DOCSLIB.ORG

Submission from IPPR to the Leveson Inquiry: Module 4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Submission from IPPR to the Leveson Inquiry: Module 4 Submission from IPPR to the Leveson Inquiry: Module 4 The IPPR welcomes this opportunity to contribute to Module 4 of the Leveson Inquiry’s deliberations: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards. The main part of this submission draws upon a public attitudes survey commissioned by IPPR in late May 2012 into trust, impartiality and ownership in UK media. We hope the Inquiry will find the responses to this survey a helpful insight into how public attitudes are shaping up on some of the key issues the Inquiry is tackling as it draws together its evidence and analysis under Module 4. Background The IPPR’s Next Generation Media Project is focused mainly on producing a set of clear principles to shape and underpin future media policy. This is necessary both in response to the collapse of public trust following the phone hacking scandal and in the face of longer-standing challenges posed to traditional regulatory systems around the world by the disruptive effects of convergence in digital media content and platforms. The project will cover the areas of regulation and ownership and aims to bring some consistency to the rules that would apply both to traditional and new media forms as they converge. The Next Generation Media project starts with a recognition that there are competing policy priorities in this space. We believe it is important to focus on what is do-able, as well as what is desirable, within the technological constraints of a globalised media marketplace, the economic constraints of sustaining a valuable industrial sector which is in some cases struggling to survive – never mind grow and develop – and the democratic constraints on how far Parliament can go (or will be prepared to go) in limiting freedoms of expression and action in increasingly open public forums. As part of this project, IPPR is looking at options around: The future structure of press regulation (in print and online) The legal framework for balancing privacy rights, freedom of expression and the public interest, in the age of Twitter etc The system for measuring and promoting plurality of ownership, especially in news A coherent framework for content regulation across digital platforms, perhaps including the BBC A challenge for all contributors to the wider public policy debate is to help policymakers decide what media policy is for in this new era, particularly in terms of the outcomes that matter most to the general public. News, information and entertainment are all highly regarded by users, regardless of how they choose to consume them: radio, TV, print or online. But they are not all economically equal. News production almost invariably requires a subsidy from more profitable forms of media, mainly entertainment. So scale remains an important feature of those private companies who provide news services. This is one of the paradoxes at the heart of the debate over media plurality. Public Attitudes to Media Regulation In the context of this work, IPPR commissioned a survey into public attitudes on trust, impartiality, and ownership in the UK media. The survey was conducted by YouGov (online) among 1,705 adults, with fieldwork undertaken between 20–21st May 2012. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). The full results are attached and are also available online. The YouGov survey focused on a number of areas currently being considered by the Inquiry, including: Whether a new press regulator should have a statutory basis Mechanisms of redress and prominence of corrections/apologies Scope of new regulatory arrangements, including video material on newspaper websites and online-only news services Qualifications for media ownership Plurality: Limits on newspaper ownership Plurality: Limits on cross-media ownership The overall results suggest that there is a strong public mood towards a more interventionist approach to regulation of print and online media than is currently the case. This includes both content and ownership regulation and extends to regulatory structures. Particular responses in individual areas are covered below. Should a new press regulator have a statutory basis? YouGov asked respondents whether they thought that the press should be regulated through a “legally established body”. 62 per cent of respondents said they thought it should, with less than one in five preferring a continuation of self-regulation. Politically, Lib Dem voters were more persuaded of the case for a statutory basis for press regulation, with Conservative voters the least (though support for a legally established body was still at 60 per cent among Conservative voters). While it might be possible to argue that the finer distinctions between self and statutory regulation would not be completely appreciated by all the respondents to a survey of this nature, the strength of feeling is clear. At the very least, the public response would suggest that they want to see a much stronger and more binding form of regulation than is currently provided by the PCC. In response to a follow-up question on how strict the regulation should be, 94 per cent of respondents said they thought regulation of the press should be “very” or “fairly” strict. Should newspapers print apologies or corrections of equal prominence? There was very strong support from respondents for this principle. 84 per cent supported requiring a newspaper to print a correction and/or an apology on the same page number as the original story if it reports something incorrectly, even if the original story was on the front page. This support extended across all ages, income groups and political persuasions. Should online news outlets be regulated? 55 per cent supported and only 13 per cent opposed the introduction of “laws to regulate content on online news outlets”. One way of reading this response is that the salience of online news has steadily grown and that people are more aware of it as an alternative/competitor to traditional forms of news output, and therefore feel it should be regulated in a similar way. The response presents a challenge to policymakers which they almost certainly cannot ignore altogether, however difficult it might be to frame regulation of online news. The mood appears to have shifted since the last major piece of legislation in this area, the 2003 Communications Act, which famously made no reference to the internet. Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, then Secretary of State, was adamant during the passage of the Bill, that “...we do not intend to regulate the internet”. Qualifications for UK media ownership Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the prominence of current concerns about the activities of a News Corp-owned newspaper, there is considerable support among the YouGov respondents for the idea that in order to own a UK newspaper, radio of TV channel, a person or company should be “a full time resident of the UK and pay full UK tax”. 74 per cent of the people surveyed supported this idea. Older people in particular were strongly attracted to it. Conservative voters favoured the proposition marginally more than supporters of the other two parties, but only by a whisker. There was some support also for the notion of stricter laws on the “fitness” of a person or company to own a media outlet. Just under half of respondents to this question thought the laws should be more strict. Plurality of newspaper ownership A set of questions in the YouGov survey explored attitudes towards limiting the proportion of overall UK media any one person or company should be allowed to own and whether there should be fixed limits, particularly on newspaper ownership. Responses to the general questions were emphatic. 73 per cent of respondents said there should be a specific limit on the overall proportion of the UK media (print, television, radio and online) that a single person or company can own. This proportion was high among all ages, income groups and political persuasions. 76 per cent supported fixed limits on the number of newspapers any one person or company could own, which was again consistent across all categories of respondents. On the specific point about what the limit on the number of national newspapers should be, 62 per cent thought the limit of what any one person or company could own should be no more than one or two. There was surprisingly little political divergence on this point with Conservative voters being as enthusiastic about fixing tight limits on national newspaper ownership as Labour or Lib Dem voters. Again the public response presents a challenge to policymakers given how economic pressures might be moving the industry towards greater consolidation. It may be that the broader point that respondents were expressing through their answers was that they strongly value the diversity of media that the UK has traditionally enjoyed and do not want to see that threatened. Cross-media ownership YouGov posed the question that if someone owned one or more national newspapers, should they be allowed to own a national radio station or national television broadcaster or cable or satellite broadcaster. Responses on these points were much more evenly spread. On whether newspaper/radio cross-ownership should be allowed, the split was 41 per cent (“should”) to 35 per cent (“should not”). On newspaper/national television broadcaster cross-ownership, it was 34 per cent to 42 per cent. And on newspaper/cable or satellite broadcaster cross-ownership the split was 39 per cent to 37 per cent. Generally the figures skewed towards tighter restrictions among older people and Lib Dem voters. Questioned further on setting limits on the overall level of media ownership secured by any one person or company, respondents marginally favoured leaving this to be judged by Ofcom or the Competition Commission on a case by case basis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to the Government Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and Its Implementation
    Response to the Government Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2 The commencement of section 40 ............................................................................. 4 Option (a): Government should not commence any of section 40 now, but keep it under review and on the statute book ..................................................................... 4 Option (b): Government should fully commence section 40 now ............................ 5 Option (c): Government should ask Parliament to repeal all of section 40 now ...... 8 Option (d): Government should partially commence section 40, and keep under review those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator ... 10 Option (e): Government should partially commence section 40, and ask Parliament to repeal those elements that apply to publishers outside a recognised regulator 11 The impact of section 40 .......................................................................................... 13 The impact of section 40 on the press industry .................................................... 13 The impact of section 40 on claimants .................................................................. 19 The purpose of section 40 ........................................................................................ 22 Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Leveson Inquiry Into the Cultures, Practices And
    For Distribution to CPs THE LEVESON INQUIRY INTO THE CULTURES, PRACTICES AND ETHICS OE THE PRESS WITNESS STATEMENT OE JAMES HANNING I, JAMES HANNING of Independent Print Limited, 2 Derry Street, London, W8 SHF, WILL SAY; My name is James Hanning. I am deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday and, with Francis Elliott of The Times, co-author of a biography of David Cameron. In the course of co-writing and updating our book we spoke to a large number of people, but equally I am very conscious that I, at least, dipped into areas in which I can claim very little specialist knowledge, so I would emphasise that in several respects there are a great many people better placed to comment and much of what follows is impressionistic. I hope that what follows is germane to some of the relationships that Lord Justice Leveson has asked witnesses to discuss. I hesitate to try to draw a broader picture, but I hope that some conclusions about the disproportionate influence of a particular sector of the media can be drawn from my experience. My interest in the area under discussion in the Third Module stems from two topics. One is in David Cameron, on whose biography we began work in late 2005, soon after Cameron became Tory leader. The second is an interest in phone hacking at the News of the World. Tory relations with Murdoch Since early 2007, the Conservative leadership has been extremely keen to ingratiate itself with the Murdoch empire. It is striking how it had become axiomatic that the support of the Murdoch papers was essential for winning a general election.
    [Show full text]
  • For Parties to Merger
    Karen Bradley MP Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Dear Secretary of State, The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) notes your statement of 3 March 2017 inviting suBmissions in relation to the proposeD full merger of 21st Century Fox Inc anD Sky plc. We welcome your statement of the same Date that you are minDeD to issue a European Intervention Notice on the Basis there may Be puBlic interest concerns, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, which warrant further consiDeration. The NUJ strongly supports an investigation By Ofcom into the proposeD merger, which poses a significant threat to meDia plurality anD Broadcasting stanDarDs. We Believe the merger woulD undermine the puBlic interest anD that referral for investigation unDer Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 is essential. The NUJ is the voice for journalism anD for journalists across the UK anD IrelanD. It was founDeD in 1907 anD has 30,000 memBers. We are an affiliate of Both the European FeDeration of Journalists anD the International FeDeration of Journalists (IFJ). We represent journalists working at home anD abroad in all sectors of the meDia, incluDing staff, stuDents anD freelances – writers, reporters, eDitors, suB-eDitors, photographers, illustrators anD people who work in puBlic relations. As a union we have a strong commitment to the concept of meDia Diversity. Any inDiviDual, family or company which Dominates the meDia lanDscape is funDamentally Damaging to Democracy. In examining the proposeD merger, Ofcom woulD have to consiDer the already unsatisfactory situation prevailing in the UK, where the provision of radio anD television news is restricteD to the BBC anD two Dominant players in the commercial sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Hacking Affair Is Not Over – but What Would a Second Leveson Inquiry Achieve?
    7/10/2019 Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? Academic rigour, journalistic flair Hacking affair is not over – but what would a second Leveson inquiry achieve? July 25, 2014 3.57pm BST Author John Jewell Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff University On we go. Ian Nicholson/PA In the latest episode in the long-running saga that is the phone hacking affair, Dan Evans, a former journalist at the News of the World and Sunday Mirror, has received a 10 month suspended sentence after being convicted of two counts of phone hacking, one of making illegal payments to officials, and one of perverting the course of justice. Coming so soon after the conviction of Andy Coulson and the acquittal of Rebekah Brooks and others, one could be forgiven for assuming that the whole phone hacking business is now done and dusted. Not a bit of it. As Julian Petley has written: “Eleven more trials are due to take place involving 20 current or former Sun and News of the World journalists, who are accused variously of making illegal payments to public officials, conspiring to intercept voicemail and accessing data on stolen mobile phones.” We also learned in June that Scotland Yard had officially told Rupert Murdoch of their intention to interview him as part of their inquiry into allegations of crime at his British newspapers. The Guardian revealed that Murdoch was first contacted in 2013, but the police ceded to his lawyers’ request that any interrogation should wait until the Coulson–Brooks trial had finished.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Death in a Digital Age: Post
    Publishing Office Aims and scope Abramis Academic ASK House Communication ethics is a discipline that supports communication Northgate Avenue practitioners by offering tools and analyses for the understanding of Bury St. Edmunds ethical issues. Moreover, the speed of change in the dynamic information Suffolk environment presents new challenges, especially for communication IP32 6BB practitioners. UK Tel: +44 (0)1284 700321 Ethics used to be a specialist subject situated within schools of philosophy. Fax: +44 (0)1284 717889 Today it is viewed as a language and systematic thought process available Email: [email protected] to everyone. It encompasses issues of care and trust, social responsibility and Web: www.abramis.co.uk environmental concern and identifies the values necessary to balance the demands of performance today with responsibilities tomorrow. Copyright All rights reserved. No part For busy professionals, CE is a powerful learning and teaching approach that of this publication may be reproduced in any mate- encourages analysis and engagement with many constituencies, enhancing rial form (including pho- relationships through open-thinking. It can be used to improve organization tocopying or storing it in performance as well as to protect individual well-being. any medium by electronic means, and whether or not transiently or incidentally Submissions to some other use of this Papers should be submitted to the Editor via email. Full details on submission – publication) without the along with detailed notes for authors – are available online in PDF format: written permission of the www.communication-ethics.net copyright owner, except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Subscription Information Designs and Patents Act Each volume contains 4 issues, issued quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom
