Cleaning up the press

The powerful newspaper editor Paul Dacre recently railed against unelected judges for creating "a privacy law by stealth". Though the UK has not, historically, had such a law, increased court intervention has led to the emergence of a makeshift precedent-based privacy law, which Dacre feels will undermine democracy and shackle an otherwise free press. However, it has developed at least partially because of the inadequacy of alternative processes for those that feel aggrieved.

There is no doubt trust in the media is at an all-time low. Journalists are in the dock and media standards are being called into question. We have seen tabloid newspapers sacrifice standards to increase sales; newsrooms are cutting staff in these difficult economic times, and journalists are being required to produce more copy in less time. It is precisely at this time that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) should be inspiring public confidence, but it fails to do so.

Recent figures indicate that the PCC only adjudicates on less than 1% of complaints it receives, and of that 1% approximately only 1 in every 250 complaints is currently upheld. While no doubt there are many vexatious complaints, that statistic seems worryingly low. It is impossible to thoroughly analyse these figures because we have no access to details of the processes or methodology used by the commission. Its annual report is such a scant document that even the financial contributions of the major newspapers are clothed in secrecy.

To ensure public confidence, an industry's regulatory body must be transparent, accountable and sufficiently resourced. If the medical profession was jolted into regulatory reform by the Harold Shipman case, perhaps it is time the PCC was knocked into shape following the blatantly inaccurate reporting of the Madeleine McCann case – something that only served to further reduce public confidence in the media (Courtesy: The Guardian)