent

• Clauses 1 Accuracy and 3 are the most relevant, stating that "everyone is entitled to his or her private and family lives, home, health and correspondence. Editors will be expected to justify intrustions into any individual's private life without consent", and that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".
• She had not told her family so the report was in breach of both of the above clauses.
• Upheld - they offered to print an apology, and apologized privately.

Case Study 5: A woman vs. The Sun

• The relevant clause is Clause 5, Intrustion into Grief or Shock.
• The coverage was brief and factual, treating the matter sensitively, and the event occured in a public place.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was not upheld.

Case Study 6: A woman vs. The Eastbourne Gazette

• Harrassment, Hospitals, and Intrustion into Grief or Shock are the relevant three clauses.
• The journalist was very firmly in breach of all three of these clauses - he was asked several times to desist, and persisted in telephoning and visitng, and enters the hospital without indentifying himself.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld.

Case Study 7: A Police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph

• Clandestine devices and subterfuge is the Clause in question, however public interest could be perceived to be a mitigating factor.
• I think that although, yes, the police offer is in the public eye and it is in public interest to obtain details about anything that may "sit uneasily" with members of the public, this is no excuse for the way in which the journalists acted, which I think was shameless, and asking to use the toilet in no way makes the information publicly available.
• I think personally that the complaint should have been upheld - although I'm not sure if it would have been.

Case Study 8: Paul McCartney vs. Hello! magazine

• Privacy and Intrustion into Grief or Shock is the Clause in question, although the fact that he was in a public place could be mitigating.
• I think that at such a difficult and sensitive time of their life however should have been respected and the journalists behaved shockingly.
• For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld - an apology was sent directly to McCartney.  

BBFC Seminar

Caitlin, a lady who works on the BBFC board of comissioners who came to speak to us about her job, was extremely friendly and I learnt alot from her about the way film classification works. I was not aware that the BBFC are also responsible for the classification of games (although this responsibility is being transfered to Pegi next year, which Caitlin said she was disappointed about), and that they receive cheats and "god-modes" to help them unlock all of the levels when they test them out. It was a lot of fun debating our own opinions on age-ratings for recent films, and voicing our own views about the system. It was interesting to learn that the cheif comissioners' decision can overrule that of all of the other comissioners, and to find that they do not always get it right - for example with Juno, which they rated too low. A lot of the clips we had already been through in class so the seminar was also useful for revision and securing the basis our knowledge of the BBFC, and it was helpful and informative to receive an inside opinion.

The PCC Trip

I found the trip to the PCC really useful and informative. Because it is a voluntary set-up which the public don't pay for it came as a suprise for me to realise just how high-profile it was. We were given a talk in a board room by one of the commissioners. It was interesting working through the case studies with her and learning that the conclusions that they came to were not always obvious, and to learn just how many factors come into play during deliberation. What I found the most surprising of all is that there is no set precedent to determine whether freedom of expression, privacy, or public interest overrules. I was impressed to learn that they deal with requests over a maximum of 35 days, and also that editors subscribe up quite voluntarily, and on the whole do not attempt to breach the code, although in some instances they take large risks.

Code of Practice

The Code of Practice was updated in 2011.

1. Accuracy
2. Oppurtunity to reply
3. Privacy *
4. Harrassment *
5. Intrusion into grief and shock
6. Children *
7. Children in sex cases *
8. Hospitals *
9. Reporting of crime *
10. Clandestine devices and subterfuge *
11. Victims of sexual assult
12. Discrimination
13. Financial journalism
14. Confidential sources
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
16. Payment to criminals *

* = There may be exception to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interst.

The Press Complaints Commission

What does the PCC do?

• An independent body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines in the UK and their websites.
• It administers a sixteen clause Code of Practice which acts as the "rules" to which editors and journalists must adhere.
• They investiage complaints from people believe that the Code has been breached, either in a published article or in the way a journalist obtained the material.
• When there is a problem under the Code of the PCC acts as a mediator to help the editor and the comaplainant agree on a way to resolve the dispute, for example, by way of a published correction, apology and clairification.
• If the problem cannot be settled in this way, the Commission will assess the evidence and information provided by both sides in the dispute and will issue a formal judgement ("adjudication") on the complaint. The adjudication sets out the reasons why the complaint, the newspaper or magazine in question must publish the text of the PCC's critical adjudication in full, and in a prominent place in the newspaper.
• In some cases, the PCC will consider that during the course of its investigation, the publication has made an offer of remedial action that is satisfactory under the terms of the Code, and that therfore no further action is necessary. This might, for example, include the publication offering to publish a correction; writing a private letter from the editor to the complainant; or publishing a follow-up letter from the complainant.

