Libel & the PCC
At the same time as the PCC is going through the motions of representing public accountability reaching out to the readers of newspapers up and down the land and asking how the Complaints Commission can be made even better than it already is, with people getting their heads together about how best to do that, moves are afoot to try and reform libel law.
It strikes me that these things are connected. They both represent, in a way, the response that members of the public have when confronted with something they don't agree with written in the press. The first option - going to the PCC - is not the same as going to Ofcom or complaining to the BBC Trust, in that in some instances you can't make general complaints about the press unless you're directly involved in the story or are a relative of someone who is; the way in which complaints are handled is not the same either. The second, more nuclear, option, is suing for libel, which has its own costs, and own pitfalls.
At the moment, it's incredibly difficult for an ordinary member of the public who is appalled by what has been written about them to get anything other than a tiny retraction on page 94, unsatisfying even if the PCC rules in their favour, and often impossible for people not directly involved with a story to complain about factual inaccuracies or misleading rubbish. Meanwhile, it's disproportionately easy for massive corporations ruining people's lives to stop a single line of truthful and accurate reporting from getting out, if they use the libel laws to their advantage.
This situation seems deeply inadequate.
*update* A working group is to be set up by the Government following the publication of a forthcoming report by the Culture, Media & Sport select committee. I don't know whether this will address the issues raised by possible PCC reform or not but it might at least give an opportunity for something to be done.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 10th, 2009 - 18:05
It is pretty obvious to anybody outside the gilded professions of politics, media and the law that the single best protection for the individual against the power and money of the media would be an inviting, cheap and accessible legal system.
This is probably why the libel laws will never be reformed. We might end up with some power.
On the other side of the coin, one of the little known outcomes of the McLibel trial was the finding in the European Court that the case had breached Steele and Morris's Human Rights (Article 6 – Right to a fair trial) because they weren't allowed legal aid.
Alas, the ruling has never been tested because – since McLibel – corporations have shown little appetite for inviting political activists to the High Court so they can spend a year getting positive PR at the expense of highly paid barristers and a baroque legal system.