The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Well, I suppose to say that the examples that I've drawn on that interest me in terms of compliance comes to this issue of: is regulation something that you try as far as possible to avoid, and to slough off, and to make sure is as minimal as possible, or is it something that's actually part of your DNA, and that your standards are a selling point?

I think that is where there seems to be starting to be a debate around.

Martin Moore, I think, from the Media Standards Trust, earlier this week said he didn't like the idea of incentives, because it smacks of trying to cajole a reluctant provider into the regulatory fold, or you compel them to be in the regulatory fold.

Whereas if you see a real value to being in, then actually the biggest threat to you would be to be turfed out of that regulatory fold, not to be able to display that mark of your standards, and not to be able to use your Press Council membership to demonstrate responsible journalism in court proceedings or wherever else, as is being explored in New Zealand.

In Denmark there is a co-regulatory system, as I have said, statutory. And it's backed, as I have explained, by the threat of a prison sentence. And yet there is currently parliamentary scrutiny by the select committees in Denmark of culture and legal affairs, which is looking at why there are failures within the Danish system. Why are Danish newspapers still, even within this co-regulatory framework, burying publication of an adjudication on sort of page 54?

Where I think there's an interesting distinction is between those publications that are caught and are required to conform to the regulation, and those online providers that are actively seeking it out. That's where I think there is a different approach to what "regulation" means.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech