The Leveson Report is the culmination of months of investigation into the UK Media; launched after the phone hacking scandal, the investigation holds relevant parties accountable and has provided a potential regulation framework for the industry. The report doesn’t directly relate to PR professionals, yet it has a range of implications which must surely be acknowledged and understood. The movement of the relationship between the press and the public, the press and the Government as well as the press and the police, each have an impact (direct or indirect) on the way in which we practice.
The key findings from the report:
There has been mixed reaction following its release; David Cameron has rejected the recommendations, whilst Nick Clegg has stated that he is in favour of them. Gerald McCann (Madeleine McCann’s father) has garnered 100,000 signatures on a petition supporting the enforcement of these new regulations and J K Rowling has also been calling for adoption of the guidelines. It is also worth noting that the victims of phone hacking are generally happy with the findings and welcome Leveson’s recommendations. Today the Government are preparing a draft bill in light of these findings.
So what does this mean for us as PRs?
The CIPR state that ‘without a free and open press, the public relations profession would be hindered in upholding its commitment to transparency, accountability and professional standards, as outlined in the CIPR code of conduct’. In a survey conducted by the PRCA, 30% of PR MDs think that the report will have no impact on the PR industry, while 52% agree that it will either have a positive or significantly positive impact. Our professional trade bodies are keen to elevate PR’s role in society yet we surely cannot be regulated in the same way as lawyers and doctors due to the ‘trade’ nature of our job alongside citizen journalism and user generated content.
As an industry, PRs typically appear to be in favour of the report, yet we need to ensure that we are transparent by providing honest and reliable information to support the new journalistic regime. It’s fair to say that whatever the legal outcome, there is likely to be more resistance and reticence from all journalists wary of the implications, which may make our jobs harder. What’s more, journalists are likely to be searching for ‘both sides of the story’ which is great for the reader, but means a PR might not gain the frequency of coverage they once enjoyed.
It will be interesting to see how the recommendations are received and the continued implications on practice throughout the UK. The scale of power is constantly shifting between communications specialists and the journalists, all competing for the moral high ground. All staff need to be ‘on message’. As today’s Independent states, ‘Credibility contests between the reporter and the communication specialist’ look likely.
Good and ethical PR is a collaborative process where a good relationship with a reporter should not mean a ‘deal with the devil. Being ‘on message’ was always our goal all along....