The Press Complaints Commission is working on new guidelines for press treatment of transgender people. Never mind that it is already against the PCC code (and the law) to harass members of the public. Apparently it is not enough to say "don't harass people" – editors must be told "don't harass transgender people" or "don't harass black people" and, presumably, "don't harass innocent members of the public". One wonders why it needs spelling out quite so emphatically for people who supposedly deal with words and facts for a living. As Lucy Meadows' coroner told the press this week after researching the final, ghastly months of her life: shame on you.

The debate on press reform has become all about regulation and what type of regulation we want, a debate that grew from the hacking scandal. Hacking people's phones is illegal. We didn't need different guidelines to stop this from happening, we needed the police and the PCC to investigate and take proper action. Instead journalists were allowed to get away with it.

Well, here's an idea. When a complaint is upheld against a journalist or editor regarding discrimination, hate speech or accuracy about a person or group, that journalist or editor should be compelled to meet that person or group. We could simply use the PCC's existing editor's code. The rules should be: if you harass someone via a newspaper, print lies and hate speech about them, you will – at some point, and if your victim agrees – have to sit in a room with them and look them in the eye. And why the hell shouldn't you?

And yet we are told we mustn't restrict journalists in the same way we are told we mustn't restrict bankers. Well it's time to say it's not OK. Why should it only be property owners who get to meet burglars? If the people who own and create newspapers insist they have a right to abuse people, let them say so to their victims. Face to face. Rupert Murdoch made a big song and dance about meeting Milly Dowler's family – and who knows, perhaps his theatrical apology was sincere? So my plans are simply an extension of the example Murdoch himself set.

We already do this with criminals, in ever increasing numbers. Eighty five percent of victims say that meeting their offender helped them get over the ordeal, rising to 92% for some violent crimes. These meetings are also estimated to save taxpayers £60m a year – partly due to the 27% reduction in reoffending rates. The scheme benefits everyone in society by supporting existing frameworks such as prison and community service. Applied to the press, however, it would help to fill a justice vacuum.

If you doubt this element of restorative justice could work in the context of press regulation, it is already happening. Social media allows the public to engage with media professionals directly – but only, of course, if they respond.

Last year I met with Jonathan Ross following some "ladyboy" jokes he made on his ITV show. I contacted him via Twitter and he agreed to meet me face to face with a mutual friend. I explained how jokes about trans people in the media make people like me feel humiliated, excluded and powerless. I told him what it feels like to live in a culture that thinks it's acceptable to ridicule "your people", the pang of fear I get if I simply need to go for a pint of milk. In return he offered valuable insight on why certain jokes slip past the regulators and, more importantly, the thoughts behind those who make them. Many of the transgender people who watched the interview came away feeling they had been heard and Jonathan clearly took something from it too – I haven't seen him make any "tranny" jokes since.

That was a unique meeting, but there has been a drive to bring media professionals up close with the people they earn money writing and talking about. All About Trans is a social enterprise to improve the way trans people experience the media (I'm paraphrasing, but research shows we currently experience it as "crap"). All About Trans aims for empathy – not confrontation. As BBC Radio 1's commissioning editor Piers Bradford said of one of our early workshops: "I expected to be lectured but this was an opportunity to have an open and honest chat." Chatting over a cup of tea – that doesn't sound so bad, does it? It will be interesting to see what objections media professionals might raise.

Let's drag Richard Littlejohn back from Florida for an interaction with the communities he is paid to ridicule. Get Mr Dacre along too (after all, his paper publishes at least three stories on trans people a week). Send a car to Julie Burchill's mansion. We've already met with the Observer team responsible for publishing her rant against trans people – or "bed-wetters in bad wigs", as she referred to us. The police have logged her article as hate speech, but did the PCC do anything about it? No. Thankfully the Observer's editor John Mulholland and four of his senior staff agreed to meet with All About Trans – where they were moved and intrigued by the lives of real trans people. All credit to them for meeting with us.

These meetings wouldn't just benefit trans people and minorities though. This is about everyone in society asking to be treated fairly by the powerful people who own media organisations, and their employees. Everyone seems to be calling for press regulation of some form – but the only solutions are pointless fines and ineffective printed apologies. They don't work. We don't fine schoolyard bullies, we talk to them about the consequences of their actions and how those actions affect the people they are picking on. We need to remind ourselves what the news is really about and that, as revered former Times editor Harold Evans taught us, is never abstract ideas and always people. Now it's time the professionals behind the news met those people.