I think the difficulty with trying to communicate a certain amount of law in a short time, you have to take that into account. I know it was mentioned at a number of the seminars, the growth in the length of essential law for journalists, which, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, reflects the complexity of the laws you're dealing with.
I think having an ethical component alongside that is important because if you take not just the code of the PCC, and I know we'll get onto that, but if you look at something like advertising, where standards and legal requirements are woven together in quite a nice fashion, it is important, I'd say, not to say that you have law here and then a separate syllabus on ethics, but to look at, for those who are making legally relevant decisions, is it just about mere compliance, is it about establishing what the line is, or are there other considerations you would take on alongside that?
I think there is some room within what I understand of what the NCTJ does. They certainly ask about ethical matters in questions, although the format may not lend itself to that type of discursive process, but talking to colleagues in other institutions too, who teach media law, there is an awful lot of implied ethics in it when you're talking about what the law should be, is there a need for change, reform? Many people I know are teaching the Leveson Inquiry now.