17 Spring-Summer 2017 political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. Expressions of the broadcaster ’s views on these matters (except the provision of program services) must be excluded.33 However in the case of local radio services provided by broadcasters other than the BBC, the requirement of due impartiality is replaced by a requirement not to give undue prominence to the views of particular persons or bodies on these matters.34 As noted above, under the Ofcom Code, the requirement of due accuracy does not extend to content other than news, even if it concerns a matter of political controversy. Ofcom’s procedures do not in general suffer from delays and obfuscation similar to the BBC’s. They have not been invoked as intensively as the BBC’s in relation to coverage of Israel, but where there have been complaints of antiIsrael bias, Ofcom has generally rejected them, favoring what it sees as freedom of speech. A striking example was Channel 4’s documentary, “Dispatches": Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby,”35 where an obvious lack of impartiality with regard to Israel was brushed aside on the grounds that the program was not about Israel, but about Britain’s Israel lobby.36 Newspapers and Magazines Newspapers and magazines used to be self-regulated in the UK by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) by reference to requirements set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice.37 The PCC consisted of representatives of the major publishers and was found to be insufficiently robust in many cases. Inaction or ineffective action in response to a series of scandals, unrelated to Israel, in particular concerning the interception of telephone calls and messages, led to an inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, which recommended that the PCC be replaced by an independent body. Following this recommendation, the PCC has been wound up but it has not been replaced by a comprehensive alternative. Government proposals were fiercely opposed by publishers and the government decided to offer inducements to encourage independent regulation instead of compelling it. However, the publishers have declined to participate within the framework offered by the government and have set up their own arrangements. The main successor to the PCC is the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Its participants include a considerable number of local newspapers, and most of the national newspapers, but not The Guardian, The Observer, the Independent or the Financial Times. IPSO continues to apply the Editors’ Code of Practice, which basically requires accuracy, but not impartiality. More specifically, it says: 1. i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion, once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and—where appropriate—an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. 2. A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for. The Financial Times accepts the Editors’ Code of Practice but does not participate in IPSO; it has appointed its own Complaints Commissioner to determine complaints of non-compliance. The Guardian and The Observer also accept the Editors’ Code as “a sound statement of ethical behavior for journalists” and have appointed a “Reader ’s Editor” to consider complaints. A complainant can appeal to a review panel appointed by the publisher. The Independent has its own code of practice which states, “It is our primary endeavour to publish information that is accurate and will not mislead readers. You must take care not to distort information either by disingenuous phrasing or by omission.” It is possible to complain about the content, but there does not appear to be any separate panel to review complaints. Defamation In contrast to the disparate systems of regulation outlined above, the law of defamation applies to all media. 33. Communications Act 2003, supra note 30, secs. 320(1)-(3). 34. Communications Act 2003, supra note 30, sec. 320(1)(c). 35. Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E70BwA7xgU (last visited Feb. 21, 2017). 36. Dispatches: Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, 154 OFCOM Broadcast Bulletin, March 22, 2010, 17, available at https:// www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/46534/ issue154.pdf (last visited Feb. 21, 2017). 37. Editors’ Code of Practice, IPSO, available at https://www. ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2017).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=