Statutory Regulation - Essay

What are the arguments for and against statutory regulation of the newspaper industry? 

There are strong arguments both for and against the statutory regulation of the newspaper industry as it is a topic that has been much debated. Arguments against statutory regulation focus on the main idea that by enforcing regulatory on the press we are putting restraint on the democratic society we know and live in. By enforcing statutory regulation it is argued that although it can be seen as breaking down a democratic society, protection of privacy and rights of individuals should be considered.

There are many strong arguments against statutory regulation that all eventually sum up to one main point that it will be the greatest threat to the freedom of the press. Statutory regulation will have a impactful restraint on free speech of journalists, editors, publishers etc. Free press is essential to a truly democratic society, allowing expression of opinion and viewpoint - for example one person may have a different outlook on a situation to another and therefore report it differently. The media as a whole is a reflection of society, views, political, social, religious and other. Individual newspapers or outlets may have particular leanings ; this is only natural however some sources can be identified as being strongly bias and in favour of one thing against the other. This could cause inaccurate or false information to be spread or extremist views to be created and further spread. Free speech argues that even extremist views have the right to be expressed. There is also the argument that granted free speech allows for better, in depth stories that will stand out more to audiences. The communities secretary argues that, “the character of the British press is that it’s good at exploring corruption, and it’s good at going places where other press wouldn’t”. Backing up this point, statutory regulation would limit this lead of British press doing more than there press do to create and gather a good news story as regulation would restrict what they report and how they report it to their audience and readers. Another argument against statutory regulation is that it could “create a media controlled by politicians” (Boris Johnson) which strongly goes against having a democratic society as it can essentially be seen as lack of power to the people. This may also lead to inaccurate representation and a lack of broad opinions in press media as statutory regulation by high authority will limit content which will be unapproved by government legislation. It is also argued that self regulation is a better alternative than statutory regulation as self regulation has more advantages over government regulation. The claimed advantages of self-regulation over governmental regulation include efficiency, increased flexibility, increased incentives for compliance, and overall reduced cost.

The fundamental argument surrounding the enforcement of statutory regulation in press media is to protect the privacy and reputable rights of individuals. This has often lead to citizens complaining of invasion of privacy and misrepresentation in the media which is often due to bias and leading opinions. A memorable example of press invasion of privacy was when the News of The World hacked murdered school girls phone, opening voicemails giving her parents hope of her survival. As a result friend and relatives concluded wrong that she might have still been alive, creating false hope and further distraught. The Leveson enquiry (2011-12) following the revelations of the phone hacking scandal and closure of the News of the World aimed to enforce statutory regulation due to evidence of press malpractice, abuse and criminality. Arguments for statutory regulation are also based around ideas against self regulation of the newspaper industry as being ineffective. An often cited example of the ineffective nature of self regulation is the failure of the PCC in not stopping incidents like the phone hacking scandal, failing to impose penalties and corrections. Other criticisms of the self regulatory model is that it allows newspapers to avoid ethical and legal responsibilities and makes it weak at protecting and ensuring privacy and rights of individuals. 

Concluding both arguments, statutory regulation is argued as being compulsory as the media needs some sort of control however this belief puts restraint on press freedom of free speech. Following the argument for statutory regulation, after the Leveson enquiry a new press regulator was introduced: the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). The IPSO can be seen as a step forward from the PCC as it can order newspapers to print apologies or corrections on the front page or fine papers. However, it crucially doesn’t act on Leveson’s key recommendation that the regulator is backed by government legislation and therefore shows that the aim of enforcing statutory regulation was unsuccessful.