<B>> What prompted the British press to adopt self-regulation some ten years ago and how is that control being exercised? </B>

We have today in Britain the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), known in the past as the Press Council. It is self-regulation by the press. The chairman is a political nominee appointed by government. The council of the PCC is made up of editors and members of the public recruited through advertisement. They are known as lay members. The PCC has a code committee made up only of editors. Self-regulation is crucial. The PCC hears complaints from members of the public covering a large array of what they perceive as press misconduct. It may be complaints about privacy, bugging by journalists, children coverage. The PCC has first to decide if there has been any breach of the code of ethics. It tries to settle any grievance by bringing the two parties together and looks for an agreement or apologies from the press. The newspaper has to publish whatever decision or reprimand of the PCC after any complaint.

<B>> Members of the public, of course, have other recourse through the court. If the aggrieved person seeks redress through the law, then the PCC will not adjudicate. </B>

The PCC is quick and cheap. The law is for the rich, it costs a lot and it takes a longtime.

<B>> Was there a dire need for it and do you favour such regulations? </B>

No, I do not. It all came about when the whole British press became afraid of government regulation to control the press. Government was threatening the press with privacy legislation. There was a perception that the tabloid press was intruding into private life and it was all brought to a head with the Princess Diana episode. The British press preferred not to have legislation and to keep politicians away. The PCC came into being together with a code of practice and a code of conduct, which is a set of regulations.

<B>> The PCC was the only way to keep politicians away and protect the freedom of the press. Is it its only justification? </B>

A small price to pay for the freedom of the press.

<B>> How important is your code of practice? </B>

There has been a lot of debate about journalists and ethics. It is not unhealthy at all. I think that journalists and the press become more respected and influential if they abide by standards like accuracy, honesty and integrity. Newspapers are very reluctant to admit mistakes. They should be prepared to admit and apologise. Journalists work under pressure and most of the time they get things right. When they get them wrong, they should be prepared to admit it. They do not lose respect by such admissions. But reluctance to admit mistakes may lead to a breakdown of trust between the public and the press.

<B>> To what extent can self regulation be important to the Mauritian print media? </B>

I am not very well conversant with the local situation. You should ask yourself questions about relations between the public and the press, about the level of trust the public places in the local press. You should ask yourself if you have a serious and responsible press. The British press is very irresponsible.

<B>> The Mauritian press is highly trusted. What are the factors that can contribute to an erosion of that trust? </B>

If the public gets the impression that you are pursuing a line other than reporting. The first duty of the press is to report. If you are seen as vindictive, biased, if you get things wrong, if you are pursuing things that are not clear to the public, then you will erode the trust placed in you.

<B>> The broadcast media in Britain and in Mauritius are under State control whereas the written press is not. Is this not a paradox? </B>

Yes, it is odd, but it all comes on the basis that the print media has a longer history and has always been fighting for its freedom. But then, radio is perceived as being more influential on the public and statutory control aims at attaining political balance in radio reporting. The BBC has to be controlled as it is funded through public taxes. But I have doubts about control over private radios.

<B>> What makes a good newspaper and good journalist? </B>

Good journalism costs money. Investigative journalism for example costs time and money. News management by politicians, government and private companies has become very sophisticated today. This type of news management enables them to communicate what they want, to lead the journalist where they want, setting the good news and hiding the bad. No type of regulations or control can be opposed to this type of news management. The only cure lies in good journalists, who are well-trained, intelligent, sceptical, who have great tenacity, who do not accept what they are told. People in power are very good at hiding the truth.

<B>> Young people are reading newspapers less and less. Is the print media here to stay?</B>

This is a world trend. Sales are declining worldwide. But we do not know if the young will take to newspapers. I am optimistic. We have to wait a very long time before we come to an era where there will be no newspapers. The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph are for sale. Price £ 700 million and three different groups are fighting for them. They are not fools. They are fighting because they see that there is a future for newspapers.