Regulating the Press Norway

REUTERS INSTITUTE for the Debate on press regulation in the UK has, so far, been largely inward-looking and STUDY of REPORT focussed on the UK experience. This report is the first comparative study of JOURNALISM international press councils designed to inform the Leveson Inquiry and stimulate wider debate on UK press reform. Its aim is not to identify a blueprint for future regulation, rather it seeks to draw together core principles from the experience of overseas regulation. It also explores the challenges shared by regulators in an era marked by the blurring of boundaries between converging media platforms, between ‘professional’ and ‘citizen’ journalists and between national and global publication. In this report Lara Fielden draws on interviews conducted with the Press Council Chairs and Press Ombudsmen in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Sweden, supplemented by case studies from Canada, New Zealand and Regulating the Press Norway. She investigates how distinct approaches to press council purposes, membership, funding, codes of ethics and complaints-handling provide thought- A Comparative Study of International Press Councils provoking points of comparison and contrast. Are press councils mandatory or voluntary and are there merits in a framework of statutory incentivises? What sanctions do press councils have at their disposal and how do they view ‘the public interest’? What impact do they have on press standards and what have been their successes and failures? Press freedoms, the report contends, are not an end in themselves but serve a Lara Fielden democratic function in the public interest. The report therefore argues that however press regulation is developed in the UK, the interests of the public should lie at its April 2012 heart. British policy makers seem traditionally reluctant to learn from the experiences of other countries. More often we are told, with imperial nostalgia, that the world is waiting to follow Britain's lead. In the case of press regulation, I suspect that if the world is watching at all it is waiting, slightly sceptically, to see if we can put our house in order. For all those interested in the future of Britain's media Lara Fielden's report provides excellent research into the many different regulatory models that have developed abroad and invaluable analysis of their specific relevance to the British debate. Professor Stewart Purvis Professor of Television Journalism Cover image © TBI Communications This paper represents the views of the author rather than a statement of a collective view of the Reuters Institute The Reuters Institute would like to thank David Ure for funding this research and report. Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism The Author Lara Fielden is a Visiting Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. In November 2011 the RISJ, in association with the Department of Journalism at City University London, published her book Regulating for Trust in Journalism: Standards regulation in the age of blended media. It argues that the current regulatory framework for UK media – separating broadcast, newspaper and online content - has run its course and sets out proposals for a new regulatory settlement across the media. Lara Fielden’s publications are informed by her experience in both journalism and regulation. Between 2005 and 2010 she was with Ofcom where she managed fairness and privacy adjudications and reviews of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. Prior to Ofcom, Lara spent ten years as a news and current affairs producer with BBC television. Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who so generously agreed to be interviewed by me for this report. In particular the Press (and Media) Council chairmen in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, and Sweden and, in the case of Ireland and Sweden, the Press Ombudsmen for their interest in this project and for their expertise and insights. I am also extremely grateful to the staff of the Press Councils for all their assistance in providing information, and to the Reuters Institute Fellows who contributed complementary perspectives and additional sources of material. I am indebted to David Levy and David Ure at the RISJ for proposing this project and for their invaluable support and ideas throughout the process of research and drafting. My thanks go to Stewart Purvis, Eve Salomon, and Stephen Whittle for reading the first draft and for their very helpful comments and suggestions. Also to Kate Hanneford-Smith at the RISJ for coordinating contact with past RISJ Journalist Fellows and Alex Reid for ensuring timely publication. I would like to thank Catherine Speller at the Press Complaints Commission for all her help in providing background information on the PCC and for links to opposite numbers in the European and Australian Press Councils considered here. Former PCC Commissioner Robert Pinker and Lindsay Ross of the CPU Media Trust also provided valuable perspectives as the project took shape. All mistakes are of course my own, and given the current rapid developments in press regulation (in particular in relation to the UK and Australia where at the time of writing reviews of regulation are taking place) information provided may be overtaken by new arrangements. However, I hope that the broad principles considered and developed in this report will provide a useful contribution to current debate and future reform. 1 Contents Foreword Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1.1. A comparative study of Press Councils: the purposes and approach of this paper 1.2. Criteria for the selection of countries and issues 1.3. Press Council country sketches 1.3.1. Sweden: a century of experience and a financial penalty 1.3.2. Germany: peer regulation 1.3.3. Finland: voluntary cross-media regulation 1.3.4. Denmark: statutory compulsion and incentives 1.3.5. Ireland: statutory recognition and incentives 1.3.6. Australia: radical rethinking 1.3.7. Informing the debate: Canada, New Zealand, and Norway 2. Origins, Funding, and Governance 2.1. Press Council origins 2.2. Budgets and funding 2.3. Governance, membership, and independence 3. Scope across Platforms 3.1. Press Council approaches to broadcasting 3.2. Press Council approaches to new media and convergence 4. Status: Voluntary, Incentivised, and Mandatory Models of Regulation 4.1. Voluntary Self-Regulation: Germany, Finland, Sweden 4.2. Voluntary ‘independent’ regulation with statutory incentives: Ireland (and Australian Press Council proposals) 4.3. Co-regulation combining a mandatory statutory basis with self- regulatory elements: Denmark (and Australian independent inquiry proposals) 5. Press Council Responsibilities 5.1. Primary purposes, who can complain, and wider standards 5.2. Codes of conduct 5.3. Mediation and alternative resolutions 5.4. Adjudications, appeals, sanctions, and enforcement powers 5.5. Wider Press Council engagement: related accountability mechanisms, transparency for consumers, and impact 6. Press Council Approaches to the Public Interest 6.1. The competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression 6.2. Defamation, the Reynolds Defence, and wider testing of the public interest 3 7. Conclusions 7.1. A democratic imperative 7.2. Primary purposes and status of a press regulator 7.2.1 Distinguishing between ethical and legal regulation 7.2.2 Mandatory versus voluntary regulation and an incentivised middle way 7.2.3 Standards and complaint-handling 7.3. Independence 7.4. Transparency and kite-marking 7.5. Territorial jurisdiction and convergence readiness 7.5.1. Territorial jurisdiction 7.5.2. Convergence readiness List of Interviewees Annex 1 Comparative Press Regulation Annex 2 Sweden Annex 3 Germany Annex 4 Finland Annex 5 Denmark Annex 6 Ireland Annex 7 Australia Annex 8 UK Select Bibliography 4 Foreword Much of the reaction prompted by the widespread concern about press ethics following the News of the World Scandal of 2011 has focused on questions of regulation. But that raises two problems. First, press ethics and culture are often far more deep rooted than any particular regulatory arrangements. Second, the debate on the future of press regulation in the UK has, so far, been largely inward looking and focused on domestic experience. Lara Fielden’s report provides the most up to date and wide ranging comparative study of press councils overseas. As such it is designed to meet multiple goals: to inform the Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the press; to stimulate the wider debate on press reform, in Britain and elsewhere; and to provide a reference document about key developments and trends in a range of countries (primarily in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland and Sweden) that share in common a free press and a tradition of press councils. The report speaks to one of the key goals of the Reuters Institute in offering rigorous comparative research to inform a key issue in journalism practice and policy. In terms of the UK Leveson-related debate it offers hard analysis and insight in an area often marked by entrenched positions and emotion. Its aim is not to provide a blue print for a new UK model, but there are many positive lessons from international experience. Overseas press councils differ greatly, as might be expected, reflecting their diverse press and political cultures. But many share a common genesis, as an industry response to the threat of statutory regulation. There is much to learn from this report and I expect that it will become a reference document for

Load more