    Sousa, H., Trützschler, W., Fidalgo, J. & Lameiras, M. (eds.) (2013) Media Regulators in Europe: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Braga: CECS, University of Minho ISBN: 978-989-97244-7-1 pp. 180 -191 United Kingdom ALESSANDRO D’ARMA Communication and Media Research Institute CAMRI, University of Westminster [email protected] 1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK The main media and communications regulatory body in the UK is the Office of Communications (Ofcom), with offices in London. Ofcom is a statutory body, organizationally separated from government and operating at arm’s length from it, created by the Office of Communications Act 20021. Its main powers and functions were conferred on it by the Communications Act 20032, which sets out no less than 263 separate statutory duties3. Ofcom is accountable to Parliament to which it reports on its activities annually. As will be detailed below, Ofcom has regulatory duties across most of the ‘converging’ electronic communications sector, often in an advisory capacity to government in areas such as media ownership rules and public service broadcasting, and is in charge of implementing and enforcing legislation. Other Acts of Parliament under which Ofcom operates include the Broadcasting Acts 19904 and 19965, the Human Rights Act 19986, the Enterprise Act 20027, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 20068, and the Digital Economy Act 20109. There are other governmental and non-governmental bodies that have powers and duties in relation to media and communications matters. The two main government depart- ments with policy responsibilities over media and communications are the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
    [Show full text]
  • Whittingdale and the Ex-Dominatrix: Conspiracy of Silence Or
    Whittingdale and the ex-dominatrix: conspiracy of silence or provided by LSE Research Online View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk CORE goobrought to you by d press behaviour? blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2016/04/13/whittingdale-and-the-ex-dominatrix-conspiracy-of-silence-or-good-press- behaviour/ 2016-4-13 This is the original version of an article that appeared in Newsweek on 13.4.16. The John Whittingdale ‘dominatrix’ story is a classic case study of the eternal balancing act between the right to privacy and the public interest in disclosure. In practice this is rarely a purely ethical or editorial decision. Inevitably, legal, political and taste issues will come into play. The circumstantial details are vital. Yes, ‘publish and be damned’ but in a country without a First Amendment, there has to be a justification. In the highly competitive UK newspaper market editors hate to spike juicy tales of politicians and former sex workers. Yet, in the febrile debate over British journalism that has followed the Leveson inquiry into phone-hacking we find ourselves in the intriguing situation where the advocates of restraint, such as the pro-regulation campaigners at Hacked Off, are urging publication of details of the private love life of an unmarried individual. John_Whittingdale There is a good reason to publish this story now. The suspicion is that when some newspapers knew about it back in 2013/14 they did not run with it because they feared pushing the Secretary of State responsible for media regulation into implementing Lord Justice Leveson’s suggestions for statutory oversight of the UK press.
    [Show full text]
  • MOD100024092 the Leveson Inquiry
    WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE KATHLEEN ROWLING I, JOANNE KATHLEEN ROWLING, of Schillings 41 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3HX WILL SAY as follows:- 1. I make this statement as a Core Participant in the Leveson Inquiry as chaired by the Rt.Hon Lord Justice Leveson ("the Inquiry"). I am an author, professionally known as J.K. Rowling. My ’Harry Potter’ series of novels were (initially) published over the years 1997 - 2007 and have enjoyed a great deal of commercial success. The novels have also been adapted into a series of feature films. The first film in the series premiered in 2001 with the final film being released worldwide in July of this year. As a result of those successes, for which I am very grateful, I have gone from being what I would describe as ’an ordinary person’ to someone who is - to an extent - ’famous’. The purpose of this Statement is to try to explain some of the experiences I have had as a result of my rise in prominence. MOD100024092 The Leveson Inquiry Before describing some of those experiences, I would like to stress that I do not want to be involved in the Inquiry as a result of any personal vendetta against the press. I have none. On the contrary, I acknowledge and support the vital role that the press plays as part of a free and democratic society. As an author I strongly believe in freedom of expression. I believe that the right to be informed and to share ideas is essential. If I had not been able to freely express my ideas over the years I would not be in the privileged position that I am today.
