CONCLUSION
The Press Council was replaced, not because its procedures were largely dilatory, ineffective (which, by common consent, they were) and lacked public confidence in its function as a viable self-regulator, but because the newspaper industry disliked (not least indirectly, by curtailing its financial resources) the Council’s tendency to ensure greater concern for the public through its independent element, and because some of the newspapers disliked not having control over the appointment of chairmen and lay members.
It desired a complaints system solely, over which it restricted any interference on a free press. Since the degree of independence is now the litmus test of any future self-regulatory body, it is not out of place to test the credibility of the leaders of the newspaper industry in actively supporting the independence of the regulator. The events of 1988-90 (if not the paucity of independence in the functioning of the Press Complaints Commission) are surely factors to be taken into account. The history, in the Report, gives no support for the claim of independence in the new body. Independence of the members from government and from the newspaper industry is crucial.
More legal literature on Laws.Studio
More on the topic CONCLUSION:
-
Agricultural law -
Constitutional law -
Fundamentals of Advocacy -
History of state and law -
Muslim (Islamic) law -
Professional ethics of a lawyer -
Roman law -
Theory of state and law -
UK Bar -
US Bar -
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -