Regulatory Bodies: The Press

About the PCC

The PCC (Press Complaints Commission) is an organisation that deals with complaints from members of the public about topics and issues that arise in the press particularly things like the editorial content of newspapers and magazines.
Their main aim is to resolve the complaints as quickly as they can. As well as dealing with complaints, the PCC deals with a substantial number of calls from members of the public about their service and the code.

History
During the 1980s, a small number of publications failed in the view of many to observe the basic ethics of journalism. This reinforced a belief among many members of Parliament that the press council was not a sufficiently effective body. Some of them believed that it would be preferable to enact a law of privacy and right of reply as well as to set up a statutory press council wielding enforceable legal sanctions.In June 1990 Calcutt's report was published. Rather than suggesting new statutory controls, it recommended the setting up of a new press complaints comission in place of the Press council. This new comission would have 18months to demonstrate“that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively. This is a stiff test for the press. If it fails, we recommend that a statutory system for handling complaints should be introduced.”In 1995 the Government recognised the achievements of the PCC in making effective press self- regulation in its white paper- "Privacy and Media Intrusion". And in 2003 a house of commons select committee concluded that “overall, standards of press behaviour, the Code and the performance of the Press Complaints Commission have improved over the last decade”. To date, the Commission has handled well over 30,000 complaints.

Example of a past Adjudication
- A married couple, FHM MagazineA married couple complained to the Press Complaints Commission through solicitors that a photograph of their daughter, featured in the April 2007 edition of FHM, had been published without consent and intruded into her privacy in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Code of Practice.The complaint was upheld.A topless photograph of the complainants’ daughter had been published in a gallery of mobile phone snapshots provided by the magazine’s readers. The complainants’ solicitors said that the photograph was taken in 2005 when their daughter was 14. The publication of the photograph – which had been published without any form of consent – represented a serious intrusion into the girl’s privacy and had had a significant effect on her emotionally and at school.The magazine said that it received approximately 1,200 photographs for publication each week from or on behalf of women posing topless or in lingerie. It was extremely surprised to learn that the photograph was taken when the complainants’ daughter was 14 years old as she certainly appeared to be older. It had no reason to believe that the image was taken without her consent. The magazine had been informed that the complainants’ daughter was in a cohabiting relationship with the person who submitted the photograph and, in those circumstances, no further enquiries about the image were made. Nonetheless, the magazine – which had introduced new measures to ensure that the situation would not occur again – confirmed that the image would not be republished or syndicated and offered to write a private letter of apology to the complainant.

Decision: Upheld

Adjudication: The publication of a topless photograph of the complainants’ daughter without consent represented a serious intrusion into her private life. This would have been the case regardless of how old she was, but the Commission was particularly concerned about the impact on the girl in light of her youth. The magazine had clearly not taken any sort of adequate care to establish the provenance of the photograph and whether it was right to publish it. It should have been much quicker to recognise the damage that publication would have caused the girl, and offered to publish an apology or take other steps to remedy the situation to the satisfaction of the complainant. Failure to respond in a swift and proportionate manner aggravated what was a significant breach of the Code.