Our primary role as a complaints-handling body inevitably means that the bulk of what we do is concerned with what happens after publication: correcting things that need to be put right; negotiating remedies where errors have been made; and rebuking publications formally in the most serious of cases. Previous newsletters have explained our work advising members of the public who have concerns about a story that is about to run, or who need protection from press harassment. But what about editors and journalists who are often grappling with a mass of information and a pressing deadline?

Recent times have seen the PCC speaking to an increasing number of journalists and editors who would like some advice about a particular aspect of the Editors' Code of Practice, and to talk through how they can handle publication of a story responsibly.

To take some examples from earlier in the year: one national newspaper contacted us with questions about a celebrity they believed to be in the early stages of pregnancy. The paper wanted to know the best course of action regarding treatment of this information. Using PCC case law (see here and here), we discussed the relevant privacy implications, and advised them of the Commission's ruling that "newspapers and magazines should not reveal news of an individual's pregnancy without consent before the 12 week scan, unless the information is known to such an extent that it would be perverse not to refer to it". As a result of the PCC's advice, nothing was published and the celebrity's news remained private.

We had discussions recently with another national newspaper which planned to publish a story about the death of a young man who had taken his own life. The parents were keen to publicise the story - including information about the method he used - as a clear warning to other parents. The newspaper was concerned about the potential breach of Clause 5 (ii) (which was introduced to minimise the risks of copycat suicides) but wasn't sure which specific pieces of information might be problematic. Following discussions with the PCC, the newspaper removed a considerable amount of detail from the original story told to them by the parents, without losing any of its force. The parents got the tribute piece they wanted, but no other lives were put at risk unnecessarily.

Another example illustrates how newspapers can and do take responsibility when things go wrong. We had a call from a local newspaper, when it came to light that a junior member of staff had paid a witness who was giving evidence in a criminal trial. The editor immediately recognised that this was a serious offence in breach of Clause 15 (Witness payments in criminal trials) of the Code, and contacted the PCC straightaway. Following a conversation with the PCC, the newspaper contacted the Judge and the Prosecution Counsel to apologise and make clear what had happened. The Judge was able to come to the view that the trial had not been affected. The Commission concluded that once the error had been made, the reporter had acted appropriately.

These three examples are just a few of many such enquiries the PCC deals with from the industry. It is important that people know about this (confidential) service and we would encourage editors and journalists - as we would any member of the public who had concerns - to pick up the phone and give us a call.