I was amused by both Media Guardian's "question of the week", Is self-regulation of the press working? and the answers. None of those who spoke to Maggie Brown dared to deal with the real reason that self-regulation exists, namely to avoid legislation and thereby protect that most sacred of cows, freedom of the press.
In that sense, of course, self-regulation is working perfectly, better than ever in fact. There isn't the slightest sign of political unrest in regard to the press. Backbench MPs are no longer contemplating drafting private members' bills to protect privacy or to demand rights of reply. So the main reason for replacing the Press Council and setting up the Press Complaints Commission back in 1991 has been fulfilled.
Though it is difficult to gauge the public view of the PCC, and even the scale of knowledge about its existence and effectiveness, there is some evidence to suggest that it enjoys a higher profile than either its predecessor or other forms of self-regulation. Again, that's a plus.
As Peter Preston made clear, no self-regulatory process is perfect, and he appears to agree with Les Hinton that it is better than any alternative, especially statutory control. Preston argues that the PCC is now "part of the landscape" working "alongside the law, not in opposition to it."
But the critics - Mike Jempson and Jeremy Dear - see it very differently. They believe the press is still guilty of inaccuracies, intrusiveness and, in Dear's phrase, "falling public trust in journalism."
My problem with those arguments is that, looking back to my start in journalism some 44 years ago, I just can't remember when there was anything but falling trust in journalism. Public distrust, despite our best efforts, appears to go with the territory. However, that's not to say that Jempson and Dear are entirely wrong to be so critical of the PCC. As I never tire of saying, the ratio between the number of complaints and the amount of adjudications is far too wide to give us confidence in the PCC's operation.
The other central problem is raised by Clarence Mitchell, who acts for the family of Madeleine McCann. He pointed to the way in which certain newspapers rehashed "unsubstantiated rumours, often downright lies, without checking." It reminded me of the complaints of those who were outraged by the newspaper coverage of asylum-seekers for a concerted period.
In both cases the PCC did valuable work behind the scenes. In the McCanns' case, it was influential in dealing with the problems created by "the pack". In the asylum case, it eventually managed to produce "soft guidelines". But the commission was unable to do anything that restrained papers from publishing stories that many journalists could see were so obviously inaccurate or, at the least, based on alleged sources that were clearly uncheckable (and therefore suspect).
I know, I know. To have intervened would have been a threat to press freedom. Newspapers must have the right to be wrong, and the right to offend. But even accepting that, the PCC failed in its supposed desire to act as an ethical custodian.
Self-regulation is working. What we have to ask - and what the PCC's members and overseers, PressBof, have to ask - is whether it is working well enough. Even if perfection is impossible, it is possible to be more perfect than at present.
