Why it's a bad idea to make Paul Dacre head of the Code Committee

The Press Complaints Commission yesterday announced that Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail / Associated Newspapers, will be the new chairman of the Editorial Code Committee - the powerful body that sets the rules of press self-regulation.

There are many reasons why I think this is a bad idea. Here I'll name just 5:

1. There have been more successful complaints made to the PCC against the Daily Mail than against any other newspaper. 153 over the last decade, as compared to an average of 43 for other newspapers (source: Nick Davies, Flat Earth News, p.366). Dacre therefore has a long track record of breaking the editorial code he is now going to set.

2. The Daily Mail came top of the Information Commissioner's 'league table' of trade in illegal information (from 'What Price Privacy Now' p.8). 58 journalists from the Daily Mail made 952 transactions - i.e. paid a private detective to illegally gather personal information about individuals. None have been sanctioned. Dacre's paper has therefore systematically broken Clause 2 of the Editorial Code (privacy), as well as frequently breaking the law.

3. Before standing down last December the government's chief scientist claimed the Daily Mail should be held responsible for threatening the lives of 50-100 children as a consequence of the links the paper drew between MMR and autism (indeed the paper continues to make those links despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Sir David King added that the Mail's anti GM campaign had probably cost the economy between £2bn and £4bn.

4. When he takes his new position Paul Dacre will step down from the PCC itself. But he will remain a member of the Press Board of Finance (see here) - the body that funds the PCC. He will therefore set the rules and determine the funding - a serious conflict of interest that would be considered unacceptable by any other public body

5. In his book Nick Davies provides evidence to suggest that the Daily Mail is institutionally racist. For example, he talks to a reporter who was told to drive 300 miles to cover a triple murder only to be called back when the news desk discovered the victims were black. Then there's the email, leaked a couple of weeks ago, in which a Daily Mail journalist hunts for immigrant horror stories (see Greenslade Blog)

These are over and above the fact that appointing such a prominent and powerful editor sends a very clear message to the public that the PCC acts in the interest of newspapers, not in the interests of the public.

If you have any other reasons - for or against - the appointment, please feel free to comment below.