Please read through this carefully. If you would rather print it, here are two documents:

• Questions Only:  press-past-papers-blank1

• Questions with Plan/Suggestion (as below): press-past-papers

 PRESS – PAST PAPERS & ESSAY ADVICE

 June 2007

How much freedom has the British press? 

In democratic countries, the idea of a free press is an important concept.

In the UK, therefore, the idea is that press freedoms should, as far as possible, be protected.

The press is not subjected to specific laws (or statutory controls) that restrict its freedom to operate.

Does this mean that the law is totally detached from the press?

• - No, journalists and newspaper people are not immune from the laws that govern all of us. They cannot commit crimes without impunity!
• - Also, libel laws have a particular relevance to the press. These laws are not limited to the press, but they are obviously particularly significant for journalists. It is possible, if very expensive, slow and public to sue a newspaper for libel.
• - There are some specific areas where newspapers cannot tread and these are protected by law. D-Notices and the Official Secrets Act restrict the coverage of material that could jeopardise national security. The criminal law also restricts freedom of expression in cases of blasphemy, obscenity, indecency, racial hatred.

In other words, the law of the land can be applied to the press. The key thing is that journalists are not subject to any different laws (or regulatory controls) than the rest of us. In law, they are basically in the same position as you or I. There is not a specific body or court established in law with responsibility for dealing with issues and complaints about the press. Compare this with Broadcasting where Ofcom was established in law (by the Communications Act) to regulate and control the broadcasting industry.

Other than avoiding anything that could be deemed libellous, are the press free then?

• - Well, no, not entirely. The press are subject to a system of self-regulation. The PCC is responsible for establishing a Code of Practice and dealing with possible breaches of this Code.
• - But does the PCC really restrict press freedom?

That’s the big question. Does the PCC have enough clout and power to stop journalists doing what they want to do. You need to weigh up the different arguments here and decide whether the PCC is essentially a toothless organisation or one that really limits the freedom of the press to protect the public. Remember, the PCC can’t punish or impose fines or demand compensation.

 Or

“Power without responsibility”. A British prime minister of the 1930s attacked the British press with this accusation. How far is it true today?

This is very similar to the previous question. Essentially, you need to discuss the extent to which, if any, the press is monitored/controlled/regulated. Is the press held to account for what it writes? Does the PCC act as an effective safeguard against irresponsible journalism? Does it produce a more ‘responsible’ press.

You need to consider all these questions and weigh up the evidence. One argument in favour of the current system is that by essentially regulating itself, the press develop their own culture of responsibility rather than simply having this imposed on them from outside. You might think this argument is nonsense and that simply because the press ‘make up the rules’ they are no more likely to be responsible in pursuing them.

You should also consider some specific aspects of the Code of Practice to explore ways in which it could be seen to promote responsible journalism. It has specific provision on Accuracy and Privacy. It tries to prevent Harassment and has specific provisions for protecting children (especially in sex cases). How effective are these provisions.

January 2007

Who should control the British press?

Again, this question requires that you look at the PCC and the various arguments for/against this model of regulation.

The question is not really asking you to identify an individual or organisation that should be given control of the press. Instead it is asking you to weigh up the various possibilities.

I would suggest the following approach:

a) should the press be controlled in the first place.

By controlling the press don’t we risk compromising press freedom. Don’t we also risk inhibiting journalists from pursuing the truth on our behalf and on behalf of our democracy?

On the other hand, if we leave the press to its own devices, we face the possibility that individual’s rights to privacy etc will be threatened. Would it really be in the interests of democracy to leave journalists free to print lies?

b) Ok then, what about the law?

Well, yes, establishing certain statutory controls over press freedom would certainly make the press sit up and listen (and behave!) but what are the dangers of making the press subject to more legal controls?

- the press are too intimidated by the threat of legal proceedings and become reluctant to undertake challenging and delicate investigations. They stop doing the job we want them to do.

- only rich people will be able to pursue legal recourse. Going to court is an expensive process

- is a legal case the best way of resolving disputes about

Newspaper content. By the time the case comes up in court, the story may be long forgotten, the damage may be done and the court case may only serve to bring the case back into public view. The whole process is very expensive, potentially for the taxpayer as well as the complainant. Do we want to clog up our courts with cases about invasive coverage of celebrities. Do we need a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

c) So what about the PCC and self-regulation then. Is that a better option.?

- you need to weigh up the evidence for and against. Try to identify the good points as well as the bad.

To conclude, you might end up with a feeling that self-regulation is the best model but it needs to be reformed and given a little more clout/firepower.

Or

‘The tabloids and paparazzi are making some celebrities’ lives a misery. Some journalists and press photographers go too far’. Discuss the view that regulation of the press in this country is too lenient.

Most of the stuff on this has already been covered. Essentially, you need to discuss the extent to which, if any, the press is monitored/controlled/regulated. Is the press held to account for what it writes? Does the PCC act as an effective safeguard against irresponsible journalism? Does it produce a more ‘responsible’ press?

When you have suggested the ways in which the current state of press regulation is lenient, you might want to consider whether it is too lenient. Press self-regulation might be lenient but is that such a bad thing? Would we want a more rigorously regulated press?  What would happen to press freedom and the ability of journalists to pursue the truth?

 January 2006

Discuss the view that the British press should not be regulated.

Again, we have covered most of this above. By ‘regulated’ we essentially mean ‘controlled’, and ‘monitored’.

a) should the press be regulated in the first place.

By controlling the press don’t we risk compromising press freedom. Don’t we also risk inhibiting journalists from pursuing the truth on our behalf and on behalf of our democracy? Will journalists become too wary of possible pitfalls and become reluctant to take on challenging and delicate stories.

b) On the other hand, if we leave the press to its own devices, we face the possibility that individual’s rights to privacy etc will be threatened. Would it really be in the interests of democracy to leave journalists are free to print lies?

 June 2005

‘The British Press has abused its power and needs to be more tightly controlled by laws and regulations’ Discuss this view.

See above.

 January 2005

‘To maintain its role in a free society the British press must continue to be self-regulated’. Discuss this view.

Again, this basically invites you to consider the arguments for and against the PCC?

 

Jun 2003

Discuss whether or not the regulations that govern the British press are too severe.

This requires consideration of the whole picture. Your focus should be on the PCC and its success/failure in controlling the work of the press. You should also, however, consider the fact that there are some legal constraints on the work of the press. For more info on this, see the first question (June 2007)