• Introduction
• Chairman's perspective
• Public representatives
• Complainants
• Professional representatives
• Ian Monk - Ian Monk Associates
• Janice Troup - Head of ITV Programme Publicity, Drama and Soaps
• Polly Ravenscroft - MD, PR Squared Ltd
• Nick Armstrong - Partner, Charles Russell LLP
• Roderick Dadak - Partner, Head of Defamation, Media, Brands and Technology, Lewis Silkin
• Newspapers and magazines
• The Press Complaints Commission
• Constructive critics
• International perspective
• Historical perspective
• Putting it into perspective

Professional representatives

Roderick Dadak - Partner, Head of Defamation, Media, Brands and Technology, Lewis Silkin

It is all too easy to criticise self-regulation by the media which is the task of the Press Complaints Commission. Nobody would pretend that it doesn't have shortcomings or that mistakes have not been made - and they get plenty of publicity. But it is in fact remarkably successful.

With a robust Code of Practice it provides a public service which, apart from being free, is fair and is relatively quick. The Code is respected by the Courts, and indeed is specifically relied upon as a guide to the application of the balancing exercise between freedom of expression and the right to a private life. However, ultimately its best advertisement is the number of complaints that are successfully concluded. There is a false assumption that most members of the public who complain against the media want money. They don't. The majority want an apology. All the evidence suggests that the PCC succeed in achieving a satisfactory outcome, through mediation or adjudication, without falling foul of allegations of bias or giving inadequate consideration to complaints made.

The media take the PCC and the Code very seriously, both nationally and regionally, and that also demonstrates its effectiveness. There have been calls for statutory controls to be introduced in place of self-regulation but in the face of a proven track record in the vast majority of complaints and determined, and substantial, strides over the last few years to improve the Code, and its implementation, by addressing shortcomings, adapting and amending it where appropriate, there isn't really any need to replace it. The PCC has the flexibility to adapt and change which a statutory body could never achieve. It isn't perfect but overall it works. There is still room for improvement but credit should be given where credit is due and in a cash-strapped society the free and fair service the PCC offers should be supported.