    [Show full text]
  • Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons from British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2015 Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, Taming the "Feral Beast": Cautionary Lessons From British Press Reform, 55 Santa Clara L. Rev. 323 (2015). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAMING THE "FERAL BEAST"1 : CAUTIONARY LESSONS FROM BRITISH PRESS REFORM Lili Levi* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introdu ction ............................................................................ 324 I. British Press Reform, in Context ....................................... 328 A. Overview of the British Press Sector .................... 328 B. The British Approach to Newspaper Regulation.. 330 C. Phone-Hacking and the Leveson Inquiry Into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press ..... 331 D. Where Things Stand Now ...................................... 337 1. The Royal Charter ............................................. 339 2. IPSO and IM
    [Show full text]
  • At Inquiry, Rupert Murdoch Defends 50-Year Record 25 April 2012, by RAPHAEL SATTER , Associated Press
    At inquiry, Rupert Murdoch defends 50-year record 25 April 2012, By RAPHAEL SATTER , Associated Press could swing elections. "We don't have that sort of power," he testified. Murdoch was being quizzed under oath before an inquiry run by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, who is examining the relationship between British politicians and the press, a key question raised by the phone hacking scandal that brought down Murdoch's News of the World tabloid in July. Revelations of widespread illegal behavior at the top-selling Sunday publication rocked Britain's In this image from video, News Corp. chairman Rupert establishment with evidence of media misdeeds, Murdoch appears at Lord Justice Brian Leveson's inquiry police corruption and too-cozy links between the in London, Wednesday April 25, 2012 to answer press and politicians. Murdoch's News International questions under oath about how much he knew about - the tabloid's publisher - has been hit with over 100 phone hacking at the News of the World tabloid. Murdoch is being grilled on his relationship with British lawsuits over phone hacking and dozens of politicians at the country's media ethics inquiry, while a reporters and media executives have been government minister is battling accusations he gave arrested. News Corp. privileged access in its bid to take over a major broadcaster. (AP Photo/Pool) Showing little equivocation, Murdoch batted away challenges to his ethics by inquiry lawyer Robert Jay. (AP) -- News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said Asked whether he set the political agenda for his Wednesday that his globe-spanning TV and U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • Ofcom) 13 July 2016
    2016 Annual Colloquium on fundamental rights Public consultation on "MEDIA PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACY" Response from UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) 13 July 2016 Ofcom is the independent public regulatory authority responsible for implementing the AVMS Directive in the UK. We have over 10 years’ experience of media content regulation and we are a converged regulator with responsibilities for telecommunications, spectrum and postal services. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important consultation and look forward to discussing the topics outlined here in more detail in the future. We have answered the questions where our expertise is most relevant. For any questions about this response, please contact Maria Donde ([email protected]) B. Media freedom and pluralism 5. In the context of media freedom and pluralism, what should be the role of the State, if any, in the regulation of media? What should be the role of self-regulation? In the UK, all three models of media regulation (statutory, co- and self-regulation) are used. There are benefits in having a mixed approach, but also some challenges. Ofcom’s experience in regulating a number of sectors and working with a variety of statutory, co-regulatory and self-regulatory bodies suggests there are some core principles of effective regulation that are shared by all models. These principles are set out in our response to Question (7), below. In the UK, an inquiry into the regulation of the press conducted throughout 2011 – 2012 (the “Leveson Inquiry”) considered all forms of media regulation. Ofcom was asked to contribute to that Inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Issue 91 Autumn 2012
    23015 Amicus 91 Autumn text.qxd:Text 5/12/12 12:05 Page 1 Contents Issue 91 Autumn 2012 THE POLITICS OF PRESS REGULATION “A sloppy, elephantine piece of work that relies on nobody Articles having the time to read it before taking sides.” This dismissal The Common European Sales Law proposal – European of Lord Justice Leveson’s four-volume report, An inquiry into Private law at the crossroads? 2 the culture, practices and ethics of the press (November 29, 2012), was delivered by Peter Preston, a former editor of the Interpreting the neW South African Companies Act: some Guardian and an influential figure in the world of newspaper challenges 12 journalism. Mr Preston’s Views are shared by many editors Institute News 15 and others within the media opposed to LeVeson’s central recommendation for the creation of an independent self- Articles (cont’d) regulatorY body underpinned by statute to regulate the press. Reducing overreliance on credit ratings; failing strategies Some have found the report much more to their liking, and the need to start from scratch 17 notably the Hacked Off campaign which represents those who consider themselves to have been Victims of abusive practices Cameras in the courts: why the prohibition occurred in by the press. Hacked Off wants Leveson to be implemented the UK 22 in full without delay, backed by a petition signed by over 100,000 people and supported by well-known figures such as the HarrY Potter author J K Rowling and entertainer Stephen The report is long and detailed, but even those who FrY.
    [Show full text]