State regulation of the press

Renewed interest in state regulation of the press was spurred by the 2012 Leveson Inquiry in the UK, which
examined the various models by which the media can be regulated. In essence, the two basic models used in
most countries are ‘self-regulation’ in which the media establishes its own body to monitor and punish non-
compliance with a Code of Ethics; whereas in a ‘statutory regulation’ model, an independent press regulator is
created by the government, but run at arm’s length. One important difference between the two systems is that
with self-regulation, newspapers can opt out, so some may simply be unregulated. Statutory regulators often
have greater powers, such as levelling fines, whereas self-regulators may be limited to powers of
condemnation.

Cons
[1] While it is attractive to believe that a government agency might be totally insulated from politics, this is
simply not possible. Inevitably, things like funding arrangements and appointments will get some input from
the government of the day, and this will allow it to influence the regulator, however indirectly. Moreover, there
is no guarantee that, even if the regulator is fairly appointed, it will not be politicised in a way that reflects
certain powerful interests.

[2] The right to opt out of regulation is ultimately one that newspapers must possess. While it might seem like
they can never have good reasons to do so, in fact, they may wish to pursue a course of the higher-risk, more
investigative journalism that a regulator may try to prevent, even though it is ultimately in the public interest.
For instance, Britain’s Private Eye chose to opt out of the Press Complaints Commission because it wanted to
pursue the more revelatory stories that the PCC was often dubious about.

[3] Laws against libel and criminal invasions of privacy are sufficient to provide individuals with the protection
that they require from the press. If anything false and harmful is said about them, then they can sue for
damages, and the same is true if their privacy is breached. In other words, if the media do anything illegal, they
will be punished; but otherwise, they must be given a substantial area of freedom in which to operate.

[4] A state-imposed Code of Ethics will not be sufficiently attuned to the subtle difficulties that editors face
when working under pressure, and so will not in fact be properly designed; it is better to let editors set their
own code, as they are experts and understand the tasks that a newspaper is engaged in. Moreover, whereas a
state imposed code has to be written into statute and so cannot easily be changed, a self-regulated code can be
more flexible, and so can be added to or adapted as circumstances change.