Update: A quick note from Tim Ireland…
[NOTE – It’s probably something to do with the sudden popularity of our petition, but ipetitions.com have now started displaying a donation page (instead of a ‘thank you’ page) after you submit your details. I understand why ipetitions.com have done this – and Dog knows they deserve a donation or two for providing a superior petition service – but I’m less-than-impressed by the way they’ve gone about it. At this stage, I can only apologise for this unexpected feature and provide new people with advance warning; you do not have to make a donation for your signature to register.]
The PCC is holding its’ annual review of its’ Code of Practice, the rules that govern the behaviour of the press and it’s members.
The PCC want suggestions from, not just the industry itself, but from the general public too.
(Update: We will also be submitting our suggestions to the to the Independent Governance Review in time for the 25 Jan 2010 deadline
A few of us bloggers that take an interest in this sort of thing have got together and come up with some suggestions, which we feel, should be a priority for the PCC to incorporate into its’ Code of Practice, while we await and try to get started a bigger discussion of who and how it should regulate.
The idea being a ‘safety in numbers’ thing, the more people put their names to these suggestions the harder it will be for the PCC to ignore than if a lot of suggestions come from individuals.
We need you to sign the petition and also, in the comments section, you can leave you’re own suggestion. The petition will be delivered in a format that means that any individual suggestions can be responded to by the PCC, not just the main group petition. You can use a nickname or your real name (if you use your real name it can be hidden from public view if you wish) and the PCC will still count as valid.
For more, see Bloggerheads.com
The text of the petition is below, just follow the link and digitally sign it, please.
SUGGESTION ONE: Like-for-like placement of retractions, corrections and apologies in print and online (as standard).
Retractions, corrections, and apologies should normally be at least equally prominent to the original article, in both print and online editions. Any departure from this rule should only be in exceptional circumstances, and the onus on showing such circumstances should be on the publication.
SUGGESTION TWO: Original or redirected URLs for retractions, corrections & apologies online (as standard).
Retractions, corrections, and apologies in respect of online articles should always be displayed either at the original URL or at a URL to which the reader is redirected.
SUGGESTION THREE: The current Code contains no reference to headlines, and this loophole should be closed immediately.
Headlines should be covered by the same rules as the rest of a story. Further, headlines and titles for links should never be misleading in what they imply or offer and should always be substantiated by the article/contents.
SUGGESTION FOUR: Sources to be credited unless they do not wish to be credited or require anonymity/protection.
Sources should normally be credited. Any departure from this rule should only be when the source does not wish to be credited or if the source requires anonymity/protection.
SUGGESTION FIVE: A longer and more interactive consultation period for open discussion of more fundamental issues.
We submit all of the above without implying support for the PCC, the remainder of Code as it stands, or even the concept of self-regulation, and request that the 20th year of the PCC be marked with an open debate about its progress to date, and its future direction.
Further issues or suggestions may be included as a ‘comment’ and individual responses to these concerns/suggestions (via the corresponding email address) would be appreciated.
These suggestions were decided upon by Tim Ireland, Kevin Arscott, Adam Bienkov, Dave Cross, Sunny Hundal, Jack of Kent, Justin McKeating, MacGuffin, Mark Pack, septicisle, Jamie Sport, Clive Summerfield, Unity, Anton Vowl.