How has the Board and the process of film classification changed?

• The board has become much less strict from that of the past. I think this reflects the way in which society has progressed and significantly influenced what is now acceptable.
• The catergories for classification has changed a lot over the years, I think now it has a much better structure. Its changed from 'A' and 'X' to UC,U, PG, 12, 12a, 15, 18, R18
• There has been lots of change of people who manage the BBFC
• New technologies have had a major effect on the way films are classified. For example the introduction of things such as the home cinema system, DVD, Blu Ray
• Lots more public involvement nowadays, they have input into the classification process, and have a voice within the BBFC

2000s

New Guidelines 2000

• In 1999, the Board embarked on an extensive consultation process to gauge public opinion before the compilation of new Classification Guidelines
• Many surveys and questinaires were done involving a wide range of people and The major outcomes were that the depiction of drugs and drugs use was the cause of greatest concern to parents, as was the issue of violence in the lower classification categories. Use of bad language on screen provoked a range of responses, reflecting varying tolerances in the general public. Portrayal of sexual activity, however caused less concern than previously

Controversy

KEY FILM: In 1999 the BBFC had received three European films that challenged the Board's standards on sex.  These were The Idiots, Romance and Seul Contre Tous.  All three films contained scenes of unsimultated sex that would not normally have been be acceptable at '18'.  In the case of Seul Contre Tous it was decided that the images in question were too explicit - and of too great a duration - to be acceptable at '18' and the images were removed.  However, in the cases of Romance and The Idiots, it was decided that the comparative brevity of the images, combined with the serious intentions of the films, meant that both films could be passed without cuts.  This was in line with earlier 'exceptional' decisions in the cases of WR - Mysteries of the Organism (passed 'X' uncut in 1972) and L'Empire des Sens (passed '18' uncut in 1991).  However, as the Board moved into the new millennium it soon became clear that these were not to be isolated examples.  A whole generation of European film makers seemed determined to push the boundaries of what was sexually acceptable on the screen.

• Fortunately, the 1999-2000 consultation exercise had revealed a general desire on the part of the public that the BBFC should relax its attitudes to sex at '15' and '18'

The DCMS and Ofcom

• In June 2001, governmental responsibility for film and video classification moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
• Ofcom is the new regulator for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The regulation of films, videos and DVDs does not fall under Ofcom's remit and remains the responsibility of the BBFC. The BBFC is still the only regulator which regulates material before it is seen by the public .

The '12A' rating

 

• In 2002, the new '12A' category replaced the '12' category for film only, and allows children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult.
• The Board considers '12A' films to be suitable for audiences OVER the age of 12, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film.  The first '12A' film was The Bourne Identity.

Consumer Advice

• While the BBFC has been producing Consumer Advice for films which appeared on the website, it was the introduction of the '12A' category which saw its appearance on film posters, TV advertisements and in cinema listings for '12A' films.
• This is particularly helpful for parents deciding what films are suitable for their children, and in particular whether to take children younger than 12 to a '12A' film

Robin Duval's retirement

• In late 2004, David Cooke was appointed Director, following Robin Duval's retirement

New Guidelines 2005

• On 9 February 2005, the BBFC published a new set of Guidelines based on an even more extensive research programme than the one which resulted in the 2000 Guidelines
• Over 11,000 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, 7000 more than in 1999/2000.

Moving on in 2007

• 2007 saw the introduction of Parents’ BBFC, a website designed to help parents and guardians make what they consider to be sensible choices for their children’s viewing.
• The website provides up -to -date information about films and video games in the junior categories, offering a brief plot summary and details of why the film or game received its U, PG or 12A/12.
• The purpose of the website is to take the guesswork out of making an informed decision about what is suitable viewing for any particular child, a decision best made by a parent or guardian.

New Guidelines 2009

• On 23 June 2009, the BBFC published its most recent set of Guidelines based on another detailed public consultation exercise conducted in 2008-2009
• Over 8,700 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, in the form of lengthy questionnaires and focus groups

1990s

• Since the regulation of video in 1984, there was since public concern about the influence of videos in the 90's

Key Film

• The Jamie Bulger case. The trial judge linked this murder of a two year-old by two ten year-old boys to the viewing of violent videos, with the media singling out the horror video Child's Play 3 (1991).
• Though subsequent enquiries refuted this connection, public opinion rallied behind calls for stricter regulation. Parliament supported an amendment to the Video Recordings Act, contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions.
• The Board has always been stricter on video than on film. This is partly because younger people are more likely to gain access to videos with restrictive categories than such films at the cinema (where admissions can be screened).  But it is also because, on video, scenes can be taken out of context, and particular moments can be replayed.

The BBFC was being asked to look at a number of extremely violent and drug-filled films, which further fuelled the debate about media effects

In 1997 the BBFC's President, Lord Harewood, stepped down after 12 years in the job.  His replacement, Andreas Whittam Smith, announced his intention to steer the BBFC towards a greater 'openness and accountability'.  This included the publication of the BBFC's first set of classification guidelines in 1998, following a series of public 'roadshows' in which public views were canvassed and the launching of a BBFC website.

Digital Media

• The 1990s also saw rapid developments in the world of computer games, which seemed to become more realistic and sophisticated with each passing year.  Although the majority of video games were automatically exempt from classification, those that featured realistic violence against humans or animals, or human sexual activity, did come under the scope of the Video Recordings Act.  From 1994 the BBFC started to receive some of the stronger video games for formal classification, which necessitated a different way of examining (because it was impossible to see everything that might happen in a game).  
• 1999 also saw the removal of the BBFC's controversial policy on oriental weaponry

1980s

Home Cinema

• The development of the video recorder created new anxieties about the home viewing of feature films.
• Legally, there was no requirement that videos should be classified, which meant that films that had not been approved by the BBFC or which were suitable for adults only, were falling into the hands of children.
• In particular the tabloid press led a campaign against so called 'video nasties'. This term was not always clearly defined, but there were 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the Obscene Publications Act, or were awaiting prosecution.
• The outcome of this concern was new legislation, introduced as a private member’s Bill by Conservative MP, Graham Bright. The Video Recordings Act 1984, makes it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it has not been classified, or to supply a classified work to a person under the age specified in the certificate.
• The Board was designated as the authority with responsibility for classification in 1985, with a consequent increase in staff to deal with a massively increased workload consisting of a backlog of titles already on the market and all new titles

Review of Catergory System

• In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG'
•  'AA' was changed to '15' 
•  'X' became '18'.
• A new category 'R18' was introduced which permitted more explicit sex films to be shown in members-only  clubs. 
• Previously, such clubs had shown material unclassified by the BBFC, but a change in the law closed this loophole. 
• Since the mid 1980s most 'R18' material is released on video, only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be specially licensed by local authorities.

Key Film

• Another film based on real-life was Michael Caton-Jones' Scandal, an account of the Profumo affair, a political scandal of the 1960s.  Although for some the events were considered too recent for comfort, the problem for the BBFC was of a different kind.  An orgy scene revealed the presence of an erect penis in the backgound of the shot.  The image was obscured by soft-focus lighting and the film released with an '18' certificate.

1970s

• During the sixties it was recognised that teenagers had specific concerns of their own which ought to be reflected in the category system
• The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved by local authorities and the industry in 1970

New Catergories

The principal changes to the category system were:

- the raising of the minimum age for 'X' certificate films from 16 to 18. 
-The old 'A' (advisory) category was split to create a new advisory 'A' which permitted the admission of children of five years or over whether accompanied or not, but which warned parents that a film in this category would contain some material that parents might prefer their children under fourteen not to see
-New 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.

• The idea was that this would protect adolescents from material of a specifically adult nature and would permit more adult films to be passed uncut for an older, more mature audience
• It recognised the earlier maturity of many teenagers by giving them access to certain films at the age of 14, without being accompanied by an adult. 
• It also indicated to parents the difference between films wholly suitable for children of all ages, which would continue to be classified 'U', and those which, while not generally unsuitable, might contain some material which some parents might prefer their children not to see.

70s SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND OTHER CONTROVERSIES

• A new ratings system in the United States included an uncensored 'X' category, left to the sole control of the criminal law
• The seventies did indeed see the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence
• Pressure groups such as The Festival of Light, and Lord Longford’s Committee on Pornography also placed immense pressure on the BBFC, in a backlash against what was perceived as liberalisation having gone too far.
• Stephen Murphy, who became Secretary of the Board in July 1971, resigned in 1975 and was succeeded by James Ferman

KEY FILM

• One of the first films Ferman looked at was The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which his predecessor had already refused to classify shortly before his departure.  Ferman agreed with Murphy that the violence and terrorisation in the film (directed largely towards a woman over a sustained period) was unacceptable.  In an early interview, Ferman remarked that it wasn't the sex that worried him but the violence and, in particular sexual violence.  During his time at the BBFC, Ferman permitted increasingly explicit sexual material whilst clamping down on sadistic violence (especially when perpetrated by heros) and sexual violence (particularly where it seemed that the portrayal of rapes and assaults were intended as a 'turn on' to viewers).  

• Ferman's attitudes and policies reflected a more general shift of public concern during the 1970s, away from arguments about the explicitness of screen representations towards a consideration of any possible corrupting influence

1960s

• Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act (1959),  suggested a strong shift in public opinion
•  New spirit of liberalism:

"The British Board of Film Censors cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority opinions".

KEY FILM-

• The decade began with a challenge in the form of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, which had been seen by the Board at the script stage and provoked a remark from Trevelyan about its 'morbid concentration on fear'. Various cuts had been suggested at script stage, and the film was passed 'X' in 1960 with cuts. Critics greeted the film with a torrent of abuse and it failed to please the public, damaging Powell's reputation. The video remained an '18' work until 2007 when it was reclassified and passed '15'.

• New realism took hold in British films

KEY FILM

• By 1966, Lewis Gilbert's Alfie was passed uncut, with the remark  that it contained a 'basically moral theme' in spite of some misgivings at the Board about the abortion theme. Attitiudes to sexuality were on the change in the wake of the 1957 Wolfenden Report which recommended a relaxation of the laws concerning homosexuality, although no new legislation was to appear for another ten years. Trevelyan claimed that the BBFC had never banned the subject of homosexuality from the screen but 'the subject was one that would probably not be acceptable to the British audience'. Basil Dearden's Victim contributed to the debate in 1961, containing the line 'they call the law against homosexuality the blackmailer's charter'. The film was passed 'X' with a brief cut. It was then passed '15' on video in 1986 and reclassified to '12' in 2003. When the film version was submitted for a modern classification in 2005, it was passed 'PG'.
• Public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requested cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'.
• In the decade of tuning in, turning on, and dropping out, The Trip fell foul of BBFC concerns about drugs and was rejected in 1967

1950s

• The Fifties saw the end of rationing and a gradual increase in prosperity
• One development that stemmed from this apparent affluence was the emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and as a target for consumer goods, as young people with disposable income became an attractive proposition

KEY FILM-

• Controversial subjects on film were accommodated in the UK under the new 'X' category, introduced in 1951and incorporating the former advisory 'H' category given to horror films. As the growth of television ownership eroded the adult/family cinema audience, films like Rock Around The Clock(1956) drew teenage audiences. Cut for U, this film caused rioting in cinemas and fuelled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press.

•  'X' category-excluded children under 16

KEY FILM-

• Concerns about what were then known as juvenile delinquents delayed the classification of Laslo Benedek's 1954 film, The Wild One, for thirteen years because the Board described the contents as 'a spectacle of unbridled hooliganism'. Marlon Brando stars as the leader of a biker gang who rides into a small American town and creates mayhem, fighting with a rival gang leader and defying adult authority. Repeated attempts were made to secure a classification, and eventually some local authorities overturned the Board's rejection, allowing local releases. The riots in English seaside towns involving Mods and Rockers, (Margate and Clacton in 1964), were cited as providing justification for the Board's continuing objections to the film. The Board maintained its stance until 1967, when the dangers associated with the film's release were judged to be over.

•  The Board did not allow anti-social behaviour and teen violence
• The BBFC  had a long-standing policy against screen nudity, partly on the grounds that if they encouraged more nudity on screen, they would be inviting sexual exploitation- overturned in 1958
• The topic of drugs exercised the BBFC to a considerable degree during the decade
• The Code was amended in 1956 to allow for the treatment of narcotics as a theme
• The year 1956 also saw the resignation of Arthur Watkins, who was replaced for the next two years as Secretary by John Nichols. In 1958 John Trevelyan became Board Secretary

1912-49

1912-1949

•  In the past, the BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice
• Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst seeking to reflect public attitudes

1916

•  T. P. O’Connor was appointed President of the BBFC
• One of his first tasks was to give evidence to the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, set up by the National Council of Public Morals in 1916.
• He summarised the Board's Policy by listing forty-three grounds for deletion laid down for the guidance of examiners:

1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles
2. Cruelty to animals
3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects
4. Drunken scenes carried to excess
5. Vulgar accessories in the staging
6. The modus operandi of criminals
7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women
8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing
9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding
10. Nude figures
11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress
12. Indecorous dancing
13. Excessively passionate love scenes
14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety
15. References to controversial politics
16. Relations of capital and labour
17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions
18. Realistic horrors of warfare
19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy
20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies
21. Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule
22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire
23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war
24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes
25. Executions
26. The effects of vitriol throwing
27. The drug habit. e.g. opium, morphia, cocaine, etc
28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic
29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls
30. 'First Night' scenes
31. Scenes suggestive of immorality
32. Indelicate sexual situations
33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations
34. Men and women in bed together
35. Illicit relationships
36. Prostitution and procuration
37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women
38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired
39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations
40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide'
41. Confinements
42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses
43. Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ

• These rules show the strictness that the board felt was neccessary to gain public trust and support

THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS

• During this period the kind of material that caused concern included horror and gangster films, as well as those that dealt with aspects of sexuality#
• Some councils were beginning to bar children from films classified 'A', even when they had been cut by the BBFC to achieve a certificate

KEY FILM FROM TIME PERIOD-the London County Council (LCC) and Manchester City Council (MCC) banned children from Frankenstein (1931), although a sequence in which the monster drowns a small girl had already been cut. In response to such material, the advisory category 'H' (for horror) was agreed in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme.

1948 - ARTHUR WATKINS

• Arthur Watkins was appointed Secretary to the Board in 1948, under the Presidency of Sir Sidney Harris
• Many film-makers sought the Board's advice on scripts before films went into production.

-Watkins and Harris formulated new terms of reference for the Board based on three principles:
• was the story, incident or dialogue likely to impair the moral standards of the public by extenuating vice or crime or depreciating moral standards?
• Was it likely to give offence to reasonably minded cinema audiences?
• What effect would it have on children?

• The effect on children was of major importance since, apart from the advisory 'H' category, from which some councils already chose to bar children, there was no category that excluded children.
•  An 'adults only' category was increasingly seen as desirable, not only to protect children, but as an extension of the freedom of film-makers to treat adult subjects in an adult fashion.

PCC Case Studies

Case Study 1
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

3*- Privacy- i) and ii)- Right to privacy, intrusion into any individuals personal life without consent
6*- Children- ii)- child under 16 should not be photographed on issues involving there own walfare

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

No although he does have a right to priavcy this has been broken when they put it on youtube for the public to see. Therfore it would not have been the newspaper affecting his welfare but him and his friends and they were the ones who made the video originally. Also their right to privacy did not count as they did these acts in a public place
Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

Yes, the child has deliberately made weapons and used them to cause vandalism to trains therefore the public have a right to know. The public should be made aware of these people as they obviously have the potential to cause harm again. By them posting a video on youtube they are making themselves aware to people in the public anyway. So the publication of the newspaper and

Case Study 2
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

3*- Privacy- Right to privacy, no consent to the photos
6*- Children- ii)- The child was 10 yrs old- could affect childs warfare.
1*- Accuracy-iii)- Press must distinguish between comment, conjecture or fact

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

- Posted a picture of a 10 yr old girl, however she was in a public place although did not consent to the photo being taken
- The childs warfare could haev been put at risk as she is so young and her face is no pixulated

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

- I dont think they should have shown the girls face, however they were making rude gestures but this quite common at a football match. They were also in a public place so left themselves open to pictures being taken of them. I think the debate is more wether the girls face should have been pixulated but I do not think the dad's face should have been as he was in a public place and chose to make those gestures

Case Study 3
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

4*- Harrassment- ii)-They must not persist in telephoning
3*- Privacy-ii)- Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individuals private life without consent
5*- Intrusion into grief or shock- i)- shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion
6*- Children-i) ii) iii) iv)- Should be free to complate time at school without intrusion, no consent, was outsude school without schools permission, minors must not be paid

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

Yes, Firstly they approched the boy outside school without any consent from anyone and he was only 15 yrs old, the journalist is believed to have offered the boy money which breaks clause 6, he was then continually contacted through phone and text and has now not been allowed to continue at school because he was seen with the journalist.  Therfore they have breached clause 6, the boy could have also been shock breaching clause 5, the suspect also had the right to privacy which the journalist is trying to breach by getting a picture

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

-No, because although it may be of public interst to publish a story on this, the 14 yr old boy should never have been involved and they have breached many laws in doing so.

Case Study 4
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

3*- Privacy-i)ii)- Respect for his or her private and family life and health, intrusion into private life without consent
5*-i) - Personal grief and shock approaches must be made with sympathy
Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

Although she is an actress and fans of the theartre and role she had taken may have been interested. I think they have breached her right to privacy as she had not even told her family about the preganancy and had told all the relevant people that needed to know at the time. Furthermore she then suffered a miscarriage which invades her personal grief and therfore if the independant had never have written the article nobody would have know she was even pregnant.

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

Although this was the second time it had happened and perhaps her fans would have liked to know. She was only 2 months into her pregnancy and had no revealed her pregnancy in any public places therefore public interest does no outweigh her privacy and health

Case Study 5
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

5*- Intrusion into grief or shock i)ii)- Apporached with sympathy sucide should avoid excessive detail
3* Privacy i) and ii)-  repect of privacy, complaint's own public disclosures of info

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

I think the newspapers which reported and showed pictures before the womens identity was revealed was wrong however this women decided to commint suicide in a public place with onlookers and therefore was open to pictures being taken and attention being drawn to her. The only issue is the right to privacy of her family and freinds

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

I think this is within public interest as it was done in a very public way and she has no right to privacy as she is now dead. Her friends and fanily should be kept private however I don't think they breached the right into intrusion and grief as the coverage was brief and factual

Case Study 6
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

4*- Harrassment-i) and ii)
3*- Privacy-i)ii)
8*- Hospitals-i) and ii)- Journalists must identify themselves and obtain permission

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

Yes, I think the code of practice has been broken, firstly on the clause of harrasment a journalist enters a private home and is firmly turned away and then he continues to call and leave messages and again is not given permission. Then the clause on hospital is breached as the journalist goes in without consent into his private hospital room and questions him without identifying himself


Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

No, this has no public interest and the way in which the journalist has gone about getting information is wrong he is uduly harrassing the man in breach of 4 and 8

Case Study 7
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

3*-Privacy- i)
4*- Harrassment-i) and ii)
10*- Clandestine devices and subterfuge- i) and ii)

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

They have invaded the womens privacy and have gone undercover usuing suberterfuge devices to collect information. They have also entered the home which is a private place and should not be shown to the public without consent. However the background information is important to the case and does have some public interest

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

As she is a  police officer she is a public role and therefore her racially- motivated crimes should be made aware as it has public interest. However I don't think they should have published any of the photos they have taken as this and invasion on privacy and  should not have gone undercover to get the information

Case Study 8
Which causes of the Code are relevant to these cases?

3*- Privacy- i) and ii)
6* Children- ii)

Do you think that the Code of Practice was broke in any of these cases? If so why?

I think that some of the code of practice was breached as they were unaware they had been followed around and had pictures taken with his children without consent. However they are in a public place and he is a celebrity which is well known therefore should expect photographers to follow him. Although it was a private matter it was done in a public place

Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

As he is a well known figure he is of public interest so therefore he attracts attention, although they were personal matters it was in a public place and therefore again has public interest

Seminar from the PPC

On the Wednesday Morning we went up London to the PPC and were given a talk about the commision and the way in which they work. Firstly it was interesting to actually see the area in which they work and go inside the building and learn about the PCC in a different situation. I found all the case studies really interesting as we had to decide wether complaints from the article were accepted or rejected . It was interesting to look at all the different clauses and how they were used and applied to the different complaints. I found it interesting how quickly they could deal with the complaints and the different punishments they could recieve. I also found it interesting how important context was within each situation and how that affects things such as the battle between right to freedom of expression and privacy

Seminar from the BBFC

On Wednesday a member of the BBFC came and gave us on talk about the classifications system and the way in which they work. Although we had gone through a lot of the information in class beforehand, it really helped to look at it again and further explore some of the regulations and the way in which they classify. We were able to look at lots of interesting casestudies and as a class work out what we would classify each clip using the age rating classifications.
It was useful to look at legal issues and accountability, I also learnt what they did when they were unsure what to rate a specific film. She also told us that the BBFC had got films wrong sometimes and classified them at a rating which was too low e.g. Dark Knight. I was surprised about the information we learnt about the BBFC classifying games, they get given cheats and have to play the games within about 2 days and give them a classification. I was surprised to find out that next year they wont be classifying games which we were told was dissapointing for the BBFC.

The PCC- Press Complaints Commision

What does the PCC do?

• Press Complaints Commision (PCC) = an independant body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines in the UK, and their websites.
• Administers a 16 clause Code of Practice- acts as 'rules' to which editors and journalists must adhere to.
• PCC investigates complaints from people who believe that the Code has been broken- either in a published article or in the way a journalist obtained material.
• Where there is a problem- PCC acts as mediator to help the editor and the complainant agree on a way to resolved the dispute- For example: apolgy, correction
• If the problem cannot be settled in this way- the commision will assess the evidence from both sides in the dispute and will issue a formal judgement on the complaint
• If commision upholds complaint- newspaper or magazine in question must publish the PCC's critical adjudication in full in a prominent place in the newsapaper
• Sometimes PCC will consider during the course of its investigation if publication offers a remedial action and does not need further action
• This could include : publishing a correction, writing a priavte letter, or follow up letter- varies according to the circumstances

How does the system work?

• The system of regulation administered by the PCC is not a legal one.
• It is also NOT run by government
• It is based on a voluntary agreement by the newspaper and magazine industry to allow itself to be regulated by and independant body
• Code of Practice is drawn up by a comitee of editiors- the commission itself has a clear majority of public members
• 10 OF THE 17 COMMISSIONERS - including chairman -HAVE NO CONNECTION TO NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES.
• None of the PCC's staff are connected to the industry either.

What does the Code of Practice cover?

• Code of Practice- has 16 sections and covers 4 main areas:

Accuracy
Privacy
News gathering
Protecting the vunerable

• An editor is expected to take responsibility for all the stories and photographs that appear in his or her publication and to ensure that they comply with the Code
• Sometimes editor defends his publication by- being in the 'public interest'
• Code sets out circumstances in which an editor may mount such a defence
• Code does not cover issues of taste and decency
• PCC recognises that in a democratic society, newspapers must have the freedom to choose the style in which they publish material
• Commission understands- also down to peoples choice- they know which newspaper fits there taste.
• Billboards for example are public so rules on taste may be appropriate

How is the PCC funded?

• Funded through a body called the Press Standards Board of Fianance which is responsible for collecting money from newspapers and magazines in the UK.
• The press has agreed that each newspaper or magazine should contribute an amount in proportion to the number of people who buy it and read it.
• So a large newspaper such as 'the sun' will have to pay much more money than a small, local paper like the Enfield Advertiser
• Members of the public do not have to pay for the service either directly or indirectly through their taxes
• The PCC does not recieve any money from government

What is the history of the PCC?

• PCC set up in 1991
• It replaced the Press Council which had been set up in 1953
• 1980's- small number of publications failed to observe the basic ethics of journalism and this led many MPs to lose confidence in the Press Council
• Politicians- wanted to introduce new regulatory authority which would come under goevernment control and have legal punishments
• The report that followed did not recommend new statutory controls but proposed a new Press Complaints Commission
• National and regional editors set up - code of practice made- press standard board of finance was set up to organise funding.
• 2007- House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Comittee made an important statement of principle in support of self regulation.

Who complains to the PCC and what do they complain about?

• The PCC accepts complaints from anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code in some way.
• Celebs use PCC- E.g Kate Moss, Ms Dynamite
• Most complaints ordinary people
• 2007- 1.5% of complaints came from celebs but 95.8% came from ordinary members of the public
• The code provides special protection to particularly vunerable groups of people - e.g. children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination
• Majority of complaints to commission are about Regional newspapers

Why is the PCC important?

• In a democracy, the press should not be subject to stringent controls by law or by government
• The PCC, being an independant, voluntary organisation, projects against this possibility simply by its existence
• Being free does not mean the press should not be accountable- needs balance
• Needs expectations of what people can expect from press and which wrong can be righted
• PCC commited to protecting the public  by ensuring when rules are broken they are put right
• It is fast (35 days) free and is fair

Code of Practice Summary ( Updated 2011)

1. Accuracy
2. Oppurtunity to reply
3. Privacy *
4. Harrassment *
5. Intrusion into grief and shock
6. Children *
7. Children in sex cases *
8. Hospitals *
9. Reporting of crime *
10. Clandestine devices and subterfuge *
11. Victims of sexual assult
12. Discrimination
13. Financial journalism
14. Confidential sources
15. Witness payments in criminal trials
16. Payment to criminals *

* = There may be exception to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interst