How does the system work?

• The system of regulation administered by the PCC is not a legal one, nor is it run by the government.
• It is based on a voluntary agreement by the newspaper and magazine industry to allow itself to be regulated by an independent body.
• While the Code of Practice is drawn up by a committee of editors, the Commission itself has a clear majority of public members.
• 10 of the 17 Commissioners including the Chairman have no connection to newspapers/magazines.
• None of the PCC's staff are connected to the industry either.

What does the Code of Practice cover?

• The Code of Practice has 16 sections and covers four main areas:

1. Accuracy
2. Privacy
3. News Gathering
4. Protecting the Vulnerable

• An editor is expected to take responsibility for all the stories and photographs that appear in his or her publication and to ensure that they comply with the Code.
• Sometimes an editor may want to defend his publication or the behaviour of a journalist as being in the "public interest".
• The Code sets out the circumstances in which an editor may mount such a defence.
• The Code does not cover issues of taste and decency because the PCC recognises that in a democratic society, newspapers must have the freedom to choose the style in which they publish material in keeping with the Code of Practice.
• The Commission understands that people choose to look at a newspaper. They can therefore make an informed decision about which newspaper fits their own tastes.
• By contrast, advertising billboards, for instance may be on public view and so rules on taste may be appropriate.

How is the PCC funded?

• The PCC is funded through a body called the Press Standards Board of Finance which is responsible for collecting money from newspapers and magazines in the UK.
• The press has agreed that each newspaper or magazine should contribute an amount in proportion to the amount of people who buy it and read it (circulation) - so a large, national newspaper like the Sun will have to pay much more money than a small, local paper like the Stourbridge News, for example.
• Members of the public do not have to pay for the service either directly or indirectly through their taxes.
• The PCC does not receive any money from the government.

What is the history of the PCC?

• The PCC was set up in 1991 and replaced the Press Council, which had been set up in 1953 with the aim of maintaining high standards of journalism as well as protecting press freedom.
• During the 1980s, a small number of publications failed to observe the  basic ethics of journalism and this led many MPs to lose confidence in the Press Council, which they thought was weak and ineffective.
• Some politicaians believed it would be preferable to introduce a new regulatory authority which would come under government control and would have the power to enforce legal punishments.
• The Govermnets appointed a Departmental Committee under David Calcutt QC to consider the matter. Its task was "to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further proection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen".
• The report that followed did not recommend new statutory controls but proposed a new Press Complaints Commission which would have to prove "that a non-statutory regulation can be made to work effectively".
• A committee of national and regional editor was duly set up. They produced a formal Code of Practice for the Press Complaints Commission to administer. The Press Standards Board of Finance was set up to organise funding.
• Despite some inital teething problems, the PCC has continued to grow in respect and influence. The current Government has made it clear its support for effective self-regulation and for the work of the Press Complaints Commission.

Who complains to the PCC and what do they complain about?

• The PCC accepts complaints from anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code in some way. A number of celebrities have used the PCC's service in recent years, but most complaints are ordinary people.
• In 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from people in the public eye,  but the vast majority (95.8%) came from ordinary members of the public.
• The Code provides special protection to particularly vulnerable groups of people such as children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination.
• The majority of complaints to the Commission are about regional  newspapers, perhaps as a demonstration of the importance readers attach to the publication which will be seen by most people in their locality.

Why is the PCC important?

• In a democracy, the press should not be subject to stringent controls by law or government. The PCC, being an independent, voluntary organisation, protects against this possibility simply by its existence.
• However, being free does not mean the press should not be accountable - there has to be a balance. It is vital that there be some mechanism which sets out what people can expect from the press; and by which wrongs can be righted when the occur. The PCC is committed to protecting the public by ensuring that when the rules are broken it can put things right as soon as possible. It is fast (dealing with a complaints in an avergae of 35 days); it is free (it costs complainants nothing to use the service) and it is fair (the Commission is independent fom the industry it was set up to regulate).

The UK's Current Classification System

Do you think the way films are regulated is sensible, useful to society, and acheives its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?

