Has the debate about trust in the British media ever had so much resonance? Last week's revelations about deceptions in broadcasting only contributed to a debate that has been simmering for some time, and which encompasses all media – including new media as well as television and print.
Yet, in terms of the press, there are some reasons to be positive about what can be done to maintain and enhance trust in its products – which, of course, include many online services too, including audio-visual content.
The numerous benefits of a well-established system of independent self-regulation are becoming increasingly clear. Its success has left little appetite for any statutory supervision of editorial content: witness the recent Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). With global competition and media convergence, it is virtually impossible to hear anyone arguing for more formal regulation. The assumption, adopted by EU studies as well as the Select Committee, is that self-regulation will be at the heart of the drive to maintain editorial standards.
This is not just because of the demonstrable benefits of self-regulation, or the impracticality of the alternative. In part, it is also because there is no evidence that people would have greater trust in the media if it were regulated by the state.
Indeed, one strength of the sort of regulation overseen by the PCC is that the press itself takes responsibility for setting and adhering to standards, before an independent body is tasked with enforcing those standards. This is surely more reassuring to the public than a simple outsourcing of responsibility to teams of "compliance officers" to abide by some externally imposed rules.
But in a deregulated media environment where maintenance of trust is essential, it will not be enough to subscribe to a system of regulation. It will be as important to publicise that fact, and brand products accordingly.
The future is not about more laws or statutory press councils. It is about self-restraint, the swift resolution of problems, and helping consumers navigate new media platforms and rate the quality of the unprecedented amount of information available. So far as the latter is concerned, there is surely more to do.
The PCC has said before that it will encourage more newspaper websites to make clear that they abide by the press Code of Practice, which includes rules on accuracy, privacy and news-gathering. Doing so is in the interests of everyone: the website in question, the Commission, and most importantly the person who may wish to complain. In Australia, publications have begun voluntarily using a type of logo or kitemark on their sites to show that they subscribe to the Press Code.
Advertising their own responsibility in this manner is one way for publications to capitalise on the benefits of self-regulation and reinforce to consumers why they can trust the product. This is an example of good practice that will surely catch on in the UK. And not least because distinguishing reliable information in this way is not just about enhancing trust. It will also be seen to be increasingly valuable commercially.
The digital revolution, once considered a threat, now looks more like the saviour of written journalism. Opportunities to expand audiences are mushrooming. According to ABC Electronic (www.abce.org.uk), tens of millions of people read newspapers online. Many are domestic readers; many based abroad. And because British journalism benefits both from its global reputation and the spread of the English language, it has greater reach and impact than ever. This dominance is reflected in complaints to the PCC, increasing numbers of which come from outside the UK. Some of these new complainants are political pressure groups wishing to influence the UK debate on international policy, and do not have real gripe about the accuracy of the piece. But it is a compliment to be complained about like this.
In these circumstances – when the press is competing for readers globally, and not only with other commercial media – the economic benefits to bolstering confidence in the reliability of one's media product by subscribing to the Press Code are clear.
The fact that regulators and others are looking to the future on this issue shows how much the debate about press regulation has shifted. It finally seems to be catching up with the reality of the 21st century. The recent Select Committee report, was a sensible and measured contribution to what has been a complicated – and sometimes controversial – subject.
The report recognised the value of a free press, and the impracticality – and philosophical offensiveness – of statutory controls on what can be written in newspapers and magazines, both in print and online. For these conclusions alone, the Committee should be applauded.
But there were also a number of specific positive observations about the administration and structure of the PCC. This praise highlighted the greater accountability and flexibility that the PCC has been applying in recent years. Also – apart from a baffling conclusion about Kate Middleton – the report shed greater light on some of the PCC's lesser-known work, including its various proactive efforts and its role as an advice bureau, both of which aim to prevent problems arising in the first place. This sort of acceptance puts renewed pressure on the industry and the PCC to deliver the goods in future.
The Culture Secretary, James Purnell, announced in the wake of the report that he believes that self-regulation continues to be the best way of achieving high editorial standards. Some people have asked whether that means the threat of statutory intervention is over for good.
Well, no. There are already numerous general laws that apply to the press as much as anyone else. Anyone of malign intent could build on these. And there are concerns that other freedoms might be chipped away in other pieces of proposed legislation. What is more, it will only take one major lapse in standards to provoke a fresh bout of political brow-furrowing about whether self-regulation is up to the job of policing the press.
Eternal vigilance is absolutely essential. Complacency about standards will simply amount to a priority ticket back to the "last-chance saloon".
Tim Toulmin is the director of the Press Complaints Commission
