The third Royal Commission on the Press, reporting in 1977, found evidence of "flagrant breaches of acceptable standards" and "inexcusable intrusion into privacy". It demanded that the Press Council take more powers to ensure rights of reply and that it deliver more vigorous adjudications. But thereafter editors at every level defied and derided the Council. By 1989 a private member's bill to set up a statutory council was well advanced, with the support of both parties, and was only halted when the government established an inquiry under Sir David Calcutt. His report in 1991 pointed out that the Press Council's dual functions of defending free speech and adjudicating complaints were incompatible. The latter should be undertaken by a Press Complaints Commission. 

After two years of monitoring the PCC, Calcutt in 1993 firmly recommended jettisoning self-regulation once and for all, in favour of a statutory press complaints tribunal with power to injunct newspapers and to fine reckless journalists. But John Major's government dared not antagonise the tabloids that it believed had won it the 1992 election. Despite further proposals for statutory regulation, neither the Conservatives nor the subsequent Labour government dared to act in the face of media opposition. 

It is instructive to note that the old Press Council role, as envisaged by Michael Foot, of defending free speech fell by the wayside after the PCC was established to deal with complaints. There has been no replacement either by the press or by a wider coalition including broadcasters and the new electronic media: the press has relied on its political muscle to deter governments from introducing privacy laws, and left occasional challenges in the courts to the Sunday Times, the Guardian and, increasingly, US media like the Wall Street Journal. In the past decade it has been noticeable how "the media" as such has failed to make common cause in challenging reporting restrictions in the courts or in appealing first-instance decisions which set uncomfortable precedents. It is quite prepared, for example, to demonise Sir David Eady, the judge who has set many of them, but is afraid to appeal him (most notably, News Group Newspapers Ltd failed to appeal his controversial decision in the Max Mosley case). Judges have begun to comment on this failure, and tend to perceive the media as the victim of its own negligence in failing to defend its rights. This criticism has some validity, although judges can be insouciant about the costs of litigation and seem to think that newspapers have money to burn on "test case'' litigation. 

The failure of the media to defend its rights — which are, after all, the rights of the public to uncensored information — is a matter of concern. What is required is an organisation backed and funded by all sections of the media (including the BBC, which has an indifferent record in defending media freedom) to research and contest legislative changes that impact upon newsgathering, and which can intervene in court cases where media freedom is in issue. It needs to deliver authoritative counterblasts to the frequent political attacks on free speech, and to alert journalists to new laws and court decisions that impact upon newsgathering. It could also run training courses in press freedom and code of conduct responsibilities. As its role would be to protect and enhance press freedom it would not require any statutory powers and it would certainly improve the "culture" of newspapers. Its first task might be to respond authoritatively to the Leveson recommendations; there was no such body in existence to respond to the Hutton report.