MPs’ Lobby: Right of reply

Hundreds of ordinary people report inaccuracies in the press each year, but very few of these complaints are upheld.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) exists to deal with these issues but a survey by the MediaWise organisation revealed 64% of those asked were unhappy with their response.

The Labour MP for The Wrekin, Peter Bradley, wants to ensure that people are not misrepresented in the press and that journalistic standards are improved.

Do you think that the papers get away with too much? Have you ever complained about something in the press and been dissatisfied with the result? Or are you happy with the job done by the Press Complaints Commission?

We've put your questions to Peter Bradley and you can watch the interview by clicking on the link below.

WATCH NOW

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

Wouldn't it be a nice change if we knew we could trust everything we read in newspapers as fact!
Justin S, London

This is a gimmick – nothing more than a profile-raiser a few weeks before a general election. Everybody knows that backbench bills stand virtually no chance of becoming law. But I do agree with James. When a paper finally accepts a mistake has been made the apology tends to be no more than a few lines at the bottom of a page. Editors would thinks twice if they knew any subsequent apology had to be equal in typeface, space taken etc to the original story.
Jonathan, London

With the bottom line being profit, a story needs to be embellished in the same way as the all-in-one miracle cleaner is in persuading us to buy it. Personally, I don't read the papers any more. There are a variety of sources on the internet, including many live forums available for discussions with a wide variety of very interesting people with very interesting views.
Gerry Noble, Salisbury

The Press Complaints Commission, ha! What a joke organisation. Sadly, this is just tinkering with a very weak redress system and will not work. Regulation is the only solution to an increasingly poor, biased and sensationalist media.
Rodney Fernandes, Chippenham

It seems that the country is faced with the choice between the right to report matters in the public interest and the right to. This is manifest in high profile cases such as George Galloway taking on the Daily Telegraph. But as far as regulation goes there are simply two approaches: a proactive stance in placing restrictions on the freedom of the press or a reactive approach with remedies for victims when the press unfairly encroach into realms that should not concern them. The first risks censorship which cannot be supported rationally and is not viewed favourably in Strasbourg. The second may cause initial discomfort for the people scrutinised by the press but it is better than the state dictating what we can and cannot read.
Simon Leeper, Norwich

I completely agree with these ideas to control the unacceptably poor level of a lot of news reporting in the UK press. The print press is completely unaccountable and seems to accept no responsibility for getting the story right. MPs are too intimidated by the press to push for this but I hope it gets adopted.
James, London

If it makes good reading, let them say what they like. The real people know the truth.
Stuart, Leeds

If the press were forced to print the truth they would be out of business. The press exists to print the lies and propaganda of the government and to invent any stories they like against whoever they like with impunity!
Charlie, Scotland

How about a similar bill proposing a right of reply within the Houses of Parliament? Then the Speaker would have the powers to force an MP or minister to give a full response to questions raised. I think this bill will have a minor positive effect on the public, but is potentially very harmful as is any government bill which regulates press. But a bill for Parliament will cause a dramatic change in the way our government acts.
Monty, Portishead

I would add to the suggestion of press corrections and suggest that the Press Standards Board publish a league table of the newspapers showing how many libellous inaccuracies appear in them so that they will have less incentive to lie.
Graeme Phillips, Guildford

I do think that the papers get away with too much with a 'trial by tabloid' situation. There should be a fair right of reply given as much space and attention as the original article, not a few lines hidden in the letters section of a paper. Also I think Rupert Murdoch and the other press barons should try to be elected in Parliament before they try and alter the law.
Sarah, Manchester

A free press is one of the crucial checks and balances against abuse of government power in the UK. To perform this essential role, the press must have a certain immunity. Time and again the press and media have exposed serious misconduct and abuse by Labour and Tory Governments. The Christine Keeler affair and the recent distortion of the security information used as grounds for invading Iraq are two such examples. Yes the press and media are fleas in the Government's ear, but it is their job to be so. Leave our media and press alone to do that vital job!
Colleen Morrison, Harlow

Have you read 1984?
Andrew Palmer, France

I don't think it's just the papers that get away with too much. The TV news has examples of exaggerated or false stories every day which mislead viewers. Many people believe everything they see on TV which is dangerous when programmes will say anything as long as its a good story. 24-hour news channels are also forcing quick reactions to news stories which are sometimes the wrong angle. In short the media needs to take a good look in the mirror and hopefully Peter Bradley's initiative will help stem the tide of lazy journalism.
Ewan Bowers, Perth

