The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

“Its not in the papers”: media reporting about media regulation

The media, as we are often reminded, plays the vital role of “public watchdog” – holding the powerful in society to account.  There are, however, limits to the way in which it performs this function.  One of the most striking of these concerns the failure of the media to hold itself to account.  News which does not fit with the media’s own view of its role in society and how it should be regulated is either distorted or ignored.  This gives rise to serious concerns about the way in which the Leveson Inquiry report is likely to treated.

Three striking examples can be given from the recent past.

First, on 24 May 2012, the IPPR published an opinion poll which suggested that more than 60% of the public now favour statutory regulation of the press. A total of 94% of those favouring regulation (77% of the sample) thought the regulation should be “fairly strict” or “very strict”.   As we reported at the time, save for a small item in the “Guardian”, this was wholly ignored by the national media.

Second, in June 2012, the Times commissioned a Populous poll which put the proposition

The Leveson Inquiry will lead to more effective regulation of the press offering better protection to members of the public against unwarranted intrusion into their private lives.

The responses showed that 59 per cent majority, agreed with that statement, while 27 per cent disagreed.  However, this result did not find its way into the newspaper which, instead reported on the responses to a proposition which clearly suggested its own answer

‘Leveson inquiry has lost its way as a procession of politicians, journalists and celebrities have simply tried to defend themselves against one another’s allegations.’

Unsurprisingly, 61 per cent agreed.  Brian Cathcart pointed out the problems in a post the time.  The Times did not publish any correction or clarification.

Third, Steven Barnett on behalf of the British Journalism Review, commissioned a poll on attitudes to the public interest.  This showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that most respondents thought that typical “tabloid stories” were not in the public interest and should not be published.

A well-known England footballer, who is married with young children, is having an affair

Public interest: 6%

Not public interest but should be published: 30%

Should not be published: 58%

A leading politician’s daughter is found drunk in public

Public interest: 2%

Not public interest but should be published: 22%

Should not be published: 69%

A member of a leading pop group has had cosmetic surgery to change the shape of her face

Public interest: 3%

Not public interest but should be published: 25%

Should not be published: 66%

A contestant on Britain’s Got Talent who has reached the final once tried to commit suicide

Public interest: 3%;

Not public interest but should be published: 12%;

Should not be published: 80%

Once again, this was ignored by the mainstream media.  Steven Barnett had a post on this at the time.

These are examples of the media ignoring evidence about media regulation issues which they don’t like.

There is an even more striking recent example of the way in which the media deal with proposals for media regulation.  This comes from Australia where, March 2012, there was a report by an Independent Media Inquiry, led by former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, Mr Ray Finkelstein QC made a modest proposal for a government funded News Media Council, a statutory body to set journalistic standards and handle complaints.

As Professor Matthew Ricketson, a journalist and academic who assisted Judge Finkelstein, noted on Inforrm, the report was systematically misrepresented and distorted by the Australian media.   The actual recommendations in the report were barely noticed a flood of media pieces attacking them.  This was also discussed by Richard Ackland in a piece entitled “Finkelstein or Frankenstein?

The Leveson Inquiry has been monitoring press coverage of its own operations and, as Lord Justice Leveson reminded everyone at the outset of Module 4 on 9 July 2012 he will also “incorporating into the record all the press cuttings that have dealt with the Inquiry from the outset”.   What will be more interesting will come too late for the Inquiry – the media coverage of its report and recommendations.  Unfortunately, the least likely outcome is a fair and balanced report of the arguments for and against.


  1. Jennifer McDermott

    I totally agree with this article .The media, in my experience as a media law practitioner, have always relied on their free speech rights but at the same time denied the rights of others. The Defamation Bill is a good example, codifying the existing law to help the media but not helping claimants in particular to reduce costs so that they can exert their rights.When the HRA 1998 was going through Parliament , the media wanted an exemption to stop any privacy laws developing here , which again would curb their activities notably the tabloids to make even more money by breaching people’s privacy on a wholesale basis.

    And of course the press even now are claiming that self- regulation is still the best way to regulate themselves. that is certainly right if you look at this merely through press eyes and ignore claimants. The broadcast media have had to abide by statutory regulation for years yet still produce ground – breaking and award – winning journalism. It is time the press agreed to do likewise.

  2. David Banks

    Steven Barnett should have added a fourth questions to all of those scenarios:

    “But would you, honestly, read it?”

    Better still, leave study participants in a room, secretly observed, with a selection of broadsheets and titillating tabloids on the table. See which they pick up first.

Leave a Reply

© 2023 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: