A Test for Self-Regulation as Britain's PCC Faces Extinction

Baroness Buscombe, the head of Britain's Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has finally resigned in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at the News of The World. Her departure was inevitable following the avalanche of revelations of malpractice at News International, the country's largest media company.

Buscombe's departure opens the door to a new debate about the future of press and media regulation and one that will surely see an end to the reign of the deeply-flawed PCC, whose credibililty as a watchdog was shredded when it was forced to admit that Rupert Murdoch's editorial chiefs had told bare-faced lies about the extent of phone hacking.

Two years ago when I was at the International Federation of Journalists we commissioned a report on the PCC's performance on the phone hacking scandal. That report, by Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Marthoz, concluded that the PCC was negligent, that it's own inquiries into the scandal were wholly inadequate and that it had compromised its own independence by endorsing the implausible denials of News International and rebuking The Guardian for its persistence in breaking the story. At the time Guardian editior Alan Rusbridger resigned his position on the PCC.

It may be late in the day, but Buscombe's decision provides an important opportunity for a proper discusson on media acountability and the future of ethical journalism in the British media.

Some observers fear that the government's review of media by Lord Justice Leveson will emerge with calls for tough legal controls on newspapers, but this is unfounded. Attachment to self-regulation remains strong across the press and politics in Britain, despite the shocking stories about the sleazy and illegal culture of newsgathering at Murdoch papers and increasing evidence of the "dark arts" used in tabloid journalism elsewhere.

Nevertheless, much will change. The PCC, thank goodness, will not survive. Its arrogant refusal to accept growing evidence of editorial corruption has angered many, but a new body, even one founded on the principle of self-regulation, will need to be given powers to enforce its judgements and to hold recalcitrant editors and owners to account.

     

Why NATO Killings at Libya Television Violate International Law

The government of Colonel Gadaffi in Triploi has condemned the killing of three journalists and injuries to many other media staff at Libyan State Television following a NATO air strike on Saturday as a violation of international law and a war crime. There is every reason to believe they are right.

A military strike against unarmed media staff and journalists is forbidden under international humanitarian law and runs counter to the United Nations Security Council resolution 1738 adopted in December 2006 which called on all UN member states to take action to protect media staff working in conflict zones.

The targeting of journalists is a relatively recent phenomenon and NATO are serial offenders. In January 1999 NATO struck at RTS in Belgrade, the state television controlled by the government of Serbian strong man Slobodan Milosevic. They did this only days after a written assurance to the International Federation of Journalists that they would not target the network.

Then as now NATO justifies the attack on the basis that Libyan state television is being used for propaganda by a political tyrant. That may be so, and it may understandably get on the nerves of politicians, but under international law that is no reason to kill unarmed civilians. 

Once armies start targeting journalists because they don't like the stories they tell there is a danger that every journalist in a war zone becomes a potential target.

Military action can be legitimate, but only if there is evidence of incitement to violence or if the broadcaster is being used for strategic purposes in the prosecution of a conflict. NATO have failed to provide any convincing evidence.

Of course, there are some moments when it is right to fire on media. An early strike against Radio Mille Collines in Rawanda, when it was activly promoting genocide and the killing of  Tutsis by rival Hutu gangs, for instance, may have saved hundreds of lives in the 1990s.

But in the case of Libya as in Serbia, and other similar incidents in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon in recent years, attacks on media have been designed not to save lives but to counter propaganda. And as in all of the other cases, it has lamentably failed. Within hours of the smoke clearing in Tripoli, the state broadcaster was back on the air.

The NATO strike is a dangerous action that puts in peril hundreds of journalists and media staff and not just in Libya. In dozens of conflicts zones around the world one side or another may now feel more relaxed about targeting media or journalists they don't like. If NATO is free to kill those putting out messages it doesn't like, they might say, why can't we?