Responding to a critic who had asked if the Press Complaints Commission was a ‘fig leaf’ to cover press misbehaviour, the current Chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer said, ‘It’s a load of bollocks.’

There, in a ‘nutshell’, is the truth about the PCC.

For Meyer went on to show his empathy with the Shag-Rags, over whom he is supposed to exercise control, by painting a picture of hard-nosed tabloid editors cowering behind their desks to protect themselves from the mighty wrath unleashed by the PCC when they have foolishly strayed from the path of righteousness.

I wish.

‘Nothing makes editors scream louder than when they know a complaint is going to go to a formal adjudication,’ Meyers said at an event held by the Media Society on Monday. ‘I tell you, this really concentrates the mind – to be named and shamed in their own newspaper.’

Sounds like he’s caught a dose of the galloping mendacities from the people he’s been rubbing shoulders with.

Editors? Scared?

They know very well that the PCC is so toothless the worst punishment it can mete out is a good, hard suck.

Meyers may point to the occasional low-profile retraction they have persuaded a paper to print. In the case of the apology they elicited from the Screws to Paul Burrell (I do admit that I’d need Dirty Harry’s .44 Magnum at my head to apologise to the scuzzy little ex-flunky), for claiming that he’d had sex with Princess Diana [see my blogs of July 7th and December 12th] they used a bit of space buried in the middle of the paper and made it look so boring that the average Screws punter wouldn’t bother to read it. They faced no financial penalties from the PCC (who can’t hand them out) and Burrell received no compensation (that isn’t within the Commission’s remit either).

It’s clear to any media watcher that injured parties approaching the PCC waste their time. Only by going to court will they stand any chance of just settlement (which Burrell probably knew he didn’t deserve anyway).

When it was suggested to Meyer that statutory legislation against invasion of privacy should be debated in Parliament, he obfuscatingly (and quite inaccurately) disposed of such a concept as a ‘rich man’s charter.’

In fact, if ‘Invasion of Privacy’ were criminalised, the State would do the prosecuting, not the victims – rich or poor.

Meyer also complained of the European courts attitude. ‘I know of a [European] judge who believes a newspaper’s role is to inform, not entertain.’

Can we take this as support for the Tabloid view that they can make up anything they like about celebrities or publish any wannabe WAG’s Shag-&-Brag tale with impunity, as long as it entertains?

Coming soon (I bet you can’t wait)…

More on Meyers, and self-regulation (some might call it self-abuse).

Popularity: 1% [?]