Briefings

Ten things that discredit the press industry's 'PCC2'

19/11/2012

Hacked Off

Newspaper
✕ Press claim

✓ The truth

Reach
Up to
people misled
Help us fight back

Join 71,384 others who are taking action to share the truth & raise standards in the press

1. Share the truth
Post this rebuttal on social media
2. Fund the fightback
Help us challenge more stories like this
Donate
3. Tell your MP
Send a ready-written email in 30 seconds
Email your MP

The first detailed analysis of the press industry's own plan for press regulation – the scheme proposed by the papers to the Leveson inquiry – indicate that it would be dominated and controlled the big newspaper companies and would barely be an improvement on the discredited Press Complaints Commission.

The study of the so-called Black plan by the Media Standards Trust, which can be read in full here, leaves little doubt that the aim of editors and proprietors is to give the appearance of independence to their proposed new body, but to retain for themselves the power to be judge and jury in their own court.

It identifies ten serious failings:

  • It is not (as advertised) a ‘new system entirely’
  • It is not independent
  • It maintains the dominance of the key vested interests
  • The incentives to participate will damage journalistic freedom
  • A news organisation can effectively buy itself out of the contract
  • It is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and significantly under-costed
  • Its powers of sanction are limited and unspecified
  • Third parties will find it as hard as before, if not harder, to complain
  • It remains mediation not regulation
  • It has a five-year sell-by date

As well as these flaws, it is important to remember that the plan has already been rejected by the victims of phone hacking and press abuse in a letter to David Cameron. Read their arguments against the proposals here.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
Briefings
Reporting montage
Professor Arday, IPSO, and the press: steps to end the cycle of tragedy
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg, Professor of Media Law at the University of Leeds, on why the press hounding of Professor Jason Arday will happen again unless politicians act.
8/16/26
Briefings
Daily Mail Hacking Trial
All the latest on the allegations in the Mail hacking trial
2/12/26
Briefings