Baroness Buscombe, the Chair of the Press Complaints Commission, the organization that so effectively avoids ruling on 'journalists', has suggested that the remit of the PCC could be expanded to include bloggers, with blogs, on the blogosphere. As you can imagine, it's gone down about as well as a Jan Moir lecture on ethics at a Boyzone funeral.
Unity, and other bloggers at my occasional holiday retreat "Liberal Conspiracy", have written an open letter to Baroness Buscombe at the PCC which reads as follows (well, I may be paraphrasing slightly):
Dear Ms. Buscombe
The PCC are a useless fat waste of shit. Yes, that's right, shit is too valuable to use up creating the gigantic mountain of excrement that is your shabby organization, which by the way is about as effective a regulator as a drunk barman at an all-you-can drink happy hour. Your ideas stink and your Mom sucks. We're not playing with you! Sod off! Rargh!
Yours
The Blogosphere.
And to be fair, they have a pretty good point. I can't deny that the PCC is indeed about as effective a regulator as a drunk barman at an all-you-can drink happy hour. A drunk barman with a history of drinking problems. Who just broke up from his wife. And got diagnosed with leprosy. At his Mum's funeral.
But that's what makes this proposal so attractive.
Before I explain that statement though, there is another elephant in the room that needs dealing with. The PCC already regulates newspapers and magazines, including their online versions. This raises an important question - what is the difference between a blog and a magazine?
Or to put it another way, why shouldn't Liberal Conspiracy play by the same rules as an online magazine or newspaper?
The distinction between blog and magazine is tricky, and it strikes close to home. The Lay Scientist was an individual blog until two months ago, with a couple of guest-bloggers. Now we have over 25 writers, three or four articles a day, and a more magazine-like format. Is this website a blog or a magazine? If it isn't an online magazine, at what stage does it become one?
You might argue that this is pedantry and doesn't matter, but the problem is that writers here and at LibCon have called for the PCC to act against online articles on newspaper websites. If we refuse to submit ourselves to even the basic standard of self-regulation that newspapers do, are we in danger of being hypocrites?
But that's a diversion. The main thrust of Unity's argument is that the PCC is crap anyway, that in many ways it's an insult to ask blogs to get involved in such a piss-poor and ineffective regulatory effort. I agree, but this argument overlooks some very important points.
The PCC have been useless for years. They were useless when they were the Press Council, and they were useless when they reformed as the PCC. They have a history of uselessness. Why? Because like many efforts at industry self-regulation, they tend to do just enough. Indeed, Alan Rusbridger has today resigned claiming that they don't even do that.
They are manned by a stale group of insiders, with little interest in rocking the boat.
What the PCC needs is change. What the PCC needs is fresh blood to move in and shake things up. What better solution then to fill a syringe with new media magic and jab it straight into their cold, dying heart?
As long as British bloggers are not compelled by law to submit to regulations - and to my knowledge there is absolutely no serious suggestion that they ever would be - then the voluntary participation of leading bloggers in the PCC could in principle be an excellent idea.
It would allow bloggers to subvert the existing status quo from within, a prospect that becomes increasingly likely as bloggers gain more prominence in the public arena; and if suitably reformed it could provide a useful badge of distinction to mark out those bloggers willing to abide by a sensible set of of principles.
There are of course caveats - there always are. An attempt to force the regulation of blogging via the back door would be unacceptable, and if we ended up reforming the PCC by adding Iain Dale to the board I think I'd probably just slit my wrists.
But the PCC is already a broken system. Buscombe's plan, as crazy as it may seem at first glance, could provide an opportunity for bloggers to play a part in reforming it. As long as we retain our independence, and the right to withdraw from any such scheme, it's an idea that we shouldn't just instinctively reject. In doing so we may miss a great opportunity for reform.
Or, just possibly, I'm being hopelessly naive. In which case, I'm sure you'll tell me in 3... 2... 1...
http://layscience.net/trackback/790
I think this is very well argued actually. I'm sympathetic to the broader view but the problem is that by co-opting the blogs, the PCC gains legitimacy again.
To force it to change, the only way forward now looks like depriving it of the legitimacy that it covers most print/online media. After the Guardian, others should resign too. If bloggers don't sign up and become big operations by themselves, then the PCC may listen to our demands that it changes before we agree to be part of that shoddy operation.
At the very least it keeps our independence going.
I haven't signed Sunny's letter only because I don't have a blog myself... hopefully Baroness Toryface won't reply pointing out how an innocent young woman was trashed and abused at a so-called blog known as "Harry's Place" recently.
Having been chided for producing one conspiracy theory on the issue at LC, I'll try out another one here.
The government is hard up. It therefore intends to tax and licence blogs (say £500/year - you mean you're not willing to pay a tenner a week for the privilege of putting your opinions forth world-wide? And just why is taxing blogs any worse than taxing cars?) but privatised regulation is the flavour of the month and the PCC is getting its bid in ahead of time.
To Sunny:
Thanks for the comment. I do see you point, but on the other hand the PCC has already collapsed once (at the end of the 80s) and continued in a new form largely unchanged, while I'm not convinced that bloggers will necessarily be capable of forming a rival system.
To Mike Killingworth:
The problem is that you've just presented another conspiracy theory that has no basis in evidence. Indeed, the idea of taxing bloggers seems more likely from a Labour government than a Conservative one, to the extent that it's likely in the first place, which is pretty much non-existant.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Thought-provoking stuff.
I wrote on posterous that "As others have pointed out, it would be nice if they could, y'know, actually regulate the press effectively before looking at broadening their horizons." If they are already failing to regulate one group, broadening their remit to include another seems to make little sense at the current time.
Unity asked how bloggers will benefit from "regulation by a body representing an industry with, in the main, substantially lower ethical standards and practices than those already practiced by the vast majority of established British bloggers." This makes me wonder what the point of PCC regulation of blogs is. I think we already self-regulate better than the newspaper industry. [Caveat: I think this argument holds for the blogs I read, and the blogs I write - I'm not confident that it would be true of all blogs.]
If the PCC were an effective regulatory body, and if the mainstream media had ethical standards and practices similar to the better-quality blogs, then perhaps bloggers would be more likely to welcome the PCC proposal.
I think it's an interesting point you make regarding the possibility that bloggers could "subvert the existing status quo from within", but I'm not optimistic that this would happen in practice.
I'm not intractably opposed to the idea that PCC regulation of blogs "could provide a useful badge of distinction to mark out those bloggers willing to abide by a sensible set of of principles" - but I'd like to see some evidence that the PCC were able to properly regulate the press before considering signing up to regulation, and an indication that blogs would be treated equitably wouldn't go amiss. I'd be a little concerned if the PCC, a body that is currently seen to "side with" the mainstream media, were to begin to regulate bloggers, a group that are often criticised by the MSM. [Although, I am perhaps treading a fine line between concern and conspiracy theory here.]
Unity ends the letter by writing:
On the basis of what is written in the letter, I was happy to lend my name to the 'campaign' - we aren't saying "never", we're saying "we aren't even going to consider this proposal until you at least get your own house in order."
It's a blog FFS. Where do you want me to share my conmspiracy theories? With my MP?
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Why is taxing blogs (aka opinion lists) any worse than taxing cars? I know the government is often stupid, but do you really think they'd ever try that angle?
"If it wasn't a science there wouldn't be an institute. Just like women are science and so there is a Women's Institute."
So why has a QC written on Lib Con in the same terms as I have? The PCC is just a front for News International and the Daily Mail & General Trust.
I've no idea, but unless he has some sort of evidence, my response is still "meh."
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter