News

77% of the public can't be wrong twice, can they?

23/10/2012

Hacked Off

There’s new evidence of a widening gulf between what the public wants to see following Leveson - and the preferred outcome of the newspapers themselves. A poll commissioned by the Carnegie Trust and the thinktank, Demos, has found that 77 per cent of the public want the PCC scrapped in favour of a new independent press regulator. This finding serves to confirm the key figure in the YouGov poll for Hacked Off and the Media Standards Trust, that 77 per cent of the public thought that newspaper owners and editors should no longer control the press complaints system. There was a consistent majority in favour of independent regulation across all three major political parties.

Also notable is the finding that 63% in the Carnegie/Demos poll felt that the public voice should be heard in establishing guidelines for the press after Lord Leveson publishes his recommendations. The irony is that with a few honourable exceptions, public opinion on this subject is being all but ignored. The Guardian wrote up both polls quite prominently and why not: 77% in favour of a major change in public policy is a pretty good story, the kind which is seldom thrown up by routine opinion polling. Yet the results were overlooked by the most of the mainstream news media.

It’s a pattern that tends to repeat whenever an inconvenient fact – or a story alleging or establishing wrongdoing in a particular newspaper - occurs. Last night, it emerged that newspapers belonging to Trinity Mirror are facing civil damages claims over alleged phone hacking from four individuals including the former England coach, Sven-Goran Eriksson. The story (though it did break late in the day), was conspicuously absent from most of the papers, even the second editions. Similarly, the news that the Daily Mail and the Mirror were found guilty of contempt of court for their coverage of the Levi Bellfield conviction and each fined £10,000 at the High Court yesterday did not travel far beyond BBC News Online and the Independent. (Compare this with last night’s excoriating Panorama exposing editorial failures at its BBC sister, Newsnight.)

Perhaps the most crucial question in the end is this: who will the politicians be more inclined to listen to? The general public, fed up with the failed, corrupt system of self-regulation – or the newspaper industry, a large part of which appears to be in denial about its own lengthening charge sheet.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News