Comment: PCC is out of touch

A false story about my expenses has shown me the difficulties of dealing with the PCC.
By Michael McCann MP
The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has for many years avoided facing up to a number of thorny issues.
In an adjournment debate today I will argue it is high time these challenges are met.
The press has the right to publish anything it wants to, so long as it does so accurately and fairly. It is also free to be partisan, although it must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
And I will fight to ensure it continues to enjoy those freedoms because I value the freedom of the press.
It is a cornerstone of our democracy.
In 1990 the Calcutt Report recommended the formation of the Press Complaints Commission.
The PCC was given 18 months to prove that self-regulation could work effectively with the threat that if it failed to do so, a statutory system would be introduced.
It passed that first test and has continued to evolve.
I think it is right for the press to work within a voluntary code but there is now further evidence emerging of problems which need to be addressed. Sadly, these challenges are not new.
I believe it would be a major advantage to the industry if, as well as being seen as a champion of self regulation, it were also seen at the vanguard of promoting and introducing changes to meet the needs of the 21st century.
If we can achieve that then those who feel compelled to complain to the PCC when they have a grievance will have more confidence in the system.
Right now I believe there is a serious lack of confidence in that system.
My views are based on my own personal experience of dealing with the PCC editor’s code of practice which, sadly, I have had to do in my short spell as a member of parliament.
It will come as no surprise to colleagues that one of my first dalliances with the PCC came after the first batch of expenses were published by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).
As the code states the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.
One of my local newspapers printed a story stating that I had claimed hotel expenses and rented a London property at the same time.
The story was trailed on the front page and appeared prominently on page nine.
If true this would have been a sensational story which would have helped the paper’s dwindling circulation.
But it was a complete falsehood and had been fabricated in an attempt to mislead readers and destroy my reputation.
The newspaper then refused to publish the truth or apologise and I was forced to complain to the PCC.
The PCC carried out a full, thorough and professional investigation and found that the code had been breached.
The adjudication which was eventually printed was placed at the bottom of page nine, much less prominently than the original article.
There was no trail on the front page.
It was said to have been given due prominence by the PCC; I contend that it was given less prominence when it should have been given equal prominence.
The PCC further took the view that since the misleading words had appeared on page nine and not on the front page, then the page nine adjudication less prominently placed was sufficient.
This issue of prominence has to be addressed by the PCC.
When newspapers get it wrong and ex post facto a complaint is made; if that complaint is upheld the correction must be given equal prominence to the original story.
There is another feature which needs to be addressed and that’s the letters pages of newspapers.
I discovered that letters pages are covered by the editor’s code of practice.
Therefore the same rules covering articles in newspapers also cover letters. These letters, like everything else in the paper are the editor’s responsibility. He or she is the sole arbiter.
We also know that in the normal chronology of events newspapers print stories and post-publication they receive comments from readers.
When I was the subject of the misleading article I referred to earlier the same edition contained a letter attacking me in the same way as the so-called news story.
This was an unlikely coincidence in my opinion.
To add insult to insult, the author was protected under the guise of anonymity. All I knew about my so-called critic was ‘name and address withheld’.
I am a trusting fellow by nature. I have tried hard over the years to look for the best in people.
But my sixth sense told me this was a stitch-up.
I was not convinced that a member of the public had taken the time to search the Ipsa website for my expenses and then authored an inaccurate attack which matched the attack by the newspaper journalist.
I therefore made a complaint to the PCC about the veracity of the letter only to be told that because the writer wanted to remain anonymous no investigation could take place.
If the PCC think their position on this matter is justified in any way they are seriously out of touch with reality.
If we don’t know who wrote the letter, how do I know it wasn’t a political opponent seeking to make mischief?
How do I know it wasn’t a journalist pretending to be a member of the public?
How do I know it is genuine?
In order for a code to work it must operate in the unoccupied territory between the press and the consumer.
The code must be able to interrogate complaints openly and fairly; yet this element of the system doesn’t allow that to happen.
The two problems I have highlighted are not new.
They have been around for some time yet no solutions haven brought forward. They now need to be resolved.
Michael McCann is the Labour MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.