Too many lobby groups use the media in an attempt to manipulate government and public opinion for its own benefit. As someone who has a technical education I often see technical and scientific issues deliberately misunderstood for the purpose of sensationalism. I would support a law that compels the media to explain were information comes from, links to it and give a right of reply to all parties directly involved. These replies should be included as part of the article and there should be restrictions on how the media can edit them. I would oppose a law that in any way prevented the media from bringing something to our attention or infringed on the right of free speech. The media is a very powerful instrument, without it we would be blind in many ways. But there should be laws to prevent that power from being abused.
Hamish Brydone, Edinburgh

Something needs to be done. Sadly a lot of people believe everything they read. The press has brought untold misery to some people by printing lies.
Polly Reed, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

I think this an idea long overdue. As society evolves, the press has to take greater responsibility as a vehicle of checks and balance. I think it is a move in the right direction and hope other countries will follow.
Mohammad Ali Khan, Potomac

No, I do not agree. Politicians cannot be trusted to be objective and fair in creating legislation curbing press freedoms. We already have this steady encroachment on our personal freedoms by the Labour Government with the proposed introduction of identity cards, detention without trial, illegal declarations of war and so on. I personally have more trust in the free press than in any politician or political party. Politicians just cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Leave our free press alone.
Owen Main, Folkestone

There is far too much abuse printed in many sections of the press. News articles alone are not the issue, but so-called comment and analysis is as well. These columnists take it upon themselves to insult and demean others. I am sick and tired of having no recourse when reading lies, hypocrisies and simple prejudices written about those like me. It's about time we entered the 21st century and stopped playing the old traditional bigots' games.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth

I'm a bit wary about a three day rule. Surely it could be possible for large groups who simply disagree with a paper's opinion to bombard it with complaints causing chaos? However, I've always been of the opinion that the best way to ensure fair press coverage is to ensure corrections are given as much space and visibility as the original claim such as a two-page spread on the inside cover.
James, London

Why do we trust the press to self-regulate and give the PCC no teeth to do their job properly? Seems to me that freedom of speech can't be absolute without effective and unambiguous controls to prevent abuse.
Andy Millward, Broxbourne

The general public should be able to have more right of reply, but politicians should be exempt from this as they need to be scrutinised regularly.
Mike, Spain

I complained to the PCC once about an article I considered to be anti-gay. I received a reply stating that it was okay because it was "expressed as the personal opinion of the author" and so allowed under their guidelines. I went through their guidelines very carefully and could find nothing about an exemption for personal opinion. They just seem to make up the rules as they go along. Newspapers must have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to print complete lies – it takes forever for the PCC to investigate complaints and any apologies published are invariably published months later and buried deep inside the paper in some hidden corner. That's no deterrent – it's a tiny price to pay compared to the millions the paper can make printing sensationalist lies which can destroy peoples lives. Self-regulation doesn't work – the papers have proven this over and over again.
Anon, UK

It's not only the inaccuracies that are annoying but the fact that newspapers engage in so much opinion and slanting of the facts. I thought newspapers were supposed to be news papers. I think the Mail is the ultimate in Tory propaganda. I always have to read it with a health warning in mind.
Chris, Surrey

I believe that the standard of reporting by UK newspapers and also BBC TV news is getting out of hand with inaccuracies and omissions. There is a higher degree of propaganda of late and I feel that self monitoring is not working. People believe that newspapers and the BBC are authoritative and highly reliable. But is this true and what happens if this is not the case? Can an individual bring an action against a newspaper if the individual believes that a paper is misrepresenting their position? And would there be legal aid for such actions or limits to counterclaims, assuming that the defendant has greater access to legal assistance than the claimant? Yes I would like to see a change and waiting for 30 or more days for an investigation is silly.
David Mullins, Welwyn Garden City

I have complained to the BBC more than once, and never had any result at all. Millions might contact the BBC and "the press" every day for all I know. Apart from that, the proposals in the 'Right of Reply' Bill seem ludicrous to me. A law that requires newspapers – even local newspapers – to reply within three days seems ludicrous. I think the taxpayer could reasonably be concerned about how a database of press corrections would be achieved, who would be responsible for it, and who pay for it.
Peter Jamieson, Manchester

I certainly do think that the papers get away with too much. But I'm not saying this on my own account. I'm referring, for example, to the episode of Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi at a supposed private party. I mean, they call that news?
Daniel, Kent