This research draws on the regulatory systems of six countries, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Denmark,

Ireland, and Australia,13 and compares them in relation to a range of characteristics and issues. The
criteria used in the selection of countries are as follows. Each country is a mature democracy, with a
'free press' according to press freedom indices.14 Each recognises the importance of the freedom to
impart and receive information; of balancing competing rights for example in relation to privacy and
reputation; and of wider standards and accountability. Each has a national Press Council (and in the case
of Sweden and Ireland a Press Ombudsman working in conjunction with the Press Council). Each,
however, reveals a different approach to press regulation, for example, in relation to statutory or non-
statutory powers; the balancing of industry and independent board members; funding; sanctions; and,
whether its remit encompasses broadcasting as well as print and online content. In addition to the six
countries referred to above, the report refers to particular issues in other countries, namely Canada,
New Zealand, and Norway, as and where these are relevant. It is confined to consideration of countries
that follow the Press Council model. This is not the case in the United States, for example, where Press
Councils have been held to provide a potential restriction to the First Amendment guarantee against any
law ‘abridging the freedom of speech or of the press’.15 Although a few individual American states have
established Press Councils,16 the general model is for individual newspaper complaints mechanisms or
ombudsmen.17 In France the press is subject to the law and no Press Council currently exists, though
there are proposals to establish one in the future.18

SWEDEN

The system is self-regulatory but sits within a detailed legal framework. The first Freedom of the Press
Act dated back to 1766 and the current Act contains a number of protections for journalists. The Press
Council is funded by industry with an annual budget of around £500,00024 and employs around five
members of staff. The council includes a combination of judicial board members (the chair and vice
chairs must all be judges), as well as industry and independent members, and has jurisdiction over print
and online journalism. Only those personally affected by a publication can bring a complaint. Sweden’s
Press Council is complemented by the Press Ombudsman who is the public face of the regulatory system
and a first filter for complaints. The ombudsman cannot uphold a complaint and instead has powers to
dismiss it as out of remit or without merit, take steps in order to resolve it, or send it to the council with
a recommendation to uphold. Sweden is unique among the countries under examination in that there is
a financial cost imposed on an upheld complaint.

GERMANY: PEER REGULATION25

Germany could claim to be closest to ‘self’ regulation of all the countries considered here, in that the
industry regulates itself with only publishers and journalists sitting on the Press Council board and no
independent representatives. However, whilst the majority of its budget is met by industry, up to 49%
can come from the government on a ‘no strings attached’ basis (currently 30% state funding is
accepted). there has been public criticism that decisions are made behind closed doors and without the
input of independent perspectives. Germany does not restrict the criteria of complainants, anyone can
complain about any aspect of press ethics. This freedom has been seized by ‘watchblogs’ set up to
monitor the German press and hold it to account.

DENMARK: STATUTORY COMPULSION AND INCENTIVES27

Denmark provides the closest to a statutory model in this study, although ‘coregulation’ is a more
accurate term since the system also includes key selfregulatory elements. The regulation of print and
broadcast journalists is mandatory. All publications circulated more than twice a year, and all
broadcasters holding a Danish licence, are subject to Press Council regulation. However, while the
legislation requiring regulation refers to the requirement for ‘sound press ethics’, it does not specify
what these are to be. The code of rules is the responsibility of the Press Council, as is the administering
of a right to reply/correction. In addition there are strong incentives for online providers voluntarily to
register with the Press Council. In exchange for submitting to its regulation, and compliance with its
rules and decisions, online media gain the rights of traditional journalism, for example, in relation to the
protection of sources. The chair of the Danish Press Council must be a lawyer, and in practice is a judge.
However, while the basis for the Press Council’s authority is statutory, and failure to comply with the
requirement to publish its decisions could in principle result in a fine or prison sentence of up to four
months, its remit is narrow. Only the person affected by the material can make a complaint and the
grounds for complaint are limited to issues of press ethics affecting them personally (for example,
privacy) or to the legal right to correct factual inaccuracies if they cause significant damage.

IRELAND: STATUTORY RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVES29 Ireland has the most recently established Press
Council of those considered in this report. It was set up in 2007, with the Press Ombudsman following in
2008. Ireland is a print and online regulator, regulating both online versions of newspapers and
magazines and stand-alone ‘pure players’. Ireland’s is a purely voluntary system with a twist. The Irish
Defamation Act recognises the existence of the Press Council and sets out how the courts may take that
membership into account when considering public interest defences in defamation cases. The
framework under which the Irish Press Council has been established thus identifies certain privileges
accorded to the press and then recognises Press Council membership as a demonstration that a
publication is worthy of those privileges. If a publication wishes to mount a public interest defence
based on the responsibility and accountability of their journalism, they may use membership of the
Press Council to demonstrate that ethical approach. Also recognised in the Defamation Act is the Press
Ombudsman who is tasked with conciliating or (unlike Sweden) adjudicating on complaints. The Press
Council is responsible for hearing appeals of ombudsman decisions, oversight of the professional
principles embodied in the Code of Practice and with upholding freedom of the press. As with Denmark
and Sweden, only the person affected by a publication may bring a complaint, though this criteria is
interpreted with a fair degree of latitude in Ireland.

AUSTRALIA: RADICAL RETHINKING30 Australia offers a radical vision of the future. Its government has
established a Convergence Review31 to consider policy and regulation across media and
communications in Australia. It has engaged in widespread consultation and has proposed a single
converged regulator for news and current affairs across all electronic media, alongside a number of
fundamental cross-media reforms including proposals to dismantle the current licensing model for
broadcast channels. As part of the review it established an independent inquiry32 to look specifically at
current media codes of practice in Australia, the impact of technological change on news media, and
ways of substantially strengthening the Australian Press Council. The independent inquiry’s report was
published in February 201233 and recommended an ‘independent statutory body’ to oversee the
enforcement of standards of the news media across print, broadcast, and online platforms (discussed in
section 4.3). The new body would replace the Australian Press Council and the news and current affairs
standards functions of the Australian broadcasting regulator (the Australian Communications and Media
Authority, ACMA). The recommendations are to be considered by the Convergence Review which
reports to the Australian government at the end of March 2012. At present the Australian Press Council
implements voluntary regulation for print and online journalism with a mix of publisher, independent,
and ‘independent journalist’ members on its board. It is currently engaged in a number of reforms which
it sees as laying the foundations of a potential future transformation into a cross-platform media
standards council. It has introduced reforms including safeguarding its funding by placing this on a new,
rolling biennial basis in order to reduce its vulnerability to withdrawal from the Press Council of
disaffected publishers. It proposes strengthening its authority on a contractual basis and has floated the
suggestion of the possible introduction of a referrals panel to consider fines (albeit with reservations
that the power to fine could make the complaints process unduly adversarial). It has plans to increase
transparency for consumers, with a ‘kite-mark’ system to denote membership and is considering how to
incentivise membership. For example, its proposals seek to make the exemption from Australia’s Privacy
Act (currently a privilege extended to all professional journalists in relation to data protection
exemptions) conditional on Press Council membership. Overall it proposes eventual transition to a
unified system in which the principal responsibilities for journalism across all media are vested in an
Independent Council.