No to state regulation of the press: Why Tatchell is wrong

Peter Tatchell’s is – perhaps understandably – pissed off. The Press Complaints Commission has failed to uphold a complaint against Jan Moir’s despicable  attack on late boyzone star Stephen Gately. Yet he is wrong  to demand – along with many others -  that the PPC, a “discredited, feeble institution”  be “replaced by an independent statutory body with real power and principles”. For many it seems odd, even illogical, that the press should regulate itself, and that figures from the major papers should sit on the commission which deals with complaints against them. Yet if the press is to be regulated it should absolutely be voluntary self-regulation. You see, newspapers are not just another industry like gas or water. Government intereference with the railways does not threaten our democracy. If, like me, you are opposed to  censorship then there is no way you can demand that a external body with officially sanctioned powers be given the general right to haul papers over the coals for what they publish. And this unfortunately, is the implication not only of Tatchell’s comments, but those of many others who thoughtlessly assert that “self-regulation isn’t working”.

If there does seem to be something contradictory or illogical about the PCC, then this is a product of its fudged origins. While it was established, nominally, as a means of self-regulation, the reality was somewhat different. For free will was excersized at gun point:the Tory government of the early 1990s had threatened imminent government legislation if the press did not come up with a mechanism to regulate itself, and thus the PCC was born. Rather than simply following the logic of regulation, and complain that it “isn’t working” we ought to bear in mind the bigger question of whether in a democratic state, the papers should be punished for what they publish.