I think film regulation is completley necessary, most importantly because it is the easiest way for parents to decide for themselves what they will and won't allow their children to see, both in the cinema and on DVD. The certificates are sensible in that they provide a rough guideline based on what most children would be comfortable with at given ages, gaging the distress that is likely to be caused to children at each age group. I believe that the law is upheld effectively, as breiching of criminal law is strictly forbidden at all age ratings, and further to this any complaints that an audience or viewer may have may be taken up with their local council who, with enough complaints, can decide to prevent a cinema from screening a film Ultimately, however, film regulation can only be viable as regulation for parents to a certain extent: parents cannot expect to follow these guidelines religiously, as it is down to them to decide what they think will affect their child. The BBFC cannot regulate what parents allow their children to watch in the home.

What are the pros and cons?

Pros:

• Gives parents information so they can decide what to let their children watch.
• The vulnerable are protected.
• Local authorities can overthrow decisions made by the BBFC and prevent a film from being screened.
• The guidelines are updated and maintained in keeping with society's constantly changing beliefs.

Cons:

• Regulation is not enforced strictly (often shops and cinemas do not demand ID)
• What children will be affected by is subjective. You cannot generalize about the mental state of a child at a given age and what will/won't distress or upset them.
• It could be argued that regulation is in place to protect governments and companies rather than the people.
• Books, newspapers and other media are not censored.. why film?
• "Nanny state" - people relying on film companies to tell them what is suitable for their child.

 How do you think the system could be improved?


There are obvious flaws in the system but I find it hard to point out exactly where it is that these flaws should be improved - having a set certification system is obviously an extremely difficult and subjective task, and given the complexity of the issue, I think that BBFC have done a reasonable job. I think it is unfair to assume that age determines maturity, and for this reason perhaps there should be more information provided on actual content (perhaps a "H" for horror, an "S" for Sexual Behaviour, and so on). I also think that the parents website is not at all well advertised, and if parents were more aware of it this would be helpful. Aside from this though, I think that it is not down to the BBFC to act as parents - they merely provide a rough guideline. I do not think that they can be held accountable for the minute percent of the population who would, for example, watch an 18 film and imitate dangerous or violent behaviour they saw, or for a young child who watches an 18 film behind their parents back.

Differences Between Ratings

U > PG
- Discrimination may be allowed in an educational/historical context
- Infrequent drug references are allowed where an anti-drugs message is clear
- Unprolonged horror scenes are acceptable. Fantasy settings are mitigating.
- Where treated appropriately, or when clearly condoning behaviour, more adult themes are acceptable
- Violence is permitted but must lack detail and be justified by context.
- No imitable behaviour
- Mild bad language and very occasional natural nudity is acceptable


PG > 12A
- Where condemned, discriminatory behaviour or language can be more aggressive
- Infrequent and unglamorized drug misuse can be portrayed
- Prolonged horror is acceptable, as long as it is infrequent
- Mature themes are acceptable
- Violence can be stronger, but not dwelled upon. Sexual violence (with strong contextual justification) may be referred to.
- No imitable behaviour
- Discreetly portrayed sexual activity is acceptable, as well as brief and discreet nudity (including nudity in a sexual context)
- Moderate bad language is acceptable (eg. infrequent use of the "f" word)

12A > 15
- Discrimination is allowed, as long as it is not endorsed
- Drug use can be more frequent (although it still must not be glamorized, encouraged, or shown in detail - imitable behaviour)
- Stronger threat/horror is acceptable (as long as it is not sexualized/sadistic)
- No theme is prohibited, as long as it is treated in a way that is suitable for 15 year olds
- Frequent violence is acceptable where it does not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury (sexual violence can be strongly referred to, but any portrayal must be discreet and justified strongly by context)
- Nudity in a sexual context is permitted although it cannot be dwelled upon
- Strong language is acceptable, (for example the "c" word) but must be justified by context

15 > 18
- Viewers are now adult and so are at liberty to choose what they watch
- Illegal drug use is not acceptable
- Clear images of real sex are still not permitted
- No criminal laws may be breached, and there must be no footage that causes risk of harm to society (particularly in relation to Sexualized Violence)

18 > R18
- No criminal laws may be breached
R18s are only for sale in licensed sex shops and may only be viewed in licensed cinemas.They normally involve explicit works of consenting sex, and sexual fetish material.