Fear ruled Labour's media mindset – not principle

Fear ruled Labour's media mindset – not principle

We in Labour were cowed from reforming the media – but the Press Complaints Commission can still work, given teeth

Peter Mandelson, guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 21.59 BST

It should be a source of regret for everyone associated with the last Labour government that the only action in relation to the media for which we will be remembered is going to war with the BBC following the Iraq invasion in 2003. Of course, Downing Street hated the negativity of the press – what government wouldn't? – but to say that, with all our other priorities, the prime minister decided that reform of the press would have to take a back seat is far-fetched.

The truth is, no issue of priority or principle was involved. We simply chose to be cowed because we were too fearful to do otherwise. And David Cameron took up where Tony Blair and Gordon Brown left off.

It has taken the News International crisis for politicians to discover their courage. Now they have to ensure that it is not primarily they who are protected from the "feral beast", but the public. This requires not statutory regulation but a robust, independent process to enable individuals to make right the falsehoods that slip through, or slander that sometimes gets pumped out by news rooms in the name of "press freedom".

There is now consensus that the vehicle for self-regulation, the Press Complaints Commission, is not fit for purpose. I would qualify this view by suggesting that, for example in cases involving allegations of harassment and protecting children, the PCC does a good job. Its present top team is a marked improvement on predecessors. But when it comes to respecting the privacy of public figures and individual members of the public, the system of self-regulation has been used largely to protect the self-interest of the PCC's most powerful members.

Let me offer five simple ideas to ensure that the PCC or its successor better reflects the public interest by strengthening its independence and investigatory powers.

First, follow the money. The PCC's £2m budget is raised through a levy on newspapers and publishers. The funds are organised through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), established by the industry to fund the PCC. PressBoF has on its board a number of press luminaries including the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, who, together with Les Hinton – then chief executive of News International – were the driving forces in creating the present system of self-regulation. The funding of the PCC needs to be administered by a genuinely independent body, the obvious being Ofcom, which could easily manage the system of levies.

Second, re-write the code. The editors' code of practice committee, the central self-regulating power, determines the rules that the PCC follows. This committee is chaired by Paul Dacre. Again, the rules need to be determined by a genuinely independent body, and I would suggest Ofcom appoint a panel of experienced figures to re-draw and monitor a new, tougher code.

Third, readers' editors. If newspapers really believe in self-regulation, they won't have a problem with ensuring that readers' editors are given prominent positions within their organisations and clear powers to correct published stories. I know from talking to journalists that a correction by one of their colleagues is a much more meaningful sanction than by an external body.

Fourth, pre-publication intervention. When an individual realises that a newspaper is preparing to publish something that is wrong or unjustifiably intrusive, the PCC may currently contact the paper on the individual's behalf. This needs strengthening, with bolder PCC powers and its personnel more embedded in the system of newspaper legal teams and readers' editors. The aim should be to keep newspapers on the right side both of the law and a new code of behaviour. If editors went against advice, they should face financial consequences if a story were subsequently found to be erroneous or in breach of the code.

Fifth, digitise the process. Technology has shone a much brighter light on the nooks and crannies of public life. Public bodies should be much more open about media inquiries. Media organisations should be obliged to publish online the extent to which they check stories and the full response they receive, including whole email trails if appropriate. Articles that are subject to complaints should be clearly flagged on newspaper websites. If the process of scrutiny becomes more visible and easy to follow, fact-checking and reporting will quickly improve.

These are relatively straightforward changes to a discredited system. Perhaps they do not go far enough. Ofcom would certainly not want statutory press powers, but involving Ofcom in order to buttress the PCC, making it more independent and effective, is an essential start.

Ultimately, it is cultural changes to journalists' working environment that will lift everyone's standards to those of the highest. Utilising technology to create greater transparency and using a system of newspaper fines when pre-publication intervention has failed will give the public greater confidence.

Given the PCC's current tools, its staff cannot help but fail to do their job adequately. Independent funding and code-making, as well as tougher intervention and enforcement, are what they need.

Comment: I agree with some of this but am in disagreement with some of it.