Just wonderful to see all the scumbag press fanboys jumping up and down trying to impress their masters.
Most members of the press don't believe in regulating the press. I'd be happy defending even the Sun's right not to get regulated. See further down in this post for my counter-proposals.
Thanks Jack.
OK, could you give us a summary please?
The system is first and foremost predicated on the fact that running a newspaper without being a member of PFU (Press trade council) makes you look like a complete and imoral oaf. Doesn't matter, membership is a premise for running a paper. Being a member, you agree to comply with the three sets of rules; the "Be Careful-poster" relating to the ethics of journalism and how the job of journalism should be carried out, the "Editor's poster" which talks about the role of the editor(s) in the publication, and ethics related to that, and last but not least, the "hidden advertisement poster" which deals with, well, duh, hidden advertisement, such as advertising looking too much like an editorial story, for instance because someone paid you to do it.
I've worked within several editorial groups, and the one thing you'd be told in your first ever meeting with your new editor was always how you were expected to work within the range of these 'rules'. While there are a large number of successful "prosecutions" by the PFU, it breaks down to a very low number for most papers, and a somewhat higher one for the larger tabloids. It's not really about prosecutions, as there's no real penalty (except having to print an apology), it's more a question of pride, a question of working within the ethics of the profession. Being struck down by the PFU is not something anyone wants within the Norwegian press. So that alone acts as a form of civilizing force, making our papers more accountable but still maintaining the legal defence of press freedom. The press ethics in Norway go far beyond the law, let's be clear about that.
The one thing I'd like to see changed is to take what I believe is what the Swedish press can potentially be sanctioned with. If you really fuck up in Sweden, I believe this press trade council have the authority to order a paper to run parts of it's front page blacked out. Or even it's whole front page.
I propose taking it a step further. Give the press trade council the mandate to write the apologies on these black banners. Imagine, if you please, a completely black front page except the red logo of the Sun sticking out at the top. And in great white letters "The Sun bollocked [name] for no good reason, we're a bunch of c*cksuckers" or whatnot? After a few of those, I'm sure the Sun would start acting properly.
I'll be happy to go into more detail if anyone wants to. As a journalist, I still carry the codes in a little pink folder in my wallet.
That's a matter for the individual court; couldn't the judge, theoreticly, site the Sun (or better yet, it's editor?) for contempt of court and order a more proper apology?
I have to say, though, that I'm highly critical of the British libel laws. There are people trying to start independent publications in the UK who can't afford it, not because they don't have the running costs, but because they need to be ready from day one to pay out up to a million pounds if some court finds they've libeled someone. It makes proper journalism hard, and I also think it's a more general challenge to freedom of speech. It's not like the libel laws have put a stop to gutter press journalism either, so whatever the intention was (probably to make mr. Dickens report a little cosier on parliamentarians, I suppose), it's failed. Get rid of it.