Archive for the ‘MST’ tag

PCC governance review – a good start, though it's what happens next that counts

without comments

It’s good to be pleasantly surprised. I confess I was pretty sceptical about the ‘independent governance review’ of the PCC (whose report is published today). I wasn’t sure how ‘independent’ it actually was, and was concerned by the very limited publicity for written submissions and that oral evidence was taken in secret.

But it turns out to be a carefully thought out and reasonable response to the many calls for reform over the last 18 months. This includes, of course, the calls by the Media Standards Trust since February 2009 (‘A More Accountable Press’).

It’s clear from the report that they’ve been listening. By my count the review appears to have accepted, in whole or in part, 19 of the 28 recommendations we made in our submission earlier this year (‘Can independent self-regulation keep standards high and preserve press freedom’) in addition to those of others like Peter Preston and MediaWise. The real challenge now is to see if the PCC and the newspapers embrace the recommendations and use this as an opportunity to revitalise self-regulation, or ignore them and leave the current system frozen in aspic.

The recommendations are detailed (I think I counted about 75 in all) though mostly in plain English. They include:

  • Greater openness about the system – for example, being open about funding (it still seems remarkable that an industry that recognises the importance of knowing where the money comes from doesn’t make clear how its own self-regulation is funded), making sure the PCC statistics are ‘consistent and clear’, and providing more information about complaints
  • Codifying the sanctions and telling people about them – this could mean providing a clear ladder of remedies so people understand what the penalties for breaching the code are and have a better idea about the seriousness of a breach
  • Making the PCC more proactive – emphasising the importance of taking action where there is a clear sign of public concern
  • Introducing more ways to judge the effectiveness of the PCC – including targets for the year, and polls that measure not only confidence in the PCC but also in the press (this way hopefully we won’t get the Commission claiming success each year whether complaints go up or down)
  • Clarifying the purpose of the PCC – including making plain ‘how it considers standards issues’ and ‘what it means by – and what it wants to achieve through – proactivity’.

On some of the big issues – particularly the all-important one of sanctions – the review pushes most of the responsibility back to the PCC and the industry. This makes sense from the perspective that the industry would balk at any ‘outside’ pressure on them to introduce new penalties for breaching the code. However, if this becomes an excuse neither to strengthen existing sanctions nor to explore new ones then people will still not take the PCC seriously as an independent self-regulator – as it aspires to be.

It should also be said that this review leaves a lot of room for manoeuvre. The Commission could, if it wanted, do not much more than publish minutes of its meetings, and alter the appointments and compliance process. Equally, the industry could ignore recommendations to divulge their contributions, and fail to become more involved in the promotion and discussion of standards. Hence why this review is a good start, but certainly not an end point.

One subject on which the review didn’t go into much detail is funding. The PCC has a much smaller budget than organisations like the Advertising Standards Authority or Ofcom. Taking on the additional responsibilities recommended in the review will cost more. Though the review takes note of this it thinks costs can be kept down. This could be tricky and other funding mechanisms ought to be explored. In our submission we suggested the PCC start charging for investigations – like the Financial Services Ombudsman. Alternatively the industry could throw more money in the pot, though given the parlous state of news organisations this seems unlikely at present.

The ball is now squarely in the PCC and the industry’s court. The PCC has made positive noises about the review and has already made some commitments – for example around transparency (it said in its annual report it would adhere to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act). PressBoF, which has been fantastically opaque to date, seems to be raising its head slightly above the parapet. We await the response of the Editorial Code Committee. But it remains to be seen what the Commission, the Board of Finance, the Code Committee – and most importantly the industry – will actually do.

Written by Martin Moore

July 7th, 2010 at 12:25 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , ,

News Innovation 'Unconference' – Friday 10th July

without comments

What do these have in common:

Audioboo – an ‘iphone audio blogging app’ that came of age during the G20 protests and is now being touted as the ‘YouTube of the spoken word’ (from Matthew Weaver on guardian.co.uk)

Addiply – ‘Perfectly targetted local advertising’ software aimed at entrepreneurial journalists and online news organisations. Rick Waghorn tells you more about it on his blog, and you can see it in action on the Peoples Republic of South Devon

Guardian Open Platform – enabling people to build applications out of the Guardian’s content (like trending swearwords…). A ‘chasmic leap into the future’ says Tom Watson.

Talk About Local – ‘a project to give people in their communities a powerful online voice’ by teaching them how to use online community and reporting tools.

Journalisted – a directory of all the journalists published in the national press and on the BBC with links to their articles and other useful info (statement of interest – we built and run Journalisted – and are about to launch a new version) at www.journalisted.com

Debategraph – enabling you to use interactive graphics to help structure debate. “What’s cool here: This tool lets you “see” and engage with ideas, and explore their inter-relationships, very elegantly” says Craig Stoltz (from debategraph.org)

Help Me Investigate – where you will be able to ‘Collaborate with other people to investigate things you all care about’. Paul Bradshaw explains more on his OnlineJournalismBlog

They are all news innovations that have the potential to change the way we fund, gather, publish and consume news on the web.

But it’s rare that the people who developed these innovations, who use them, or who who want to understand their potential, get a chance to meet and discuss them (the recent JeeCamp being a notable exception).

That’s why we, the Media Standards Trust and the Web Science Research Initiative, are organising News Innovation London – a half-day ‘unconference’ on 10th July, supported by NESTA (and at NESTA’s swish 1 Plough Place venue).

The idea is to get a bunch of journalists, developers and thinkers (academics and think tank types) together to talk about this stuff and learn from one another. It’s an unconference so there’s no formal programme and anyone can put their name down to present (wiki to go up shortly).

It’s free – as long as you register in time, and as long as you’re prepared to participate (and maybe even present). You can register at http://newsinnovationlondon.eventbrite.com/

If you’re developing an online news innovation yourself, or know about one you think should get an airing, please do tell me about it here or, even better, come along on the 10th.

Written by Martin Moore

June 4th, 2009 at 9:51 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , ,