How Newspapers Covered Press Regulation After Leveson September 2014

Home , Leveson Inquiry, Media Standards Trust

How Newspapers Covered Press Regulation after Leveson September 2014

Dr. Gordon Neil Ramsay

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary 4 2. Timeline of Events 9 3. Sampling and Methodology 12 4. Press Regulation: Overall Figures 17 5. How Each Newspaper Covered Press Regulation 27 6. Coverage of Press Regulation in Leader and Opinion Articles 47 7. Coverage of Press Regulation in Factual Articles 57 8. How the ‘Threat to Press Freedom’ was Portrayed 63 9. How Coverage of Press Regulation Failed to Reflect Public Opinion 73

Appendix 1: Newspaper Coverage Breakdown 96 Appendix 2: All Leader Articles with Classifications 107 Appendix 3: Dataset Variable List 118 Appendix 4: Press Regulation Guide for Coders 121 Appendix 5: Inter-Coder Reliability (ICR) Testing - Methods and Results 129

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Press Regulation Coverage: Overall Figures

• Coverage of press regulation in the UK national press was extensive. In the year following the publication of the Leveson Report, 2,047 articles were published across the national daily and Sunday press, an average of 5.6 articles per day as compared to 4.0 per day in the 18 months from July 2011 until publication of the Leveson report in November 2012.1 There were particularly high levels of coverage in three periods: in the aftermath of the publication of the Leveson Report; around the agreement on the Cross- Party Royal Charter in March 2013; and in October 2013, when the Royal Charter was sealed following the Privy Council’s rejection of the newspaper industry’s own draft Royal Charter.

• The majority of coverage contained some evaluation of Leveson or the Charter. Over two-thirds of articles (1,421 of 2,047, or 69.4%) contained one or more evaluative statements on the Leveson Report and/or the Cross- Party Royal Charter. This was over three times as much as during the 18 months prior to publication of the Leveson Report (436 of 2,016, or 21.6%).

• A majority of the 1,421 articles – news and opinion – which contained an evaluative statement contained only negative viewpoints. 835 articles (58.8%) contained only negative or critical viewpoints. 217 (15.3%) contained only positive or supportive views, and 370 (26.0%) contained both supportive and critical viewpoints.

• Both the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Royal Charter received a majority of negative coverage. 55.8% of articles containing a view on the Leveson Report were entirely critical (i.e. containing not one single positive reference), outnumbering positive articles by three to one. This rises to 64.5% of articles on the Cross-Party Charter, where the ratio is four to one.

• Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter were widely portrayed as a threat to press freedom. In total, 862 articles contained this assertion by a source or by the journalist - over 40% of all articles on any aspect of press regulation. As a proportion of the 1,421 articles containing a viewpoint on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, this figure rises to 60.7%.

How Each Newspaper Covered Press Regulation

1 See Part 1 of this analysis: http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 4 every article in the Daily Mail that contained only positive viewpoints, there were more than 33 that contained only critical views. In the Sun, this ratio was 1 : 29. Of 18 newspapers that published articles with viewpoints on Leveson or the Charter,2 14 contained more negative-only than positive- only articles; in nine titles the imbalance was by a ratio of over five to one.

• Only a minority of coverage – news and opinion – sought to be balanced. Articles, including news articles, tended to express one single view without reference to opposing views: in 15 of 18 newspapers containing articles where views were expressed, the proportion where both positive and negative viewpoints were included was below 30%; in seven titles it was below 20%.

• Coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter was mostly negative , as contrasted with coverage of the newspaper industry’s Royal Charter and the newspaper industry plans for a new regulator (IPSO) which was mostly positive. While on average only 15.3% of articles containing a view on Leveson or the Charter were wholly positive, 57.7% of articles with a view on the newspaper Industry’s Charter were positive, as were 65.4% of articles containing a view on IPSO. The results suggest that the majority of newspapers gave strong support to the newspaper industry’s own initiatives, and were highly critical of those initiatives that were not led by the newspaper industry.

• There was a structural difference in how sections of the national press covered Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. After observing differences in coverage across groups of publishers, a separate analysis of those titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group, Trinity Mirror, and Northern & Shell found that those titles contained highly negative coverage (70.5% of articles containing a view were ‘negative-only’), a lower proportion of positive coverage (on average, around one positive article for every eight negative articles published), with the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame appearing in 74.5% of articles containing a view. Significantly, this group accounts for over 90% of weekly national newspaper circulation, and three-quarters of the national newspaper market. In contrast, those titles published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd, and Pearson contained half as many negative articles proportionally (34.2% of articles), less than half as many instances of the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame (34.4% of articles), a roughly equal ratio of positive to negative articles (1 : 1.2), and were almost twice as likely to publish articles that contained both supportive and critical viewpoints.

Coverage of Press Regulation in Leader and Opinion Articles

• Leader articles and opinion articles were, by a very large margin,

2 Of the 19 national newspapers featured in the study, one – the Daily Star Sunday – did not feature any articles in which critical or supportive views of aspects of press regulation were included.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 5 hostile to Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Out of 197 leader articles in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Charter, 156 (79.2%) were negative-only and just 7 (3.6%) were positive-only. In addition, 272 of 369 opinion articles (73.7%) were negative-only, with 55 (14.9%) positive-only.

• Newspapers belonging to News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were far more likely to be negative than those published elsewhere. The relevant opinion and leader articles published by this group of titles were extremely hostile to Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter: - 90.8% of all such articles were negative-only (347 of 382); - For every positive-only opinion or leader article published by these newspapers, more than 30 negative-only articles were published; - 84.8% of leader or opinion articles by these titles contained the argument that Leveson or the Charter represented a threat to press freedom.

Coverage of Press Regulation in Factual Articles

• As with opinion-based coverage, most of the press focused considerably more on critical views of Leveson and the Charter. Titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were again far more likely to publish articles containing views hostile to Leveson than titles published elsewhere: - 55.7% of all News articles by these five publishers contained only negative viewpoints, compared with 28.2% in titles published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson; - There were considerably fewer articles containing only supportive viewpoints (12.9% versus 29.8%) - The ‘threat to press freedom’ frame was more prevalent in the newspapers of these five publishers, being present in 65.8% of articles in which any viewpoint was expressed. This compared with 38.2% of such articles by other publishers

How the ‘Threat to Press Freedom’ was portrayed

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 6 articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation, and 60.7% of those in which a view of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed.

• The claim that press freedom was being threatened was often presented with no supporting evidence, no counter-argument, and without a quote by an identified source. Less than 30% of articles in which the ‘Threat’ argument was made included specific evidence to justify the claim. Only 14.8% of these articles included the counter-argument that Leveson or the Charter did not threaten press freedom or political interference, and less than half based the ‘Threat’ claim on a quote from an identified source.

• The language used to describe Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter was emotive, repetitive, and focused on freedom and government interference. There were hundreds of references to ‘press freedom’ in newspaper coverage of press regulation, and to ‘shackles’, ‘muzzles’, and ‘curbs’ on the press. Certain phrases were repeated across news and opinion articles, and several newspapers, indicating a lack of plurality in the presentation of press regulation. Opinion came increasingly to be presented as fact, crossing the divide from ‘leader’ and ‘opinion’ articles, to factual news articles, and there was evidence of arguments being replicated word-for-word across comment pieces.

How Coverage of Press Regulation Failed to Reflect Public Opinion

• Overall public opinion tended to be at odds with the negative line a majority of newspapers took on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. The majority of the public, in most polls (even excluding those commissioned by groups supportive of reform of press regulation) tended to be supportive of legal underpinning, supportive of the Leveson recommendations, and supportive of the Cross-Party Charter agreement reached in March, and of its specific provisions. This was in contrast to the strongly negative coverage of each of these issues in the national daily and Sunday press across the whole period of study.

• Individual newspapers did not reflect the viewpoints of their readership on matters of press regulation. Newspaper readerships displayed considerable consistency in terms of their support for the Leveson recommendations and Cross-Party Charter system. While there was some variation between titles (e.g. Sun readers being less supportive than other titles), each set of readers tended to be, by a ratio of at least two-to-one, in favour of their paper joining the Cross-Party Charter system. When surveyed on other aspects of regulatory reform, they supported legal underpinning, supported the Cross-Party Charter over the Industry Charter, and supported the Cross-Party Charter’s system of independent external review of a new regulatory system.

Therefore, though many media commentators have stressed that press regulation is not a ‘doorstep issue’ for the public, it was extensively covered by national

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 7 newspapers in the year following publication of the Leveson Report. At an average of almost six articles each day across the UK national press, most newspaper readers would have been aware of the issue.

Yet, most of them would have read a highly polarized perspective. For over 90% of these readers almost three-quarters of the articles they read on press regulation expressed a view. This included seven out of ten news reports.

Of the articles that expressed a view for these readers, 70% expressed only a negative view. As a consequence, most British news readers would rarely have been exposed to positive views about the Leveson recommendations or the Royal Charter.

This is despite the majority of news readers – and the broader public – holding positive views about the Leveson recommendations and the settlement agreed through Royal Charter. Based on opinion polls over the course of the year following the Leveson Report, a consistent 50-70% of the public wanted a system similar to the one Leveson recommended, and on average only 10-25% trusted newspapers to set up an adequate alternative on their own.

When newspapers’ own readers were polled at various times of the year, on average 50-60% wanted their newspaper to join the Cross-Party Royal Charter system, as opposed to around 10% who did not. For individual newspapers, results were similar to the average - even the most anti-Leveson papers did not persuade their own readers that the Cross-Party Royal Charter should be rejected, or that the newspaper industry’s own proposed systems were preferable.

Most national newspapers therefore pursued a strong editorial agenda in their news and comment pieces about press regulation that corresponded with their own interests and that did not fairly represent the views of their readers or the broader public.

It is difficult not to conclude that coverage of the Leveson report and its aftermath did not live up to the democratic ideal of a diverse range of voices representing the views of the British public.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 8 2. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

29 NOVEMBER 2012 Leveson Report published at 1.30pm. The 1,987-page report included 47 specific recommendations for a system of voluntary self-regulation of the press underpinned by an independent external recognition process. This process was to be supported by legal incentives for those who participated. Later that day the Prime Minister, having had 24 hours advance notice of the Report, rejected Leveson’s use of legislation, while broadly supporting the rest of the recommendations for Press self-regulation. The Deputy Prime Minister delivered a separate statement supporting implementation of Leveson’s recommendations, including statutory underpinning, though took issue with the specific recommendation that oversight of a new regulator should be granted to Ofcom, and also with certain recommendations concerning reform of the Data Protection Act. Labour called for full implementation of Leveson.

4 DECEMBER 2012 At a meeting with the Prime Minister newspaper editors were issued a deadline for reaching an agreement on implementing Leveson.

5 DECEMBER 2012 A meeting of newspaper editors at the Delaunay Restaurant claims consensus on ’40 of 47’ recommendations. However, documents leaked from the meeting indicate that, of Leveson’s 47 recommendations, fewer than half (23) were fully accepted.

10 DECEMBER 2012 Labour publishes a six-clause draft bill outlining underpinning of self-regulation, abandoning initial support for Ofcom as a recognition body.

12 DECEMBER 2012 Times editor James Harding, understood to have been instrumental in co-ordinating newspaper editors’ response to Leveson, resigns. ‘Delaunay agreement’ later said to have collapsed at this point.

13 DECEMBER 2012 Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin announces an initial plan for a Royal Charter to underpin a new press regulator. Newspaper publishers’ associations, including the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof), write to the Culture Secretary to announce that they, not editors, will take responsibility for self-regulatory reform.

31 DECEMBER 2012 An initial draft of a Royal Charter by the Conservatives is distributed to key stakeholders, including newspaper groups.

4 JANUARY 2013 Peter Wright, Editor Emeritus at Associated Newspapers, writes to Oliver Letwin, outlining 14 specific industry concerns with the 31st December draft Charter and specifying ‘red lines’ on issues that the industry would not accept.

6 JANUARY 2013 Campaign group Hacked Off publishes a draft ‘Leveson Bill’.

31 JANUARY 2013 Lord Puttnam tables a ‘Leveson amendment’ to the Defamation bill, which would establish a recognition commission for regulatory bodies that provide an arbitration service.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 9 12 FEBRUARY 2013 First draft of the Royal Charter (the ‘February 12th Charter’) published by the Conservatives. This Charter is a considerable distance from the Leveson recommendations, and is diluted from the draft circulated to newspaper groups on 31st December, including specific areas alterations to conform with industry ‘red lines’ as defined by Peter Wright in his letter of January 4th.

Paul Vickers, Chairman of the newspaper industry Implementation group set up to create a new press regulator, described the 12th February draft Charter as ‘the fruit of two months of intensive talks involving the newspaper and magazine industry and all three main political parties.’

The February 12th Charter: keeps control of the Standards Code in the hands of editors; raises the bar for third-party complaints; gives the newspaper industry a veto on appointments to the regulator; reduces the power of the regulator to direct corrections and apologise; limits the power of investigations; and provides no check in the event of failure. There is nothing to protect the Charter from amendment by ministers. Analysis shows that the February 12th Charter would allow a regulator set up in accordance with the Hunt-Black plan (the newspaper industry’s proposal for reform rejected as insufficient by Leveson) to be recognised, with minimal amendments. Records released by the Government later in 2013 show that during January and February 2013, newspaper executives and editors had more than 30 meetings with the Prime Minister, Oliver Letwin, and Culture Secretary Maria Miller.

Labour and Liberal Democrats both reject the February 12th Charter as unsatisfactory and call for changes to be made through cross-party talks.

14 FEBRUARY 2013 Cross-party talks restart to revise the February 12th Charter.

8 MARCH 2013 Lord Skidelsky tables a Leveson amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform bill which would create a form of statutory arbitration and a recognition commission to oversee a new press regulator.

14 MARCH 2013 David Cameron unilaterally walks out of cross-party talks on the Royal Charter. The following Monday a Commons vote is due on amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill that would implement aspects of the Leveson Report. Speculative Parliamentary arithmetic suggests that Cameron, who opposes these amendments, will lose the vote. Cameron therefore needs to agree a Royal Charter with Labour and the Liberal Democrats if he is to avoid a Parliamentary defeat

15 MARCH 2013 Labour and the Lib Dems publish an alternative version of the February 12th Charter that is much closer to Leveson’s original recommendations.

17 MARCH 2013 David Cameron and Nick Clegg agree on a draft Royal Charter. Royal Charter presented to Ed Miliband and then to victims’ campaign group Hacked Off.

18 MARCH 2013 A motion agreeing the text of the Royal Charter was put to the House of Commons which agreed it on a vote without division. Later that session, the amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill providing incentives to publishers that joined a recognised regulator was passed by 530 votes to 13. Also on 18th March, the House of Lords agreed an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill that prevented changes to the Royal Charter without two- thirds support in both Houses of Parliament.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 10 25 APRIL 2013 Some newspaper groups, via Pressbof, propose an alternative Royal Charter (the ‘Industry Charter’). This Charter is further from Leveson than any previous version according to a subsequent report by Enders Analysis. The recognition process is owned by Pressbof; party-political peers are allowed to serve at all levels; the powers of the regulator are diluted; editors retain control of the Standards Code; the investigations process is complex and favours the publishers over the regulator, and the investigations fund to be overseen by those subject to investigation; arbitration to be made optional.

3 MAY 2013 The Government commits to considering the Industry Charter before putting the Cross-Party Charter before the Privy Council. A consultation is launched with a deadline of 24th May.

4 JULY 2013 The decision on the Cross-Party Charter is delayed to give the Privy Council time to consider the Industry Charter.

7 JULY 2013 The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is announced by newspaper groups as a successor to the Press Complaints Commission.

8 OCTOBER 2013 Industry Charter rejected by Privy Council. PressBoF launches an appeal.

11 OCTOBER 2013 Cross-Party Charter amended slightly to make it map almost exactly to Leveson recommendations (e.g. returning the criteria for the Standards Code to those laid out in the Leveson Report). Concessions also made to industry to allay fears concerning arbitration: publishers to be allowed to opt out of arbitration if ‘serious financial harm’ demonstrated, and the regulator to be given the option of charging a ‘small administration fee’ for arbitration.

24 OCTOBER 2013 Final articles of IPSO are published. Subsequent analysis finds that, of 38 Leveson recommendations for independent and effective self-regulator, IPSO satisfies 12.

30 OCTOBER 2013 Cross-Party Charter sealed by the Privy Council and published. An addition to the 11th October draft makes clear that amendments to the Charter will require the unanimous agreement of the Board of the Recognition Panel (none of whom can be politicians). The timeframe for establishment of the Recognition Panel is amended.

180 Leveson Report 160 published Cross-Party Charter Cross-Party Charter 140 agreed in the House of Commons sealed by the Privy 120 Council and published

100 ‘February 12th Industry Charter rejected by Privy 80 Charter’ published ‘Industry Charter’ Council Number of articles 60 proposed ‘IPSO’ announced

0 01/11/2012 01/12/2012December01/01/2013 January01/02/2013 February01/03/2013March01/04/2013April01/05/2013May01/06/2013June01/07/2013 July01/08/2013August01/09/2013September01/10/2013October01/11/2013November01/12/2013 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 11 3. SAMPLING AND METHODOLOGY

Scope and purpose of the analysis

This project is a continuation of the Media Standards Trust analysis of UK national press coverage of the Leveson Inquiry.1 If follows directly on from the end of the previous study, and in most cases uses the same methods, to allow comparisons between both studies.

The project consists of original research: a content analysis of press regulation in the UK national press. Since coverage was so extensive – over 2,000 articles – the majority of the analysis is quantitative, and focuses on the volume, tone and framing of press regulation over a 12-month period.

This is a descriptive study, and while some contextual analysis is used to contextualise some of the results, it is not an attempt to determine ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ ways to cover press regulation or to interpret the policy implications of the Leveson Report/Royal Charter. These issues have been discussed extensively elsewhere. Instead, this report is intended to create a record of which arguments were deployed, and how the UK national press covered a public policy issue with significant implications for its own industry.

Sampling

The source material is national press coverage of press regulation; specifically, news articles, whether online or in print, published by the 19 main UK national daily and Sunday newspapers in the UK. The period of analysis follows directly from Part 1, beginning on the day of publication of the Leveson Report (29th November 2012) and ending one year later (29th November 2013). This technically covers 366 days, to account for the staggered publication of online articles throughout the day.

The sample of publications is based on the Audit Bureau of Circulation’s (ABC) list of national newspapers, excluding major regional titles such as the Evening Standard and major Scottish newspapers, and the i, which mainly repackages content from the Independent.

1 http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis- 090513-v2.pdf

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 12 Sampled newspapers

Dailies Sundays

Sun (including Sun on Sunday) Sunday Mirror

Daily Mirror People

Daily Star Daily Star Sunday

Daily Express Sunday Express

Daily Mail Mail on Sunday

The Times Sunday Times

Daily Telegraph Sunday Telegraph

Guardian Observer

Independent Independent on Sunday

Financial Times

The original sample for this analysis includes all news articles published between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013, containing any of the following search phrases:

1. “Leveson” 2. “Royal Charter” 3. “Privy Council” 4. “Independent Press Standards Organisation” 5. “IPSO” 6. “Press Standards Board of Finance” 7. “Pressbof” 8. “Hacked Off” 9. “Press Regulation” 10. “Press Laws”

These searches were applied to three sources: Factiva, Lexis Nexis, and internal online search functions on each newspaper’s site. Duplicate articles were removed, and where near-duplicate articles were found, as occasionally happened in online and print versions of the same article containing the same text, only the longer of the two articles was retained. Articles which included one or more of these search terms but which contained no information about press regulation were excluded. These mostly consisted of stories mentioning other Royal Charters, such as the BBC’s, or passing mentions of Leveson without any context. Most articles containing the search terms were relevant for the analysis.

The range of newspaper articles eligible for consideration was limited by whether they corresponded to four categories: ‘News’ and ‘Feature’ articles, and ‘Leader’ and ‘Opinion articles. This follows the methodology in Part 1 of the analysis, based on

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 13 Higgins’ (2006) typology of news stories.2 Therefore, a tiny amount of articles that contained one or more of the search terms, but did not fit into these categories were removed.

The final sample consisted of 2,047 articles.

Measuring coverage

The focus of analysis was on the prevalence of certain types of evaluative statements or opinions about the Leveson Inquiry. This follows the methodological approach of the previous analysis of Leveson coverage.

In the previous analysis, the arguments or ‘frames’ were: ‘supportive of Leveson’; ‘Leveson as a threat to press freedom’; ‘lack of legitimacy of the Inquiry’, ‘lack of public interest or relevance of Leveson’. These frames were recorded on the basis of whether or not they appeared in the text of articles, either attributed to a source (in the case of a factual news article), or written by a journalist (in opinion or leader articles, or in the body of a news article).

For the present analysis, this approach was expanded for articles mentioning the Leveson Report and, latterly, the Cross-Party Charter – with an extended list of ‘frames’ to better suit the circumstances in which the post-Leveson press regulation debate took place.

The full list of frames were devised after a pilot study which identified which type of evaluative arguments were being made in support of, or against, the Leveson Report and/or the Cross-Party Charter. The final list is as follows:

‘Positive’ statements:

• Supportive of Leveson Recommendations: Any statement in support of (a) the Leveson Report in general, or (b) any of its recommendations. • Supportive of statutory underpinning of press regulation: either (a) a statement in support specifically of the Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning; or (b) a general statement in support of statutory underpinning for press regulation. • Supportive of Royal Charter: Any statement in support of the Cross-Party Charter, or its specific provisions.

‘Negative’ statements:

• Threat to press freedom: Any reference to either Leveson or any proposed method of press regulation as a potential threat to press freedom, or to freedom of expression. • Criticism of Leveson recommendations/cross-party Royal Charter provisions: Any critical reference to specific recommendations in the

2 Higgins, M. (2006) ‘Substantiating a political public sphere in the Scottish press: a comparative analysis’, Journalism, 7(1) pp25-44

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 14 Leveson Report, or to any of the provisions of the Cross-Party Royal Charter. • Questions the Legitimacy of the Leveson Report: Critical references that directly imply that the Leveson Inquiry or Report were flawed, corrupt, or otherwise illegitimate (including conspiracy, narrowness of remit or expertise of the judge, misconception in setting-up of the Inquiry, waste of public money). • Damage to the UK’s international reputation: Any reference to either of two approximate arguments: that Britain will no longer set a good example for press freedom worldwide if Leveson or the Royal Charter system were to be implemented; or, the implementation of Leveson or the Royal Charter will be copied by undemocratic governments to crack down on journalists. • Criticism of the process of agreeing the Royal Charter: Critical references specifically to the process of agreeing the Royal Charter – references to the “pizza deal”, “stitch-up”, etc.

These frames were then used to ascertain whether an article was designated:

• ‘Positive-only’ (contained only a combination of supportive frames) • ‘Negative-only’ (contained only a combination of critical frames) • ‘Both’ (contained a combination of both supportive and critical frames) • ‘None’ (contained none of these frames)

In this analysis the focus, for much of the research, is on the prevalence of articles that contained any of the list of frames outlined here.

In addition to this list, two ‘neutral’ frames were also recorded, to ensure that all mentions of Royal Charters in the press regulation context were accounted for. Although these have no bearing on whether the article was ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ in tone, they helped to capture opinions on the Royal Charter process. These were:

Critical of the use of Royal Charter in principle: Any reference critical of using a Royal Charter in the area of press regulation.

Supports the use of Royal Charter in principle: Any reference in support of the idea of using a Royal Charter in place of statute to underpin a new system of press self-regulation.

To summarise: Each article was scanned to see if it contained any references to the list of eight contextual events listed above. If any of the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ frames were recorded in relation to the Leveson Report and/or the Cross-Party Charter, these were recorded.

A list of other, non-evaluative, variables were also measured as part of this analysis. The full list of these variables is included in Appendix 3

Some secondary analyses are included in this report. The methods employed in them are explained in the sections in which they appear.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 15 Validating the methods

Inter-Coder Reliability (ICR) testing was carried out on the framing variables, using a random sample of approximately 10% of the sample. A full description of the ICR testing process is described in Appendix 5; the ICR test scores are available to the public on the Media Standards Trust website.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 16 4. PRESS REGULATION COVERAGE: OVERALL FIGURES

Overall Figures – Full Sample

The project gathered every print and online article referring to aspects of press regulation published by the UK national press during a 12 month (or 366-day) period beginning on the day of publication of the Leveson Report (29th November 2012).1 Table 1 shows the total volume of coverage of press regulation:

Table 1: Total Coverage of Press Regulation, post-Leveson Report (N = 2,047)

Coverage of Press Regulation, 29/11/12 – 29/11/13 2,047 articles 1,153,240 words

Coverage of press regulation in the year beginning 29th November 2012 is extensive. 2,047 articles were published in print and online in the 10 daily and 9 Sunday national newspapers (full list of titles in Section 3 above), comprising a total of over 1.1 million words (excluding headlines). This is comparable with the Leveson Report itself, which consisted of 1,987 pages and slightly over one million words.2

Significantly, the amount of coverage over the course of this 12-month sample is almost identical to the volume of coverage recorded during the 18-month period of the Leveson Inquiry, signalling a substantial increase in the intensity of coverage.3

Coverage of press regulation following the Leveson Report has also been more commentary-driven than coverage of the Inquiry itself. Table 2 shows that the proportion of articles devoted to commentary (leaders and opinion) rose from just over one quarter (27.6%) over the course of the Leveson Inquiry, to over one third following the publication of the Leveson Report (35.5%).

Table 2: Proportion of Factual vs. Comment Coverage, pre- and post-Leveson Report (N = 2,047)

Part 1 (pre-Report) Part 2 (post-Report) News 1,399 69.4% 1,208 59.0% ‘Factual’ Coverage Feature 60 3.0% 1124 5.5% Leader 128 6.3% 217 10.6% ‘Comment’ Coverage Opinion 429 21.3% 510 24.9%

1 The full range of search terms and sampling methods are outlined in Section 3 above. 2 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-report-word- frequencies-statutory-self-regulation 3 From Part 1 of the Analysis: Between 11th July 2011 and 28th November 2012, 2,014 articles were published on the Leveson Inquiry, totalling 1,110,475 words (http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/ uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf, page 7)

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 17 As Figure 1 shows, coverage was more extensive in late November and December 2012 (around the publication of the Leveson Report), between February and April 2013 (when the three main Royal Charter drafts – the February 12th draft Charter, the Cross-Party Charter and the newspaper industry’s Charter – became public knowledge), and in October 2013 (when the Industry Charter was rejected by the Privy Council, and the final version of the Cross-Party Charter was sealed).

450 398 400 357 350

300 Negative views only: 256 834 250 236 No view expressed: Views expressed: 200 626 1,421 157 136 Positive views No. of of articles No. 150 121 only: 216 Both views 89 91 expressed: 371 100 71 76

50 28 31

Figure 1: Number of articles published, by month (N = 2,047)

Table 3 shows that thereDaily were Mail substantial (N = 251) differences in the volume of coverage each national newspaperSunday Telegraph devoted to (N the = issue.33) While different styles of publication (tabloid, mid-market, broadsheet)Sun may (N =be 179) expected to show differing levels of interest given their varying audiences and news values, there were significant differences within groups. The Sun, amongPeople tabloids, (N published= 5) more articles than the rest of the daily and Sunday tabloidsSunday combined, Times (N and = 53)more than some broadsheets. In the mid- market group the DailyDaily Mail Mirror took a far(N greater= 98) interest in the subject than the Daily Express, and within broadsheets the Guardian dominated. 4 Mail on Sunday (N = 53) Sunday Mirror (N = 13) Negative-only' Daily Telegraph (N = 270) Both Daily Star (N = 23) Positive-only' Times (N = 217) None Observer (N = 72) Daily Express (N = 94) Sunday Express (N = 16) Financial Times (N = 97) Guardian (N = 403) 4 This rise in Feature articles can be attributed to a large number of lists or infographics explain (a) the Leveson recommendations,Independent or (b) how (N the = various 148) proposed Royal Charter systems would operate Independent on Sunday (N = 21) Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part0% 2) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 18 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Table 3: Article breakdown, by title (N = 2,047)

Number of Percentage of Number Percentage Articles Total Online-only Online-Only Tabloids Sun 179 8.7% 6 0.3% Daily Mirror 98 4.8% 13 13.3% Daily Star 23 1.1% 2 8.7% Sunday Mirror 13 0.6% 0 0% Daily Star Sunday 1 >0.1% 1 100% People 5 0.2% 1 20% Mid-Markets Daily Express 94 4.6% 33 35.1% Sunday Express 16 0.8% 6 37.5% Daily Mail 251 12.3% 33 13.1% Mail on Sunday 53 2.6% 2 3.8% Broadsheets Times 217 10.6% 36 16.6% Sunday Times 53 2.6% 9 17.0% Daily Telegraph 270 13.2% 100 37.0% Sunday Telegraph 33 1.6% 7 21.2% Guardian 403 19.7% 199 49.4% Observer 72 3.5% 2 2.7% Independent 148 7.2% 7 4.7% Ind. on Sunday 21 1.0% 2 9.5% Financial Times 97 4.7% 25 25.8% Totals 2,047 100.0% 484 30.1%

The Guardian’s comparatively large volume of coverage is partly explained by its online presence; just under half of its articles were published online-only. In the entire sample, while the proportions of online-only coverage fluctuated across different titles, the majority of articles appeared both in print and online, or print- only. Overall, 484 articles (30.1% of the total sample) were only published online, with no print equivalent.

By breaking down the balance of types of coverage (Table 4), more differences emerge. While individual results for publications with low numbers of articles (e.g. Sunday tabloids, Sunday Express) can be skewed, there are some significant results. The Sun is notable for devoting slightly under half (46.9% - 39 leader and 45 opinion articles) of its coverage to commentary – the largest proportion of any daily national newspaper. Sunday newspapers, which traditionally devote more space to opinion pieces and interviews, tend to have more ‘opinion’ and ‘feature’ articles than daily

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 19 titles as a proportion of their coverage.

Table 4: Article type, by title (N = 2,047)

Titles News Feature Leader Opinion Tabloids No. % No. % No. % No. % Sun 92 51.4% 3 1.7% 39 21.8% 45 25.1% Daily Mirror 64 65.3% 5 5.1% 11 11.2% 18 18.4% Daily Star 21 91.3% 1 4.3% 0 0% 1 4.3% Sunday Mirror 2 15.4% 0 0% 2 15.4% 9 69.2% Daily Star Sunday 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% People 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% Mid-Markets No. % No. % No. % No. % Daily Express 80 85.1% 0 0% 2 2.1% 12 12.8% Sunday Express 12 75.0% 1 6.3% 2 12.5% 1 6.3% Daily Mail 145 57.8% 21 8.4% 47 18.7% 38 15.1% Mail on Sunday 25 47.2% 3 5.7% 8 15.1% 17 32.1% Broadsheets No. % No. % No. % No. % Times 161 74.2% 7 3.2% 21 9.7% 28 12.9% Sunday Times 24 45.3% 8 15.1% 10 18.9% 11 20.8% Daily Telegraph 172 63.7% 9 3.3% 24 8.8% 65 24.1% Sunday Telegraph 11 33.3% 3 9.1% 5 15.2% 14 42.4% Guardian 229 56.8% 27 6.7% 15 3.7% 132 32.8% Observer 14 19.4% 6 8.3% 5 6.9% 47 65.3% Independent 77 52.0% 7 4.7% 16 10.8% 48 32.4% Independent on Sunday 10 47.6% 3 14.3% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% Financial Times 68 70.0% 8 8.2% 9 9.3% 12 12.4%

The Guardian’s volume of opinion articles (132 – approximately one quarter of the total) is evidently partly due to the size of its online forum ‘Comment is Free’, although only around half (64 of 132) were only published online, indicating that a substantial proportion of its opinion pieces relating to press regulation were included in print editions. In contrast, at the Daily Telegraph, which has another substantial online comment forum in ‘Telegraph Blogs’, only 16 of 65 opinion pieces were published in the print version.

It is worth noting here that three publishers (News UK, publisher of the Sun, The Times, and the Sunday Times; DMG Media, publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday; Telegraph Media Group, publisher of the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph) account for over 70% of all leader articles published – 154 out of 217. The significance of this is explored in Section 6 below.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 20 Tone of Overall Coverage – Evaluating Leveson and the Royal Charter

Section 3 (above) outlines in depth the methodology used to calculate ‘Tone’ in coverage of press regulation. To recap briefly: for each article, the calculation of tone is based entirely on the presence of a list of ‘frames’, or specific arguments about Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Royal Charter (see Section 3 above for a full list and description). In other words, all 1,421 articles contained at least one of the arguments featured on the list.

Of the 2,047 total articles in the sample, 1,421 (69.4%) contained one or more evaluative statements for, or against, Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter by a source or within the text of the article. Unless otherwise stated, the results in the remainder of this section are derived from the 1,421 articles in which criticism or support for Leveson or the Charter were recorded. Table 5 shows the prevalence of the different frames in those articles:

Table 5: Number of instances of different arguments, N = 1,421

Critical/‘Negative’ Frames Number Prevalence Threat to press freedom/freedom of expression 862 60.7% Critical of specific Leveson Report/Charter recommendations 481 33.8% Questions the legitimacy of the Leveson Inquiry 116 8.2% Damage to UK’s reputation 84 5.9% Critical of the Charter agreement (‘pizza deal’) 140 9.9% Supportive/‘Positive’ Frames Number Prevalence Supportive of Leveson Report 364 25.6% Supportive of statutory underpinning recommendation specifically5 137 9.6% Supportive of Cross-Party Charter 236 16.6%

This shows that by far the most common argument was that the Leveson recommendations and/or the Cross-Party Royal Charter represented a potential threat to press freedom or to freedom of expression. This argument was recorded in 862 articles in total, or 60.7% of all articles containing any frames. 5

The second most common frame was criticism of specific recommendations of the Leveson Report, or of the provisions of the Cross-Party Charter, which occurred in slightly over one-third of relevant articles. Third most common were arguments in favour of the Leveson Report (in general or for specific recommendations), which occurred in just under one-quarter, followed by support for the Cross-Party Charter.

While Table 5 lists the instances of different frames in relevant articles, Table 6 shows how these instances of frames translated into a measurement of the tone of

5 This figure does not include two articles where the concept of statutory underpinning was supported, but the specific measures in the Cross-Party Charter were rejected.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 21 coverage.

Table 6: Framing: Balance of Tone, N = 1,421

Tone Frequency Percent ‘Positive-Only’ 216 15.2% ‘Negative-Only’ 834 58.6% ‘Both’ 371 26.1% Total 1,421 -

Of the articles that contained frames, 834 – or 58.6% - contained only ‘negative’ frames – that is, every opinion expressed in those articles was critical of either Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, or both. This is considerably more than double the number of articles that contain both, almost four times the number that contained only positive evaluative references, and more than the remainder of the total sample of 2,047 articles (626) that reported on press regulation but didn’t contain a view.

In other words, the largest proportion of all articles on press regulation published by the UK national press during the 12-month period dating from the publication of the Leveson Report contained only critical evaluative statements about either the Leveson recommendations or the Cross-Party Royal Charter (i.e. no supportive statements at all).

Chart 2: Articles containing viewpoints on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (N = 2,047)

450 398 400 357 350

300 Negative views only: 256 834 250 236 No view expressed: Views expressed: 200 626 1,421 157 136 Positive views No. of of articles No. 150 121 only: 216 Both views 89 91 expressed: 371 100 71 76

50 28 31

Daily Mail (N = 251) Sunday Telegraph (N = 33) Sun (N = 179) Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 22 People (N = 5) Sunday Times (N = 53) Daily Mirror (N = 98) Mail on Sunday (N = 53) Sunday Mirror (N = 13) Negative-only' Daily Telegraph (N = 270) Both Daily Star (N = 23) Positive-only' Times (N = 217) None Observer (N = 72) Daily Express (N = 94) Sunday Express (N = 16) Financial Times (N = 97) Guardian (N = 403) Independent (N = 148) Independent on Sunday (N = 21)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Table 7: Tone balance, by title (N = 1,421)

Tabloids Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative Sun 4 116 21 141 82.3% Daily Mirror 6 52 20 78 66.7% Daily Star 1 9 2 12 75.0% Sunday Mirror 4 6 1 11 54.5% Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 0% People 0 3 0 3 100% Mid-Markets Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative Daily Express 9 33 26 67 49.3% Sunday Express 6 5 4 15 33.3% Daily Mail 5 169 26 200 84.5% Mail on Sunday 2 25 4 31 80.6% Broadsheets Positive-only Negative-only Both Total % Negative Times 16 83 37 136 61.0% Sunday Times 5 30 10 45 66.7% Daily Telegraph 20 123 46 189 65.1% Sunday Telegraph 3 22 5 30 73.3% Guardian 86 86 64 236 36.4% Observer 10 26 12 48 54.2% Independent 22 19 56 97 19.6% Independent on 6 2 4 12 16.7% Sunday Financial Times 11 25 33 70 37.1%

As Table 7 shows, the majority of the national press contained a broadly negative focus on Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter. In the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, over 80% of articles containing evaluative references to Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter contained only negative references. In the Daily Mail, ‘negative-only’ articles outnumbered ‘positive-only’ by over 33-to-1; in the Sun the ratio was 29-to-1.

Variations are notable between newspaper publishers – News UK titles all recorded predominantly negative coverage, as did publications at DMG Media, Trinity Mirror and Telegraph Media Group. Northern and Shell titles were slightly less negative overall, while the Guardian (but not the Observer), Independent, Independent on Sunday, and Financial Times all contained relatively greater proportions of positive coverage and articles that contained both critical and supportive viewpoints. The difference in coverage across different publishing groups is explored further in Sections 5 – 8 below.

Table 8 compares the volume of ‘negative-only’ articles on press regulation, with

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 23 the full sample of 2,047 articles that contained any mention whatsoever of press regulation in the year following Leveson. Again, the Sun and Daily Mail stand out, alongside the Sunday Telegraph – approximately two-thirds of coverage of any aspect of press regulation in those titles contained wholly negative framing.

Table 8: Proportion of negative-only framing in total press-regulation coverage, by title (N = 2,047)

Total articles, Articles with Percentage of full sample (N = negative-only total articles, 2,047) frames negative-only Tabloids Sun 179 116 64.8% Daily Mirror 98 52 53.1% Daily Star 23 9 39.1% Sunday Mirror 13 6 46.2% Daily Star Sunday 1 0 0% People 5 3 60.0% Mid-Markets Daily Express 94 33 35.1% Sunday Express 16 5 31.2% Daily Mail 251 169 67.3% Mail on Sunday 53 25 47.2% Broadsheets Times 217 83 38.2% Sunday Times 53 30 56.6% Daily Telegraph 270 123 45.5% Sunday Telegraph 33 22 66.7% Guardian 403 86 21.3% Observer 72 26 36.1% Independent 148 19 12.8% Independent on 21 2 9.5% Sunday Financial Times 97 25 25.8%

Finally, Table 9 separates out the coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter as individual issues. The results show that both attracted a majority of ‘negative-only’ articles, which in the case of the Leveson Report outnumbered ‘positive-only’ articles by almost 3-to-1. This imbalance was even more pronounced for the Cross-Party Charter, where over four times as many ‘negative-only’ articles were published than ‘positive-only’ ones.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 24 450

400

350

300 Negative view only: 834 250 No view expressed: View expressed: 200 626 1,421 Positive view

No. of of articles No. 150 only: 216 Both views 100 expressed: 371

0 Chart 3: Balance of tone, by newspaper (N=2,047)7

Daily Mail (N = 251) Sunday Telegraph (N = 33) Sun (N = 179) People (N = 5) Sunday Times (N = 53) Daily Mirror (N = 98) Mail on Sunday (N = 53) Sunday Mirror (N = 13) Negative-only' Daily Telegraph (N = 270) Both Daily Star (N = 23) Positive-only' Times (N = 217) None Observer (N = 72) Daily Express (N = 94) Sunday Express (N = 16) Financial Times (N = 97) Guardian (N = 403) Independent (N = 148) Independent on Sunday (N = 21)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Table 9: Tone of coverage for the Leveson Report and Cross-Party Charter separately (N = 1,422)

Positive-only Negative-only Both % Negative Leveson Report (N = 791)6 160 441 190 55.8% Cross-Party Charter (N = 672) 91 433 148 64.5%

6 While these cases contain 42 articles where both the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Charter were subject to criticism and/or support, the two issues are treated separately. 7 Daily Star Sunday not included as only one article published, containing no views

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 25 Summary

Press Regulation Coverage: Overall Figures

• Coverage of press regulation in the UK national press was extensive. In the year following the publication of the Leveson Report, 2,047 articles were published across the national daily and Sunday press, an average of 5.6 articles per day as compared to 4.0 per day in the 18 months from July 2011 until publication of the Leveson report in November 2012.8 There were particularly high levels of coverage in three periods: in the aftermath of the publication of the Leveson Report; around the agreement on the Cross- Party Royal Charter in March 2013; and in October 2013, when the Royal Charter was sealed following the Privy Council’s rejection of the newspaper industry’s own draft Royal Charter.

8 See Part 1 of this analysis: http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 26 5. HOW EACH NEWSPAPER COVERED PRESS REGULATION

While the previous section presented the overall figures for coverage of press regulation in the UK national press, the analysis here focuses on how the individual newspapers covered press regulation.

The focus here is on three areas:

• Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, including examples of ‘Negative- only’, ‘Positive-only’ and ‘Both Positive and Negative’ Articles, to illustrate the nature of coverage • How other events relevant to press regulation were covered • The different approaches to coverage by different sections of the press

The results in this section are based – unless otherwise stated – on the subset of 1,421 articles in which viewpoints on press regulation were included.

How the newspapers covered Leveson and the Cross- Party Charter

As the results of the previous section demonstrated, the UK national press coverage of press regulation was highly partial and broadly negative about the main proposed solution: the recommendations in the Leveson Report, most of which were then incorporated in the Cross-Party Charter.

Over two-thirds of all articles contained an opinion about Leveson and the Charter, and of those articles, negativity predominated: the number of articles containing wholly negative views outnumber those that contained only supportive views by almost four-to-one, and articles containing both critical and supportive viewpoints by over two-to-one.

While that evidence is significant, demonstrating that the UK national press tended to oppose the reforms proposed in the Leveson Inquiry, it does not show the degree of diversity in how the 19 separate titles approached the issue.

This section explores how individual newspapers – grouped, for convenience, by publisher – covered press regulation. Given the large amount of data, the information on each newspaper is summarised here. Appendix 1 contains the full set of data for all 19 newspapers.

For each newspaper, a summary will be included here that lists the following measures:

• The ratio of articles that contained only negative references to Leveson or the Royal Charter, against those which contained only positive references. • The percentage of articles in which Both supportive and critical viewpoints

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 27 are featured • The prevalence (expressed as a percentage of those articles in which a view was expressed) of the argument that Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter represented a threat to press freedom or freedom of expression.

News UK Titles

The Sun

Summary of coverage in the Sun

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

29 : 1 14.9% 79.4%

The Sun featured an overall total of 179 articles that mentioned press regulation – a large volume relative to other tabloids, which may be partly explained by the paper’s seven-day publication.1

Table 1: The Sun - Press regulation coverage data

Articles: With frame(s): 141 Overall: 179

Positive-only: 4

Negative-only: 116

Tone: Both: 21

Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 82.2%

Negative-to-positive ratio: 29 : 1

Negative Positive

Threat (with % prevalence): 112 (79.4%) Supports Leveson: 12

Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 31 Supports underpinning: 3 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 13 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 13

International Reputation: 9

Critical of March 17th Process: 12

Of these 179 articles, 141 contained a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (expressed via one of the ‘frames’ listed in Section 3 above). Negative-only articles dominated: 116 in total, or 82.2% of all those articles in which one or more views were expressed. The ratio of negative-only to positive-only articles was 29-to-1, one of

1 Full results for The Sun and all other newspapers are in Appendix 1

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 28 the highest ratios in the sample. Overall, coverage was highly negative – combining the articles where ‘both’ positive and negative views were expressed with those in which only one side was represented shows the extent of the imbalance: 137 articles (97%) contained a negative view, and just 25 (18%) contained a positive one.

As separate issues, the Sun’s coverage of both the Leveson Report and the Cross- Party Charter was negative – 86.7% (72/83) of articles expressing a view on Leveson were negative-only, as were 76.7% (46/60) of those where a view on the Charter was included (these figures for each title can be found in Appendix 1).

The Sun tended to frame press regulation as a threat to press freedom. This frame was recorded in 112 articles – 79.4% of articles where a view was expressed, and over 60% of all 179 articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation.

The Times and Sunday Times

Summary of coverage in The Times

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

5.3 : 1 27.0% 61.3%

The Times published a total of 217 articles on press regulation in this period. Of these 217 articles, around two-thirds (137) contained evaluative statements about Leveson or the Charter (see Appendix 1). Again, coverage was negative, though slightly less negative than the Sun (61.3% negative-only, a ratio of over five to one). Again, Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter each received a majority of negative coverage, although this time there was a marked difference between the two. Around half (47.4%) of articles expressing a view on Leveson contained only critical viewpoints; this figure was 71.4% for articles concerning the Charter. The issue was most frequently framed as a threat to press freedom – this view appeared in 82 articles (59.9%).

Summary of coverage in the Sunday Times

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

6 : 1 22.2% 77.8%

The Sunday Times published 53 articles on press regulation in this period. 45 of these articles were evaluative (as opposed to neutral). Two-thirds of evaluative articles were ‘negative-only’, only five were ‘positive-only’. This represents a negative to positive ratio of 6:1. The Sunday Times was highly negative towards both Leveson

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 29 (64.3%) and the Cross-Party Charter (71.4%). Almost eight in ten of evaluative articles contained the ‘threat’ frame (35 articles, 77.8% of those expressing a view).

Overall, all three News UK titles expressed an overwhelmingly negative view of Leveson and the Charter. The Sun’s balance of 29 negative-only articles to every positive article is notably high, and is accompanied by the fact that under 15% of Sun articles contained both critical and supportive views. It is instructive, too, that both News UK broadsheets also contained a substantial imbalance of negative to positive articles (5 to 1 in The Times and 6 to 1 in the Sunday Times), and low levels of articles containing both positive and negative viewpoints (27% and 22.2% respectively).

DMG Media Titles

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday

Summary of coverage in the Daily Mail

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

33.8 : 1 13.0% 73.5%

The Daily Mail’s volume of coverage is comparable with many of the broadsheet newspapers – 251 articles, 200 of which contained a view on Leveson or the Cross- Party Charter. The Daily Mail was, of all newspapers, the most negative, both in terms of volume and proportion. 169 articles contained only negative viewpoints (84.5% of those which contained a view), compared with just five that contained only positive views – a ratio of over 33:1. Again the ‘threat frame’ was extremely common, expressed in 147 articles, but other critical frames were also present – 74 articles contained specific criticisms of the Leveson recommendations, 31 questioned the legitimacy of Leveson, 41 were critical of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party Charter on March 17th, and 12 contained the criticism that the UK’s international reputation would be harmed by Leveson.

Summary of coverage in the Mail on Sunday

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

12.5 : 1 12.9% 74.2%

The Mail on Sunday was also overwhelmingly negative, although with a smaller number of articles overall (53, of which 31 expressed a view), which amplifies the effect of small variations in numbers. In total, 80.6% of articles expressing a view contained only negative statements on Leveson/the Charter, a ratio of more than 12

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 30 negative-only articles to one positive-only. As with all titles discussed so far, both Leveson (78.5% Negative-only) and the Cross-Party Charter (89.5% Negative) were subject to a majority of negative coverage. Again, the ‘threat’ frame was the most prominent, appearing in 23 (74.2%) articles, where a view was expressed.

Telegraph Media Group

The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph

Summary of coverage in the Daily Telegraph

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

6.2 : 1 24.3% 75.7%

After the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph published the third- highest number of articles containing a view on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter – 189 – out of a total of 270 articles on press regulation in this period. The Sunday Telegraph was less prolific, publishing 30 articles in which a view was expressed, out of a total of 33. Both newspapers contained a majority of negative viewpoints (65.1% ‘negative-only’ in the Daily Telegraph; 73.3% in the Sunday Telegraph; respective negative to positive ratios of over 6:1 and over 7:1). The ‘threat’ frame was similarly prevalent, articulated in 75.7% of those Daily and 86.7% of Sunday Telegraph articles where a view was expressed.

Summary of coverage in the Sunday Telegraph

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

7.3 : 1 16.7% 73.3%

Though the balance was towards negative, the Daily Telegraph did contain a higher degree of positive framing than noted in the titles discussed so far: 41 articles contained one or more statement that was supportive of the Leveson Report (21.7% of the total), and 26 contained one or more statement that was supportive of the Cross-Party Charter (13.8%). However, these accounted for fewer than half of the references to a perceived ‘threat to press freedom’ alone.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 31 Trinity Mirror

The Daily Mirror

Summary of coverage in the Daily Mirror

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

8.7 : 1 25.6% 82.1%

The Daily Mirror published a total of 98 articles on press regulation in this period, of which 78 (79.6%) expressed a view. As with its tabloid rival the Sun, a majority of the articles in the Daily Mirror that expressed a view were negative-only (66.7% of 78 articles expressing a view). This was a relatively smaller proportion in comparison to the Sun, and the Mirror’s ‘positive-only to negative-only’ ratio, at slightly under nine to one, was also less pronounced (although still markedly negative). This is partly explained by the Mirror’s different approach to Leveson (54.1% negative- only) and the Cross-Party Charter (76.7% negative-only). Again, however, the ‘threat’ frame dominated, appearing in 82.1% of articles expressing a view.

The Sunday Mirror and Sunday People

Summary of coverage in the Sunday Mirror

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

1.5 : 1 9.1% 54.5%

Summary of coverage in the Sunday People

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

N/A: 3/3 Negative-only 0% 100%

Trinity Mirror’s Sunday titles contained a very small number of articles: 13 overall for the Sunday Mirror and just five in the People. The numbers for the People are so small that valid comparison is difficult, but similarities of coverage are apparent: of the three articles in which a view was expressed, all were negative-only, and all contained the ‘threat’ frame.

The Sunday Mirror diverges slightly in that the percentage of negative-only articles is significantly smaller (54.5%, with 50% of articles expressing a view about the

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 32 Cross-Party Charter containing only positive opinions). This would appear in part to be down to the very small number of articles (6 negative-only vs 4 positive-only), and the effect of a weekly column by Lord Prescott broadly supporting the Cross- Party Charter on more than one occasion.

Northern and Shell

The Daily Express and Sunday Express

Summary of coverage in the Daily Express

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

3.7 : 1 38.2% 64.7%

The Daily Express published 94 articles on press regulation in this period, of which 72.3% - 68 articles – expressed a view. The Sunday Express published 16 articles on press regulation in this period of which 93.8%% - 15 articles – expressed a view.

While every newspaper covered so far has followed a similar formula of: a majority of negative coverage; high ratios of positive-to-negative coverage; and a high prevalence of the ‘threat’ frame, the Express titles were less systematically negative in their coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. ‘Negative-only’ articles accounted for 48.5% of articles containing views in the Daily Express, although these still outnumbered ‘positive-only’ articles by almost four to one, and the ‘threat’ featured in almost two-thirds of articles expressing a view.

Summary of coverage in the Sunday Express

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ Both views Articles frame represented

0.8 : 1 26.7% 53.3%

The Sunday Express was considerably less negative – it is the only title so far mentioned where there were more ‘positive-only’ (6) articles than ‘negative-only’ (5). As with the Sunday Mirror this may be in part down to the small sample (16 articles overall, with 15 containing one or more frames), although it is also the case that there were more articles supporting Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (10 in total) than contained the ‘threat’ frame (8), partly due to a small number of articles (4 in total) that contained quotes or references to victims or members of the Hacked Off campaign.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 33 The Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday

Summary of coverage in the Daily Star

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

9 : 1 16.7% 83.3%

The Daily Star published 23 articles on press regulation in this period. Of the articles that expressed a view, 9 (or 75%) were negative-only, compared to just one positive- only article. As with the Express, the sample size is much smaller than in most of the other nationals. The threat frame appeared in 10 of 12 articles in which any view was expressed.

Summary of coverage in the Daily Star Sunday

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

N/A: No views N/A N/A

The Daily Star Sunday featured just one article on press regulation (according to the sampling technique applied in this project), and this did not feature an evaluative statement about Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. This indicates that the title did not believe its audience would be interested in the issue.

Guardian Media Group

The Guardian

Summary of coverage in the Guardian

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ Both views Articles frame represented

1 : 1 27.3% 35.2%

The Guardian represents a substantial departure from the style of coverage analysed up to this point. Indeed, the difference in coverage in the remaining titles discussed here is such that it is possible to explore structural differences in how certain sections of the national press covered the issue. These structural differences will be explored further in the last part of this section.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 34 Table 2 shows the contrast in coverage, in comparison with the Sun’s figures in Table 1 (data for all newspapers is set out in Appendix 1). The Guardian covered the issue extensively – 405 articles in total, of which 236 contained one or more evaluative statements about Leveson or the Charter. Of these, 36.4% contained only negative viewpoints, with an almost equal proportion of ‘positive-only’ articles. Significantly, only 35.2% of articles expressing a view contained the ‘threat’ frame. While many articles did contain one or more critical/negative frames, there were a greater number of instances of articles containing positive frames: 101 articles contained statements supportive of the Leveson recommendations, 60 articles contained statements supportive of the Cross-Party Charter, for instance.

The Observer

Summary of coverage in the Observer

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

2.6 : 1 21.7% 30.4%

For a Sunday title, the Observer contained a relatively high number of stories on press regulation – 70 in total, more than one per week of the sample – of which 48 contained a viewpoint. Coverage was more negative than the Guardian, with 26 articles (54.2%) containing only negative viewpoints, more than double the proportion that contained only positive views or that contained both positive and negative perspectives. The ‘threat’ frame was, in keeping with the Guardian, far less prevalent than in other titles, and was overshadowed by a critical focus on specific aspects of the Leveson recommendations and/or the provisions in the Cross-Party Charter.

Independent Print Ltd.

The Independent

Summary of coverage in the Independent

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

0.9 : 1 57.7% 30.9%

While the Guardian contained a greater proportion of ‘positive-only’ articles relative to other newspapers so far, the Independent is notable in the space devoted to articles containing both positive and negative viewpoints. While the focus on press

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 35 regulation was significantly lower than at the Guardian (148 articles, of which 97 expressed a view), less than one in five articles was ‘negative-only’, while 57.7% contained both critical and supportive viewpoints. A comparably low proportion of articles contained the ‘threat’ frame, and again it was not the most prevalent frame; like the Guardian and Observer more articles contained specific criticisms of recommendations, and more frames were supportive of Leveson and the Cross- Party Charter.

The Independent on Sunday

Summary of coverage in the Independent on Sunday

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ both views Articles frame represented

0.3 : 1 33.3% 33.3%

The Independent on Sunday contained very few articles on press regulation overall, so comparisons should be treated with care. However, similar characteristics to the Independent and the GMG titles can be seen: a low proportion of ‘negative-only’ articles, more articles with positive references, and less common reference to the ‘threat’ frame, which appeared in just four out of 12 articles in which any view was expressed.

Pearson

The Financial Times

Summary of coverage in the Financial Times

% articles where Negative vs. Positive Prevalence of ‘threat’ Both views Articles frame represented

2.3 : 1 47.8% 37.2%

Finally, the FT published 97 articles overall, of which 69 expressed a view. Of these, like the Independent, the greatest proportion contained both positive and negative viewpoints (33 articles, or 47.8%). Negative-only articles outnumbered positive-only articles by over two to one, but the threat frame was not as prominent, being present in 37.7% of articles, fewer than those articles mentioning specific reservations about the recommendations for reform of regulation in the Leveson Report or the Cross- Party Charter.

Overall, as this analysis has shown, three things have characterised the coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter in the UK national press (see Table 2):

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 36 • In most newspapers the overwhelming majority of evaluative coverage was negative. This fluctuated across different titles; in 15 out of 19 newspapers the proportion of articles containing only negative viewpoints outweighed the proportion containing only positive viewpoints. The Daily Mail had over 33 negative-only articles for every one positive-only article; the Sun had 29 negative-only articles for every positive-only article. Several broadsheets also contained this imbalance, though in a less pronounced manner. • The proportion of evaluative articles where both critical and supportive viewpoints were included was generally low – in only two titles (the Independent and the Financial Times) did a large proportion of such articles contain both sides of the argument. • The ‘threat’ frame was overwhelmingly dominant. In many titles it appeared in over three-quarters of evaluative articles.

Table 2: Comparing newspaper coverage - key indicators

Prevalence of ‘threat’ Negative-only : Percentage where Both Title frame in articles Positive-only views represented expressing a view

Daily Mail 33.8 : 1 13.0% 73.5% Sun 29 : 1 14.9% 79.4% Mail on Sunday 12.5 : 1 12.9% 74.2% Daily Star 9 : 1 16.7% 83.3% Daily Mirror 8.7 : 1 25.6% 82.1% Sunday Telegraph 7.3 : 1 16.7% 73.3% Daily Telegraph 6.2 : 1 24.3% 75.7% Sunday Times 6 : 1 22.2% 77.8% Times 5.3 : 1 27.0% 61.3% Daily Express 3.7 : 1 38.2% 64.7% Observer 2.6 : 1 21.7% 30.4% Financial Times 2.3 : 1 47.8% 37.2% Sunday Mirror 1.5 : 1 9.1% 54.5% Guardian 1 : 1 27.3% 35.7% Independent 0.9 : 1 57.7% 30.9% Sunday Express 0.8 : 1 26.7% 53.3% Independent on Sunday 0.3 : 1 33.3% 33.3% People N/A: 3/3 Negative-only 0% 100% Daily Star Sunday N/A: No views N/A N/A

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 37 Ratio: Number of Negative articles to everyChart Positive 1: Numberarticle, by newspaper of negative (N = 1,421)articles for every positive article, by newspaper (N=1,421)1 Independent on Sunday0.3 (N = 21) Sunday Express (N 0.8= 16) Daily Mail (N = 251) 33.8 Independent (N = 148)0.9 Sun (N = 179) 29 Guardian (N = 403) 1 Sunday Mirror (N =1.5 13) Mail on Sunday (N = 53) 12.5 Financial Times (N 2.3= 97) Daily Star (N = 23) 9 Observer (N = 72) 2.6 Daily Mirror (N = 98) 8.7 Daily Express (N = 94)3.7Sunday Telegraph (N = 33) 7.3 Times (N = 217) 5.3Daily Telegraph (N = 270) 6.2 Sunday Times (N = 53)6 Sunday Times (N = 53) 6 Daily Telegraph (N 6.2= 270) Times (N = 217) 5.3 Sunday Telegraph (N7.3 = 33) Daily Mirror (N = 98)8.7 Daily Express (N = 94) 3.7 Daily Star (N = 23) 9 Observer (N = 72) 2.6 Mail on Sunday (N12.5 = 53)Financial Times (N = 97) 2.3 Sun (N = 179) 29 Sunday Mirror (N = 13) 1.5 Daily Mail (N = 251)33.8 Guardian (N = 403) 1 Independent (N = 148) 0.9 Sunday Express (N = 16) 0.8 Independent on Sunday (N = 21) 0.3

There is, however, evidence of a structural difference in how certain publishers covered the issue. In general, the Guardian and Independent titles, along with the FT, tended to have a closer ratio of negative-only to positive-only articles (ranging from 2.6 : 1 in the Observer to 0.3 : 1 in the Independent on Sunday), and a greater NB - Daily Star Sunday notpercentage included, as no of articles evaluative contained anyarticles views, Peoplecontaining not included, both because critical 3/3 articles and were supportive negative views of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, and proportionally fewer references to the threat to press freedom. 2

2 Daily Star Sunday not included, as no articles contained any views; People not included, because 3/3 articles were negative

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 38 How other relevant events were covered

The results for each of the national newspapers show that coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter was, in the majority of papers, overwhelmingly negative. Table 3 compiles the balance of coverage in each newspaper for both the Leveson Report and recommendations, and the Cross-Party Charter as separate issues.

The percentages in Table 3 denote the largest proportion of articles for each title, by tone category: those that are wholly negative, wholly positive, or contain both negative and positive viewpoints. For instance, of the Sun articles that contained a viewpoint on the Cross-Party Charter, 76.7% contained only negative views, while, of Independent articles about Leveson, 40.4% contained both positive and negative opinions (more than the proportion of negative-only or positive-only articles).

Table 3: Balance of Coverage of Leveson and Cross-Party Charter (N = 1,421)

Balance: Cross-Party Title No. of articles Balance: Leveson Charter Sun 141 86.7% Negative 76.7% Negative Daily Mirror 78 54.1% Negative 76.7% Negative Sunday Mirror 11 66.7% Negative 50.0% Positive People 3 100% Negative 100% Negative Daily Star 12 83.3% Negative 66.7% Negative Daily Star Sunday 0 N/A N/A Daily Express 68 = Negative & Both 74.1% Negative Sunday Express 15 50.0% Positive 66.7% Negative Daily Mail 200 86.2% Negative 85.0% Negative Mail on Sunday 31 76.5% Negative 89.5% Negative Times 137 47.4% Negative 71.4% Negative Sunday Times 45 64.3% Negative 71.4% Negative Daily Telegraph 189 61.2% Negative 70.5% Negative Sunday Telegraph 30 46.2% Negative 94.4% Negative Guardian 238 45.0% Positive 46.8% Negative Observer 46 57.7% Negative 53.8% Negative Independent 97 40.4% Both 66.7% Both Independent on Sunday 12 = Positive & Both 80.0% Positive Financial Times 69 51.2% Both 42.9% Negative

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 39 This is in itself a significant conclusion. However, the issue of press regulation became more complex in the year following Leveson, as the timeline in Section 2 (above) illustrates. While this project was primarily based around analysing the coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, a secondary analysis was also undertaken to see how other related issues were covered during the time period of the study.

The additional six events chosen for analysis (also outlined in full in Section 3 above) were:

• The February 12th Draft Royal Charter, drafted by the Conservatives in consultation with the newspaper industry • David Cameron’s decision to suspend cross-party talks on a new Charter on March 14th • The Industry Royal Charter presented as a rival to the Cross-Party Charter in April 2013 • IPSO – the Independent Press Standards Organisation: the newspaper industry’s new regulator, launched in July 2013 • The Privy Council’s decision to reject the Industry Charter in early October 2013 • The Privy Council’s sealing of the Cross-Party Charter in late October 2013

The reasons for choosing this list are set out in the timeline in Section 2: briefly, these were the most significant events relating to the implementation of a new system of press regulation, and each received a high number of articles (although some events attracted more articles than others).

Because of the scope of the project and the scale of the frame analysis of articles about Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, it was decided that a similar analysis of a further six events would be unrealistic. Instead, these six events were measured in terms of whether coverage was ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ (or both); the ‘tone’ frames were not applicable in this case. The full dataset for this project contains an explanation for decisions in all these cases, and is accessible on the Media Standards Trust website.3

In total, 388 articles contained an evaluative statement (‘positive’, ‘negative’, or ‘both’) on these issues. As the first column of Table 4 shows, some articles contained evaluative references to more than one of these events. In all, there were 440 instances across the 388 articles of evaluative references to the different separate events.

Table 4 also shows the spread of articles containing views on the events. The volume of coverage for the single events (Cameron’s decision to end talks, the decisions to reject or seal the rival Charters) was, as may be expected, lower than for the published documents or ongoing events, such as the Industry Charter.

3 http://mediastandardstrust.org/mst-news/media-standards-trust-content-analysis-how-the-uk- press-covered-leveson-and-the-royal-charter-dataset-published/

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 40 The Industry Charter, created and submitted to the Privy Council by the newspaper industry funding body, Pressbof, received the most coverage, with 130 articles where a view was expressed. The majority (75) of those articles contained only supportive views – 57.7%, as compared with 35 (26.9%) that contained only critical views. Only 20 (15.4%) articles contained both.

119 articles contained a positive and/or negative reference to the February 12th Charter, with the press somewhat more split, and a plurality (50 articles, or 42.0%) containing both supportive and critical viewpoints. This perhaps reflects the fact that there was a great deal of uncertainty around the issue of the use of a Royal Charter in place of statute to underpin press regulation, and a high degree of speculation on what the content of the Charter would be in the weeks before the details were announced . Overall, there were more than double the articles containing only positive views on the draft Charter than there were negative-only articles. Uncertainty was also evident in the coverage of Cameron’s decision to end the cross-party negotiations over the final form of what would eventually become the Cross-Party Charter.

Table 4: Articles containing evaluative statements on events in press regulation

No. of articles Event Positive-only Negative-only Both where event is (in chronological order) (with %) (with %) (with %) referenced

Feb 12th Royal Charter 119 47 (39.5%) 22 (18.5%) 50 (42.0%) Cameron’s Decision 30 11 (36.7%) 11 (36.7%) 8 (26.7%) Industry Charter 130 75 (57.7%) 35 (26.9%) 20 (15.4%) IPSO 81 53 (65.4%) 13 (16.0%) 15 (18.5%) Industry Charter Rejected 55 4 (7.3%) 48 (87.3%) 3 (5.5%) Cross-Party Charter Sealed 25 2 (8.0%) 15 (60.0%) 8 (32.0%)

The third most-covered of these events was the Independent Press Standards Organisation, launched in April 2013 (and later finalised in October). The majority of the 81 articles where a view was expressed – 53, or 65.4% - contained only positive views on IPSO. In contrast, the decision by the Privy Council to reject the Industry Charter on October 8th was subject to an overwhelming majority of negative coverage: 87.3% or articles on that topic contained only negative views. The sealing of the Cross-Party Charter around three weeks later attracted fewer articles, but also received a majority of negative-only articles.

This suggests that most newspapers tended to be considerably less critical of industry- backed initiatives than of events beyond the control of aspects of the industry. Table 6 explores this further, compiling the tone of coverage of each of the events by title.4

4 All of the information in Table 5 is derived from the data tables in Appendix 1

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 41 Table 5: ‘Predominant tone’ of coverage of events, by title (N = 1,421)

Feb 12th Industry Title Cameron IPSO Rejected Sealed RC Charter

= Neg & Sun 70.0% Pos = Pos & Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos 75.0% Neg Both

Daily Mirror 55.7% Pos =Pos & Neg 75.0% Neg 100% Pos 100% Neg 66.7% Neg

Sunday Mirror 100% Neg 100% Pos

People 100% Pos

Daily Star = Pos & Neg 100% Neg

Daily Star Sunday

Daily Express 100% Pos 100% Pos 42.9% Both = Pos & Neg 100% Neg

Sunday Express 66.7% Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg

= Neg & Daily Mail 66.7% Pos 100% Both 83.3% Pos 88.9% Pos 100% Neg Both

Mail on Sunday 100% Pos = Pos & Neg 100% Pos 100% Pos

= Neg & Times 55.6% Pos 53.8% Pos 75.0% Pos 83.3% Neg = Pos & Neg Both

Sunday Times 50% Pos 100% Pos 85.7% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 66.7% Neg

Daily Telegraph 45.0% Pos 66.7% Neg 76.2% Pos 70.0% Pos 85.7% Neg 100% Neg

Sunday Telegraph 100% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Neg

Guardian 48.3% Both 66.7% Both 54.5% Neg 52.6% Neg 83.3% Neg 100% Neg

Observer 66.7% Neg 100% Neg 66.7% Pos 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Neg

= Neg & Independent 75.0% Both 55.6% Both 60.0% Both = Pos & Neg 100% Both Both

Independent on Sunday 100% Pos 100% Neg 100% Pos = Pos & Neg

Financial Times 77.8% Both 66.7% Pos 66.7% Both = Pos & Neg 66.7% Both

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 42 The information here shows two overall trends:

First, there is, for the most part, a significant degree of uniformity of tone on the various issues. For example, 12 out of 19 newspapers contained a majority (always over 75%) of negative-only articles on the rejection of the Industry Charter by the Privy Council. Likewise, IPSO received a majority of positive-only coverage across most newspapers, as did the Industry Royal Charter. Opinion was more balanced on Cameron’s decision to end cross-party negotiations, and while significantly more newspapers had a majority or plurality of positive-only coverage of the February 12th Charter, the level of support tended to be slightly lower.

Second, there is an apparent difference in the structure of coverage in the Independent titles and the Financial Times, in comparison with the rest. These three newspapers were more likely to contain articles that provided a balance of both critical and supportive viewpoints on the various issues. This reinforces trends observed elsewhere in this section that there are substantial differences in how different sections of the newspaper industry have covered press regulation.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 43 Two styles of coverage

The combined evidence of coverage of Leveson and the Royal Charter broken down by the different titles, and the way that the various titles dealt with other issues related to press regulation indicate that, although there has been a degree of conformity in how press regulation has been covered, there appear to be divergences in how different sections of the press have covered the issue. A substantial portion of the press contained a significant majority of negative coverage of both Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, a high level of polarisation in coverage (i.e. low levels of articles that contain ‘both’ critical and supportive viewpoints), and a very high prevalence of articles containing claims that the Leveson recommendations represented a threat to press freedom.

Another grouping of newspapers followed a less polarised approach – or in the case of the Guardian a polarised approach in which negative and positive articles featured in similar proportions – and all of these contained a significantly higher proportion of articles containing a balance of viewpoints

The analysis below shows that a substantial difference in tone and focus of coverage can be found between two groups of newspapers: those newspapers that are published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell – which have been strongly negative towards Leveson and the Royal Charter; and those published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson.5 This was tested by measuring the results of three indicators across both groups, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: How different sections of the press covered Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter (N = 1,421)

News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Guardian Media Group, Mirror, Telegraph Media Independent Print Ltd, Pearson Group, Northern & Shell

Percentage of articles 70.5% 34.2% ‘Negative-only’ Percentage of articles ‘Positive- 8.4% 29.2% only’ Percentage of articles 21.1% 36.6% containing ‘Both’ viewpoints ‘Negative-only’ to ‘Positive- 8.3 : 1 1.2 : 1 only’ Ratio Prevalence of ‘Threat’ frame in 73.3% 34.4% evaluative articles

5 It could be argued that the Northern & Shell titles represent a slight anomaly (the Daily Star and its Sunday partner contained very low levels of coverage relative to comparable, while the Express titles diverged in their levels of negativity). They have been included in the first group due to their strongly negative approach to the Cross-Party Charter, and the high prevalence of the ‘Threat’ frame in the Daily Express and Daily Star.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 44 As the results of Table 6 show, both groups score very differently on all measures. Among the first group, 70.5% of articles (677 of 960) where a view was expressed on Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter contained only negative or critical viewpoints. For the second group, this proportion was less than half – 34.2% (158 of 462 relevant articles. Translating this into the total sample of 2,047 articles (including those that contained no evaluative opinions on Leveson), while approximately one fifth (21.3%) of articles published in the second group contained only negative viewpoints, over half (51.8%) of the first group did.

Likewise, the ratio of ‘positive-only’ to ‘negative-only’ articles was far higher in the first group: for every positive-only article, there were more than eight articles containing only critical viewpoints. In comparison, the second group (Guardian/ Observer/Independent/Independent on Sunday/FT) had similar proportions of negative and positive articles, a ratio of 1.2 : 1.

In addition, the first group was far more likely to publish articles containing the argument that Leveson and/or the Cross-Party Charter represented a threat to press freedom. Over three-quarters of articles where a view was expressed contained this frame. In the second group this figure was again less than half: 34.4%.

Assuming these measures represent a substantially different approach to covering the issue of press regulation (or at least the most significant aspects of press regulation during the study period – Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter), two issues are of particular significance here:

1. The newspapers in the first group, presenting coverage that is strongly anti-Leveson and far more likely to include the threat frame, accounts for over 90% of weekly circulation of national newspapers, and approximately three-quarters of the different titles in the national newspaper market. 2. The publishers in the first group – with the partial exception of Northern & Shell – publicly rejected Leveson’s recommendations, rejected the Cross- Party Charter, and have been active in setting up IPSO.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 45 Summary

• The majority of national newspapers contained a high proportion of negative-only coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Certain newspapers featured a significant majority of negative-only coverage: for every article in the Daily Mail that contained only positive viewpoints, there were more than 33 that contained only critical views. In the Sun, this ratio was 1 : 29. Of 18 newspapers that published articles with viewpoints on Leveson or the Charter,6 14 contained more negative-only than positive- only articles; in nine titles the imbalance was by a ratio of over five to one.

6 Of the 19 national newspapers featured in the study, one – the Daily Star Sunday – did not feature any articles in which critical or supportive views of aspects of press regulation were included.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 46 6. COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION IN LEADER AND OPINION ARTICLES

This section analyses the coverage of press regulation in Leader and Opinion articles. As Section 5 showed, there was a substantial increase in the proportion of coverage devoted to commentary following the Leveson report – leader and opinion articles make up around one-third of all national press coverage of press regulation during the year following publication.

Leader and comment articles are of particular interest in this analysis. They contain definite, attributable opinions, as opposed to a record of a source’s viewpoint (although the latter is also significant). They also, in the case of leader articles in particular, contain an authoritative, persuasive voice with a demagogic purpose beyond merely recording a view.

This analysis is not trying to evaluate whether the arguments being made are in any sense ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – instead, the purpose is to record how opinions were expressed by national newspapers and their columnists on Leveson and the Royal Charter. Section 8 (below) will look separately at how press regulation was covered in factual reporting.

Table 1: Breakdown of commentary articles, all newspapers (N = 2,047)

Contains evaluative Percentage Type of Article Overall Total opinion of Leveson or containing Cross-Party Charter evaluative opinion

Leader 217 197 90.8%

Opinion 510 369 72.4%

- Guest opinion 101 79 78.2%

Table 1 shows the breakdown of leader and opinion articles that were published in the UK national press between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013. Unsurprisingly, leader and opinion articles dealing with press regulation were highly likely to contain an evaluative viewpoint on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. Over 90% of leader articles, and almost three-quarters of opinion pieces contained one or more of the evaluative frames used to measure the tone of coverage.

As with the rest of the analysis, this means those articles that contain one or more of the evaluative frames about Leveson or the Royal Charter. While in factual news articles one central topic is the main subject, many newspapers publish leader articles that deal with two or three separate issues. In practice, many of the leaders analysed here were primarily focused on press regulation. A full list of all leaders

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 47 (and the reasons for their categorisation on the basis of tone) is included in Appendix 2.

This section considers how Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter were represented in leader and opinion articles, respectively.

Leader Articles

As Table 2 shows, the number of leader articles published was not evenly distributed across titles; the Daily Mail and the Sun published the most (39 and 47 respectively), although there was consistency in the high proportion of leaders containing evaluative frames regarding Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. Of 197 leader articles in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, 156 were negative-only – 79.2%. While the People, Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday contained no leaders, of the remaining 16 titles over half published a significant majority of negative-only leader articles. At the Sun and the Daily Mail, which together accounted for over two-fifths of leaders containing a view on Leveson or the Charter, the balance was over 90% negative.

The balance was similar in six other titles. In every one of the Daily Mirror’s leaders which contained a view, that view was negative-only; similarly with the Mail on Sunday. 85% of Times leaders were negative-only, as were 89.5% of Daily Telegraph leaders and 80% of those in the Sunday Times. Negative-only majorities in the Sunday Telegraph and Financial Times were slightly lower, at 60% and 62.5% respectively, while at each of the Express titles only one out of a total of two articles was negative- only.

Proportions were much lower at the Guardian (25%) and Independent (15.4%) as well as at their respective Sunday sister titles (although these numbers were tiny – 1/4 in the Observer and 0/1 in the Independent on Sunday).

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 48 Table 2: Number of leader articles, by title

Leaders Total Number ‘Negative- Percentage containing Title of Leader only’ Leader ‘Negative- evaluative articles articles only’ frame(s)

Sun 39 36 35 92.2% Daily Mirror 11 10 10 100% Sunday Mirror 2 2 2 100% People 0 0 0 0 Daily Star 0 0 0 0 Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 Daily Express 2 2 1 50.0% Sunday Express 2 2 1 50.0% Daily Mail 47 46 44 95.7% Mail on Sunday 8 7 7 100% Times 21 20 17 85.0% Sunday Times 10 10 8 80.0% Daily Telegraph 24 19 17 89.5% Sunday Telegraph 5 5 3 60.0% Guardian 15 12 3 25.0% Observer 5 4 1 25.0% Independent 16 13 2 15.4% Independent on Sunday 1 1 0 0% Financial Times 9 8 5 62.5% Total 217 197 156 -

Table 3 shows the overall breakdown of tone across all 197 leaders. While just 34 leaders (17.3%) contained both positive and negative views, this may be explained by the fact that it is usually the purpose of leader articles to assert an unambiguous position on a topical policy issue. More significant is very low number of positive- only leaders (7 in total, or 3.6% of those where a view is expressed), and the balance of ‘negative-only’ to ‘positive-only’ articles (over 22 negative leaders for every positive).

Table 3: Tone of leader articles where a view is expressed (N = 197)

Tone Number Percentage

Positive-only 7 3.6%

Negative-only 156 79.2%

Both 34 17.3%

Total 197 100%

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 49 Figure 1 shows the relative imbalance:

Figure 1: Breakdown of leader articles by tone, all newspapers (N = 197)

Positive-only: 7

Negative-only: 156

Both: 34

As with Section 6, an analysis of the data in Table 2 indicates that there is a difference between how different sections of the press covered the issue. Apart from the Financial Times, in which five out of eight leaders were negative, the split between sections seems to have been maintained. Table 4 shows the balance of leaders in the titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell. 145 of 159 leaders were negative (91.2%), and just one (representing 0.6% of the total) was positive.

Table 4: Tone of leader articles where a view is expressed, News UK/DMG Media/ Trinity Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell

Tone Number Percentage Positive-only 1 0.6% Negative-only 145 91.2% Both 13 8.2% Total 159 100%

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 50 However, the sole ‘positive-only’ leader was published in the Daily Mail online on 28th November 2012, and in the print edition on the 29th1. It was therefore gathered in the sample (which began on 29th November 2012), but was actually published before the Leveson Report was published. It is included here for consistency, although it would be accurate to claim that none of the newspapers of these news organisations published a single positive leader on Leveson or the Cross-Party Royal Charter in the year following the publication of the Leveson Report.

Figure 2: Breakdown of leader articles by tone, News UK/DMG Media/Trinity Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell (N = 159)

Positive-only: 1

Negative-only: 145

Both: 13

Continuing the analysis of this subset of titles, it is clear that – as was shown in Section 6 above – there was a very high degree of consistency in the tone of how these newspapers covered the issue of press regulation. As Table 5 shows, there was unanimity in the opinions expressed on certain events related to press regulation in the leader articles of these titles. All mentions of the Industry Royal Charter, which featured in 19 leaders, were favourable, as were all eight mentions of IPSO. Conversely, every mention of either the rejection of the Industry Charter, or the sealing of the Cross-Party Charter, was critical.

1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2240069/PPI-mis-selling-Silencing-cold-claim-sharks. html

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 51 Table 5: Leaders on press regulation events: News UK/DMG Media/Trinity Mirror/TMG/Northern & Shell

No. of leaders Event Tone mentioning event

Industry Royal Charter 19 19/19 Positive IPSO 8 8/8 Positive Rejection of Industry Charter 8 8/8 Negative Sealing of Cross-Party Charter 7 7/7 Negative

The threat frame was also much more prevalent in this subgroup of titles. As Table 6 demonstrates, the proportion of leader articles in those titles that included the threat frame was 85.5% (136 out of 159 leaders). In the leaders published by titles from Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson that expressed a view, just 34.2% contained the ‘threat’ frame.

Table 6: Threat frame prevalence in leaders in which a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed, by subgroup

Number Percentage of leaders of leaders

Threat prevalence (all leaders), N = 197 149 75.6%

Threat prevalence (Subgroup 1 – News UK, 136 85.5% etc), N = 159 Threat prevalence (Subgroup 2 – GMG, etc), N 13 34.2% = 38

While a deeper analysis of the repetition of the claim that Leveson and the Royal Charter represented a threat to press freedom is explored in Section 9 below, the headlines of some leaders give an indication of the language deployed to frame press regulation. The full list of leaders and their headlines is included in Appendix 2, but some examples are illustrative:

• ‘Crackdown that could stifle your right to know’, Daily Mail, 30th November 2012 • ‘Lords a-leaping to gag the press’, Sunday Times, 10th February 2013 • ‘A tawdry alliance and a threat to a free press’, Daily Mail, 15th March 2013 • ‘A muzzled media will make victims of us all’, Daily Telegraph, 18th March 2013 • ‘Press freedom: no longer made in Britain, Sunday Times, 24th March 2013 • ‘An ominous threat to shackle our free press’, Daily Telegraph, 5th October 2013 • ‘A dire day for freedom’, Daily Mirror, 9th October 2013 • ‘Shadowy figures who would like to muzzle the press’, Sunday Telegraph, 3rd November 2013

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 52 Opinion Articles

In total, 510 opinion articles were published during the sample, of which 369 contained one or more of the evaluative frames regarding Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. Again, articles that are designed to represent an opinion were less likely to contain both supportive and critical viewpoints, as Table 7 shows: just 42 articles – 11.4% of the total – contain both supportive and critical viewpoints. Positive- only opinion pieces account for just 14.9% of the total, while those containing only negative views accounted for 73.7% of the total.

Table 7: Opinion articles containing a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (N = 369)

Opinion articles containing Tone Percentage one or more frames

Positive-only 55 14.9% Negative-only 272 73.7% Both 42 11.4%

As Table 8 shows, of the 17 newspapers that published opinion articles expressing a view on Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter, nine – more than half – published none that were positive. At the Daily Mirror, Daily Express, and Daily Mail every opinion piece published was negative. At the Sun (40 of 41 negative-only), the Daily Telegraph (53 of 55 negative-only), and the Sunday Telegraph (13 of 14), the proportion of negativity was also extremely high. A relatively high number of negative opinion articles was also present in the Observer, attributable in large part to former Guardian editor, Peter Preston, who accounted for 17 of the Observer’s 24 critical opinion articles over the course of the year.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 53 Table 8: Tone of opinion articles in which a view on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed, by title

Title Total Positive-only Negative-only Both

Sun 41 0 40 1 Daily Mirror 16 0 16 0 Sunday Mirror 7 4 3 0 People 3 0 3 0 Daily Star 0 0 0 0 Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 Daily Express 12 0 12 0 Sunday Express 1 0 1 0 Daily Mail 32 0 32 0 Mail on Sunday 10 2 4 4 Times 21 2 16 3 Sunday Times 10 0 8 2 Daily Telegraph 55 0 53 2 Sunday Telegraph 14 0 13 1 Guardian 75 29 31 15 Observer 29 4 24 1 Independent 31 10 10 11 Independent on Sunday 3 3 0 0 Financial Times 8 1 5 2 Total 369 55 272 42

This again demonstrates the difference between the subgroups that have been analysed up to this point. Of the 223 opinion articles featured in the group of titles published by News UK et al, 202 were critical of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (90.6%), and only 8 (3.6%) were positive (Table 9):

Table 9: Tone of opinion articles, by News UK/DMG Media/TMG/Trinity Mirror/ Northern & Shell

Opinion articles containing Tone Percentage one or more frames

Positive-only 8 3.6% Negative-only 202 90.6% Both 13 5.8% Total 223 100%

Finally, Table 10 shows how the subgroup of articles published by News UK, DMG

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 54 Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group, and Northern & Shell portrayed Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter in leader and opinion articles. Combined, these titles published 382 articles that contained opinions by journalists (named, or leader- writers) about Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. 223 of these were opinion pieces, 159 were leaders. Though not all of these articles was solely about press regulation, nonetheless they each contained one or more of the ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ frames that denoted a critical or supportive viewpoint of Leveson or the Charter. Only 9 (2.4%) were positive-only. Over 38 times as many were negative-only (347, or 90.8%), and a tiny amount included both (6.8%). In 324 of these articles it was alleged that Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter represented a threat to press freedom – 84.8% of the total (Table 10).

The scale of negativity is significant in itself, but it is matched in its consistency. Over 90% of opinion and leader articles concerning Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter, in over 90% of the UK national press (by weekly circulation) were negative.

Table 10: Tone and ‘Threat’ frame in leader and opinion articles combined: News UK/DMG Media/TMG/Trinity Mirror/Northern & Shell titles

Leader Opinion Combined Number of articles 159 223 382 Number, ‘negative-only’ 145 202 347 Percentage ‘negative-only’ 91.2% 90.6% 90.8% Ratio, ‘negative-only’ : ‘positive-only’ 145 : 1 25.3 : 1 38.6 : 1 Number containing ‘Threat’ frame 136 188 324 Percentage containing ‘Threat’ frame 85.5% 84.3% 84.8%

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 55 Summary

• Leader articles and opinion articles were, by a very large margin, hostile to Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter. Out of 197 leader articles in which a view was expressed on Leveson or the Charter, 156 (79.2%) were negative-only and just 7 (3.6%) were positive-only. In addition, 272 of 369 opinion articles (73.7%) were negative-only, with 55 (14.9%) positive-only.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 56 7. COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION IN FACTUAL ARTICLES

While Section 7 demonstrated that the ‘commentary’ devoted to press regulation tended to be overwhelmingly hostile to the Leveson Report and the Cross-Party Royal Charter, this section looks at the nature of ‘factual’ coverage in the national press.

‘Factual coverage’ in this analysis denotes articles intended to provide new information to the reader – News articles (reports providing new or recently- acquired information), and Feature articles (providing detail and context on a topic “in a manner not necessarily subject to the constraints of timeliness demanded of a news item”).1 ‘Feature’ articles tended to consist of interviews, timelines, or summaries of how proposed regulatory systems might work, or of the range of opinions by sources on a given aspect of press regulation.

Table 1 shows that 1,208 ‘News’ and 112 ‘Feature’ articles containing some reference to press regulation were published in all UK newspapers in the year following the publication of the Leveson Report. Of these articles, 806 ‘News’ articles (66.7%) contained one or more of the frames denoting ‘tone’, as did 49 ‘Feature’ articles (43.8%).

Table 1: Breakdown of factual articles, all newspapers (N = 2,047)

Contains evaluative opinion of Leveson or Type of Article Total Cross-Party Charter, with percentage News 1,208 806 (66.7%) Feature 112 49 (43.8%)

In other words, two-thirds of news reports contained evaluative viewpoints, either by sources or as part of the editorial content of the article. This was a considerably higher rate than that recorded during the Leveson Inquiry itself. The previous Media Standards Trust analysis of national press coverage of Leveson from 11th July 2011 until 28th November 2012 found that just 14.7% of news articles (and 16.7% of features articles) on press regulation contained views for or against Leveson (Table 2).

1 See ‘Informative discourse types’, in Higgins, M. (2006) ‘Substantiating a political public sphere in the Scottish press: A comparative analysis’, Journalism, 7(1), pp25-44

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 57 Table 2: Comparison of evaluative opinion in factual articles, pre- and post- Leveson Report

Factual articles containing Factual articles containing Type of evaluative viewpoints, 11th evaluative viewpoints, 29 Article July 2011 – 28th Nov 2012 (N Nov 2012 – 29 Nov 2013 (N = 1,459) 1,320)

News 206/1,399 (14.7%) 806/1,208 (66.7%)

Feature 10/60 (16.7%) 49/112 (43.8%)

All Factual 216/1,459 (14.8%) 855/1,320 (64.7%)

Chart 1: Percentage of Factual articles containing negative or positive viewpoints, before and after Leveson

35.3%

85.2%

NeutralNeutral (contains (contains no no evaluativeevaluative viewpoints) viewpoints) ContainsContains one or one more or more evaluative statements evaluative viewpoints

64.7%

14.8%

Before Leveson Report (1,459 After Leveson Report (1,320 articles, Factual articles, June 2011 - Nov Nov 2012 - Nov 2013) 2012)

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 58 Analysis – News articles

This section focuses on ‘News’ articles –conventional news reports of press regulation gathered in the sample. Specifically, it looks at a breakdown of those News articles published in the national press in which a view on Leveson or the Royal Charter was expressed. Table 3 shows the balance of tone in those News articles.

Table 3: Tone of News articles where a view is expressed (N = 806)

Number of Articles Percentage Negative-only 377 46.8% Positive-only 148 18.4% Both 281 34.9%

This shows that, in 377 News articles (46.8% of those where a view was expressed), only views critical of Leveson or the Royal Charter were included. This was more than double the amount of articles containing only positive views (148, or 18.4%), and significantly more than those articles where both positive and negative opinions were included.

Table 4 shows the breakdown of News articles containing a view, by newspaper title. As with the Leader and Opinion articles discussed in the previous section, certain publishers published a far greater proportion of articles that were ‘negative-only’. The Daily Mail published 112 News articles containing viewpoints on Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter. 74.1% of those News articles (83 in total) contained only negative views. This compared with just four articles containing only positive opinions. Every article in the Mail on Sunday containing a view was negative-only (13 in total).

More than half of all News articles containing an opinion published in The Sun, the Times, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star contained only negative views, as did more than 40% in the Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph.

Such articles published in the Express and Sunday Express tended to be less likely to contain exclusively negative views, and the Sunday Express published considerably more positive-only than negative-only articles, although the very low number of articles published by that title means that the result is more susceptible to being skewed.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 59 Table 4: Tone in News articles containing a view, by title (N = 806)

News articles Percentage containing ‘Positive- ‘Negative- Title ‘Both’ ‘Negative- evaluative only’ only’ only’ frame(s)

Sun 61 4 38 19 62.3%

Daily Mirror 51 5 26 20 51.0%

Sunday Mirror 2 0 1 1 50.0%

People 0 0 0 0 N/A

Daily Star 11 1 8 2 72.7%

Daily Star Sunday 0 0 0 0 N/A

Daily Express 54 9 20 25 37.0%

Sunday Express 11 6 2 3 18.2%

Daily Mail 112 4 83 25 74.1%

Mail on Sunday 13 0 13 0 100%

Times 93 14 49 30 52.7%

Sunday Times 18 4 8 6 44.4%

Daily Telegraph 109 20 51 38 46.8%

Sunday Telegraph 9 3 4 2 44.4%

Guardian 145 53 50 42 34.5%

Observer 11 5 1 5 9.1%

Independent 51 9 7 35 13.7%

Independent on Sunday 7 2 2 3 28.6%

Financial Times 48 9 14 25 29.2%

Total 806 148 377 281 -

Levels of ‘negative-only’ articles published by the Guardian, Observer, Independent, Independent on Sunday and Financial Times were also comparatively low (although for the Sunday titles the effect of low numbers is again significant).

Table 5 builds on the evidence in Table 4 and demonstrates, as noted in previous sections, that there was a substantial difference between how different publishers covered press regulation in News articles.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 60 In titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell – accounting around 90% of newspaper circulation and three- quarters of national titles – factual news coverage was: • Twice as likely than that of the other publishers to contain only negative viewpoints • Less than half as likely to contain only positive viewpoints • Significantly less likely to contain both positive and negative viewpoints • Almost twice as likely to contain the claim that Leveson or the Royal Charter represented a threat to press freedom

Table 5: How different sections of the press covered Leveson and the Cross- Party Charter - News articles (N = 806)

News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Guardian Media Group, Telegraph Media Independent Print Ltd, Group, Northern & Pearson Shell

Percentage of articles 55.7% 28.2% ‘Negative-only’

Percentage of articles 12.9% 29.8% ‘Positive-only’

Percentage of articles containing ‘Both’ 31.4% 42.0% viewpoints

‘Negative-only’ to 4.3 : 1 0.9 : 1 ‘Positive-only’ Ratio

Prevalence of ‘Threat’ frame in evaluative 65.8% 38.2% articles

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 61 Summary

• A majority of factual news coverage (i.e. news reports and features) contained statements for or against Leveson or the Royal Charter. 806 News articles (66.7% of the total) and 49 Feature articles (43.8%) contained evaluative viewpoints on Leveson or the Charter. For News articles, this was a fourfold increase on the same measure of coverage in the 18 months prior to the Leveson Report (14.7%). Of these 806 News articles, almost half (46.8%) contained negative-only viewpoints. • As with opinion-based coverage, most of the press focused considerably more on critical views of Leveson and the Charter. Titles published by News UK, DMG Media, Trinity Mirror, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were again far more likely to publish articles containing views hostile to Leveson than titles published elsewhere: - 55.7% of all News articles by these five publishers contained only negative viewpoints, compared with 28.2% in titles published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson; - There were considerably fewer articles containing only supportive viewpoints (12.9% versus 29.8%) - The ‘threat to press freedom’ frame was more prevalent in the newspapers of these five publishers, being present in 65.8% of articles in which any viewpoint was expressed. This compared with 38.2% of such articles by other publishers

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 62 8. HOW THE ‘THREAT TO PRESS FREEDOM’ WAS PORTRAYED

In the analysis of the ‘tone’ of articles that underpins this project, one frame stands out as having been consistently deployed – by sources or by journalists – in articles about press regulation: that Leveson (and latterly the Cross-Party Charter) represents a threat to press freedom, or to freedom of expression.

In total, 862 articles included this frame (Table 1). Therefore the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame appeared in over 60% of the 1,421 articles in which any view on Leveson or the Royal Charter was expressed, and in over 40% of all articles in which any mention of press regulation was included anywhere in the article (2,047 in total). It was by some margin the most common way the national press represented the reforms outlined in the Leveson Report and the subsequent Royal Charter. As Table 1 indicates, it was frequently included in leader articles: of 217 leaders published between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013, the ‘threat’ frame occurred in 149, or 69%.

Table 1: Types of article containing ‘Threat’ frame (N = 862)

Frequency Percentage (of 862 articles containing ‘threat’ frame)

News 458 53.1%

Feature 29 3.4%

Leader 149 17.3%

Opinion 226 26.2%

Total 862 100%

The issues that the Leveson Inquiry and its subsequent report dealt with are complex, and there are many different interpretations of what the implications of its recommendations mean for the press and public life. These have been dealt with extensively elsewhere, but it is clear that there is no consensus on whether or not Leveson represents a threat to press freedom or to the right of freedom of expression (although the following section of this report outlines how public opinion tended not to support this belief). Some organisations and individuals have published eloquent and evidence-based arguments on how they view the proposals in Leveson/the Royal Charter as incompatible with the role of journalism in society. However, often – as this section shows – the articles published in the national press provided no basis or rationale to support their claim that Leveson or the Royal Charter represents a threat to press freedom.

This section also shows that, in most cases, the assertion that Leveson and the Royal Charter represents a threat to press freedom was presented as fact without supporting evidence, and often accompanied by emotive language to re-emphasise the unsubstantiated threat.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 63 The purpose of this section is to explore and illustrate how the ‘threat to press freedom’ frame was deployed, and to analyse how different publishers approached the issue.

The ubiquity of the ‘Threat’ frame – uses and evidence

Table 2 indicates how often different titles used the ‘Threat’ frame, and how prevalent it was in all the articles published in which any view was expressed. As the results show, certain publications were far more likely to include it, not just in terms of absolute numbers, but in most articles in which any view was expressed.

Table 2: Prevalence of ‘Threat’ frame, by title

No. of all articles Percentage of all articles No. of articles with containing any expressing a view (N = 1,421), Title ‘Threat’ frame frames, published in which the ‘Threat’ frame (N = 862) by title (N = 1,421) was recorded

Sun 141 112 79.4% Daily Mirror 78 64 82.1% Sunday Mirror 11 6 54.5% People 3 3 100% Daily Star 12 10 83.3% Daily Star Sunday 0 N/A: No frames N/A Daily Express 67 44 64.7% Sunday Express 15 8 53.3% Daily Mail 200 147 75.4% Mail on Sunday 31 23 74.2% Times 136 84 61.3% Sunday Times 45 35 77.8% Daily Telegraph 189 143 75.7% Sunday Telegraph 30 26 86.7% Guardian 236 85 36.1% Observer 48 14 30.4% Independent 97 30 30.9% Independent on Sunday 12 4 33.3% Financial Times 70 26 37.7%

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 64 Chart 1: Proportion of articles expressing a view (N = 1,421), in which the ‘Threat’ frame is included Proportion of articles containing tone (N = 1,421), in which the 'Threat' frame is included People (N = 3) 100.0% Observer (NSunday = 48)30.4% Telegraph (N = 30) 86.7% Independent (N30.9% = 97)Daily Star (N = 12) 83.3% Independent on33.3% SundayDaily Mirror(N = 12) (N = 78) 82.1% Guardian (N = 236)36.1% Sun (N = 141) 79.4% Financial Times 37.7%(N = 70) Sunday Times (N = 45) 77.8% Sunday Express 53.3%(N = 15) Sunday MirrorDaily (N54.5% = Telegraph11) (N = 189) 75.7% Times (N = 136)61.3%Daily Mail (N = 200) 75.4% Daily Express (NMail64.7% = 67) on Sunday (N = 31) 74.2% Mail on Sunday 74.2%(NDaily = 31) Express (N = 67) 64.7% Daily Mail (N = 200)75.4% Times (N = 136) 61.3% Daily TelegraphSunday 75.7%(N = 189) Mirror (N = 11) 54.5% Sunday Times (N77.8% = 45) Sunday Express (N = 15) 53.3% Sun (N = 141) 79.4% Financial Times (N = 70) 37.7% Daily Mirror (N =82.1% 78) Daily Star (N = 12)83.3%Guardian (N = 236) 36.1% SundayIndependent Telegraph86.7% (N on = 30)Sunday (N = 12) 33.3% People (N = 3) 100.0%Independent (N = 97) 30.9% Observer (N = 48) 30.4%

In fact, four newspapers – the Daily Mail, the Sun, The Times and the Daily Telegraph – together account for over half of all articles containing the ‘Threat’ frame (486 How newspapers presented the 'threat to press freedom' articles, or 56.4% of the total). Once their Sunday counterparts are added (The Mail Yes No on Sunday, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph), this proportion rises to 66% Threat' claim supported29.9% by70% evidence (570 articles). Article contains15% counter-argument85% to threat claim Threat' claim ascribed41% to identified,59% quoted source(s) Although this represents a large number of articles85% in the absolute sense, the proportion of coverage by these titles that include the ‘Threat’ frame is also very high. The Sun’s 112 articles containing70% the frame accounted for 79.4% of all Sun articles in which any view was expressed. This figure was 75.4% in the Daily Mail, 75.7% in 59% the Daily Telegraph, and 61.3% in The Times. In comparison, in the Guardian, which also published a large number of articles containing the frame (85), this accounted 41% Yes for just 36.1% of all articles in which a view was expressed. No 29.9% If the split between sections of the press noted in all previous sections is considered, the results in Table 2 demonstrate that those15% newspapers published by News UK, Trinity Mirror, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell were far more likely to focus on the threat frame.

Threat' claim supported by Article contains counter- Threat' claim ascribed to Of 1,421 total articlesevidence in which a viewargument on Leveson to threat or the claim Cross-Partyidentified, Charter quoted was source(s) expressed, 958 were by titles owned by this group of publishers. Of these, 703 articles (73.4%) included the threat frame. By contrast, titles published by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson accounted for 159 articles in which the ‘Threat’ frame was included. This was 34.3% of the 463 articles expressing any view.

Table 3 shows how the ‘Threat to press freedom’ frame was presented to the public by the national press: usually with no evidence to support the claim; rarely including the counter-argument made in Parliament and by civil society groups and others –

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 65 that Leveson or the Royal Charter safeguarded, or did not threaten, press freedom; and not usually based on a claim by a source.

It is perhaps most significant that in 604 articles (70.1% of those in which the ‘Threat’ Proportionframe of articles appeared), containing no evidence tone (N =was 1,421), put inforward which theto support 'Threat' theframe claim is included that Leveson or People (N = 3) 100.0% the Charter threatened press freedom; instead, it was usually presented as part of an Observer (NSunday = 48)30.4% Telegraph (N = 30) 86.7% article with no explanation or context. Examples of this are included below. Independent (N30.9% = 97)Daily Star (N = 12) 83.3% Independent on33.3% Sunday (N = 12) Similarly,Daily despite Mirror the (N = lack 78) of consensus on the implications of the Leveson 82.1% Guardian (N = 236)36.1% Sun (N = 141) 79.4% Financial Timesrecommendations 37.7%(N = 70) for press freedom, the counter-balancing arguments (either that Sunday Times (N = 45) 77.8% Sunday ExpressLeveson 53.3%(N =or 15) the Charter safeguarded press freedom, or that they posed no threat to Sunday MirrorpressDaily (N 54.5%freedom) = Telegraph11) were (N rarely = 189) included. These viewpoints were included in only 14.8%75.7% Times (N =of 136) articles61.3%Daily containing Mail (N the = 200) ‘Threat’ frame. 75.4% Daily Express (NMail64.7% = 67) on Sunday (N = 31) 74.2% Mail on SundayFinally, 74.2%(NDaily more = 31) Express often than (N = not,67) the claim that Leveson or the Charter posed64.7% a threat Daily Mailto (N press = 200)75.4% freedomTimes was (N made= 136) without a quote by an identified source. In 61.3%506 articles Daily Telegraph(58.7%Sunday 75.7%(N of = the189) Mirrortotal), the (N =frame 11) occurred without any supporting quote.54.5% Sunday Times (N77.8% = 45) Sunday Express (N = 15) 53.3% Sun (N = 141) 79.4% Financial Times (N = 70) 37.7% Daily Mirror (N =82.1% 78) Table 3: Presenting the ‘Threat’ frame (N = 862) Daily Star (N = 12)83.3%Guardian (N = 236) 36.1% SundayIndependent Telegraph86.7% (N on = 30)Sunday (N = 12) 33.3% Independent (N = 97) 30.9% People (N = 3) 100.0% Yes No Observer (N = 48) 30.4% ‘Threat’ claim supported by evidence 258 (29.9%) 604 (70.1%) Article contains counter-argument 128 (14.8%) 734 (85.2%) ‘Threat’ frame statement ascribed to 356 (41.3%) 506 (58.7%) How newspapers presentedidentified, the quoted 'threat source(s) to press freedom' Yes No Threat' claim supported29.9% by70% evidence Chart 2: How newspapers presented the ‘threat to press freedom’ Article contains15% counter-argument85% to threat claim Threat' claim ascribed41% to identified,59% quoted source(s) 85%

70%

59%

Yes 41% Yes No 29.9% No

15%

Threat'‘Threat’ claim claim supported supported by ArticleArticle contains contains counter- Threat'‘Threat’ claim claim ascribed to to byevidence evidence argumentargument to to threatthreat claimclaim identified,indentified, quoted quoted source(s)

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 66 In total, 375 articles were published in which the ‘Threat’ frame was included, but without supporting evidence to justify the claim and where the claim was not based on a quote from an identified source.

Table 4 contains a breakdown of these 375 articles, by publishing group. 337 were published by titles owned by News UK, DMG Media, Telegraph Media Group, Trinity Mirror and Northern & Shell – this accounted for 47.9% of all articles published by those titles in which the ‘Threat’ frame was featured. By contrast, 23.9% of articles containing the ‘Threat’ frame published by titles owned by Guardian Media Group, Independent Print Ltd and Pearson contained no supporting evidence or quote.

Table 4: ‘Threat’ articles with no evidence or source quote, by publisher

‘Threat’ articles Combined articles without without evidence evidence or source quote or source quote (with percentage)

News UK 114 DMG Media 91 Telegraph Media Group 70 337 of 703 (47.9%) Trinity Mirror 43 Northern & Shell 19 Guardian Media Group 19 Independent Print Ltd 10 38 of 159 (23.9%) Pearson 9

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 67 How the perceived threat was described

The evidence shows, therefore, that where the claim was made that Leveson or the Royal Charter represents a threat to press freedom it was rarely supported by evidence or rationale. Nor were opposing views included.

Instead, in many cases, the claim was accompanied by emotive language and further assertions about the dangers associated with Leveson and the Charter.

A survey of the 2,047 articles indicates that the language used was highly emotive. A survey of repeated phrases used in the full sample of articles (over one million words) finds the following used frequently:

Table 5: Recurring phrases in newspaper coverage of press regulation (2,047 articles)

Phrase Number of mentions ‘Press freedom’ 732 ‘Free press’ 652 [MPs’] ‘expenses’ 349 ‘Chill’/‘Chilled’/‘Chilling’ 237 - ‘Chilling effect’ 75 ‘300 years’ [refers to last press licensing laws] 167 - ‘300 years of press freedom’ 49 ‘Curb’/‘Curbs’/‘Curbed’ 152 ‘License’/‘Licensed’/‘Licensing 126 ‘Draconian’ 119 ‘Shackle’/‘Shackles’/‘Shackled’/‘Shackling’ 110 ‘Political interference’ 89 ‘Muzzle’/‘Muzzled’/‘Muzzling’ 82 ‘State Control’ 80 ‘Free Speech’ 70 ‘Stitch-up’/‘Stitched-up’ 44 ‘Political control’ 37 ‘1695’ [year Government licensing of the Press ended] 34 ‘Centuries of press freedom’ 26 ‘Threat to press freedom’ 26 ‘Government control’ 15 ‘Totalitarian’ 14 ‘Zealots’ 12 - ‘Press-hating zealots’ 7

While this doesn’t necessarily provide a scientific analysis of the way the ‘threat’

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 68 frame was articulated (nor does it count the mentions of possible threats to press freedom couched in more temperate words), it does show that the framing was generally judgmental and dramatic. Although it is possible that these phrases may have been repeated in single articles, it is not likely that this was widespread, and so it can be estimated that the 581 mentions of ‘curbs’, ‘muzzles’, ‘shackles’ or ‘chilling’ (or a derivative of those words) were spread across hundreds of articles.

Several examples illustrate both the emotive language used, and the tendency of claims to be presented as statements of fact in the body of news articles:

Parties agree state controls on the press (Daily Telegraph, 12th Oct 2013)

THE newspaper industry has criticised politicians’ plans for the state to “impose” rules on the press for the first time in more than 300 years. […]

Media check (Sunday Times, 3rd Nov 2013)

The Queen approved a royal charter that paves the way for state oversight of the press, in a move it is feared will end centuries of press freedom. Publishers failed in a last-ditch attempt at the High Court and Court of Appeal to halt the government’s plans, saying there had not been proper consultation. […]

Regulation will be imposed on press (Daily Telegraph, 9th Oct 2013)

THE first rules on state regulation of the press for more than 300 years will be set out this week after politicians rejected the newspaper industry’s plans for self–regulation. […]

Ex-cop’s rap for Leveson (Daily Mirror, 21st Feb 2013)

LORD Leveson’s plans to curb press freedom could mean corruption goes unexposed, a police chief warned yesterday. […]

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 69 Papering over the cracks: Leveson proposals will come back to bite British democracy, warns Watergate legend (Daily Mirror, 30th Nov 2012)

Lord Leveson sparked fears for the future of investigative journalism yesterday by proposing draconian curbs on reporters. […] Warning that press regulation will send ‘wrong signal’ to Commonwealth (Times, 12th April 2013)

Government plans to shackle the press with flawed and hasty legislation violate “a basic principle of democracy” and risk giving the world’s dictators ammunition to silence their own people “by drawing ugly examples from Britain”.

The stark warning from the Commonwealth Journalists’ Association (CJA) comes amid growing concerns from rights campaigners that Britain is squandering its position as a bastion of free speech by introducing statutory regulation of the press for the first time in more than 300 years. […]

Each of these excerpts from articles contains a reference to the threat to press freedom as a part of the body of the article (rather than directly quoted from a source), and presented as a statement of fact. In addition, they show typical examples of the language used to describe Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter: “plans to curb press freedom”; “Government plans to shackle the press”, and so on.

The highly emotive language that was used in leader columns and opinion pieces after the Leveson Report was published then infiltrated news reports and features. By the time the Royal Charter was approved by the three Parties in March the emotive language was being used in commentaries and news reports almost interchangeably.

The example below also shows that the language used about the threat to press freedom was even replicated across different opinion pieces, by different authors. The example below shows that, on 15th March 2013 (immediately before the agreement of the Cross-Party Charter), an opinion piece by the Sun’s Associate Editor Trevor Kavanagh shared sections of text with another column by Andrew Nicoll, Political Editor of the Scottish Sun.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 70

The Sun, 15th March 2013 The Scottish Sun, 15th March 2013

If MPs seize the presses. it is If MSPs seize the presses. it is YOU who will lose out; FIGHT YOU who will lose out; FIGHT OVER NEWSPAPER OVER NEWSPAPER CONTROL CONTROL

TREVOR Kavanagh Andrew Nicoll

ANYONE who fears for a free Press if it ever fell under political control needs ANYONE who fears for a free press in Scotland has good reason to be worried only to look at yesterday's all-party fiasco on newspaper legislation. today. The spat between David Cameron and an alliance of Labour, Lib Dems and This afternoon the committee set up by Alex Salmond in the wake of the Tory rebels was pure, bloody-minded politics in action. Leveson report into the Press will issue its findings. What began as an attempt to bring newspapers to heel has turned into a bitter The committee, led by judge Lord McCluskey and made up of a mix of people partisan struggle between the Prime Minister and his political enemies. of whom you've never heard, didn't take evidence from one single Scottish Ed Miliband knew David Cameron would never accept a Press law — and he newspaper editor or publisher. pushed him to the limit in order to place him in the wrong. Despite that, it's likely they will go far beyond anything Westminster is But the real casualty threatens to be the irreversible loss of a truly free Press planning and recommend some form of statutory underpinning to control the that protects the interests of all parties. Scottish Press. The newspaper industry has long abandoned hope that Britain might follow This will strike at the very heart of our democracy and at a hugely important America, the Land Of The Free, and adopt true freedom of speech as the time in Scotland's political history. And you, as a newspaper reader, should be bulwark of a free people. worried. You can be outspoken and even offensive, as long as you don't endanger life, It means surrendering the safeguard of a traditionally robust newspaper like crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. We acknowledge that extreme cases industry which for 300 years — and for all its faults — has been the defender of Press intrusion are unforgivable. of the ordinary citizen against the rich and powerful. But sweeping and often contradictory Leveson proposals risk an irreparable No one would disagree that extreme cases of press intrusions are unforgivable. blow to foundations of true democracy. No one would disagree that some journalists have dragged the industry's On the one hand, Labour and the Lib Dems want legal underpinning which reputation into the gutter. But is there any evidence that the Scottish Press would expose investigative journalism to political meddling. behaved in the same cavalier fashion as some of Fleet Street's worst? The On the other, Mr Cameron seeks a royal charter, separate from politicians, but fiasco over a new press law south of the border has provided Salmond with the open to pressure for change from ministers in any future government. perfect opportunity to force through new legislation in Scotland. For the Press, this is a choice between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. No doubt he'll point to the splits in the Coalition, the break-up of talks and the For the public, it would mean surrendering the safeguard of a traditionally lack of any political consensus to say that if Westminster can't get its house in robust newspaper industry which for 300 years — and for all its faults — has order, then Holyrood can. been the defender of the ordinary citizen against the rich and powerful. Liberty And none of the dissenting voices, none of the objections, will matter. Newspapers believe there is a third way — a powerful, responsive and Salmond has a majority in parliament and can force through any law he sees accountable body to regulate the industry free from political influence. Rivals fit. — who would traditionally fight each other to the last ditch — are working David Cameron is risking a split with his LibDem Coalition partners — a split hard to win the elusive prize of agreement across all titles. Labour is eager to exploit — by stopping short of unworkable legal restraints The object is to deliver everything Leveson requires. on the Press. But without the destructive elements which could cripple an industry already In a world where extremists and criminals can play the Human Rights card threatened with eclipse by the internet, which risks no such regulation. because they have a pet cat, the Prime Minister knows that throwing padlocks Without a free Press, we will suffer ever more suffocating bureaucracy and around the Press will never survive scrutiny in the courts. When he is speaking more undiscovered corruption in our public life. out for liberty in Libya and Syria, Zimbabwe and Russia, he knows that legal Think of the Hillsborough cover-up, the conspiracy of silence over the Mid restraints on the Press will make Britain a laughing stock. Staffs hospital deaths and the increasingly draconian action of our secretive But Alex Salmond wants something even tougher. police. This could put newspapers, not just this one with a huge circulation and Look across the Channel, where it is an offence for officials to criticise the EU readership, but small, local papers selling just a few thousand copies, in and where scandalous French presidential candidates are protected by privacy jeopardy by exposing them to a simple choice — risk massive fines by laws from exposure. refusing to join the government licensed scheme or keep quiet and toe the line. That is how politicians like it. They don't want the media probing into their But, for some reason, when newspaper circulations are under increasing expenses or tax-free perks. pressure from the internet the regulations won't apply to the web. Others who become rich at our expense hide behind super-injunctions, gagging The editors of almost every single newspaper in Scotland are opposed to orders and the oppressive laws of libel to stop us learning of their misdeeds statutory control of the Press. and hypocrisy. What a pity that Salmond's committee didn't seek their views — and perhaps, It's the ordinary man and woman — including millions of Sun readers — who more importantly, they didn't seek yours either. will lose out if politicians seize control of the presses. Remember: Politicians don't want your newspapers probing into their expenses or dodgy flat deals. Others who become rich at your expense hide behind superinjunctions, gagging orders and libel laws to stop us learning of their misdeeds and hypocrisy. It's the ordinary men and women, including hundreds of thousands of Scottish Sun readers, who will lose out if the MSPs seize control of the presses.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 71 Summary

Summary

• The argument that Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter posed a threat to press freedom was very frequently referenced in the national press. 862 articles published on the topic contained the argument – 42.1% of all articles mentioning any aspect of press regulation, and 60.7% of those in which a view of Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter was expressed.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 72 9. HOW COVERAGE OF PRESS REGULATION FAILED TO REFLECT PUBLIC OPINION

The first opinion poll dealing with issues related to press regulation following the commencement of the Leveson Inquiry was published in May 2012. Between then and June 2014 there have been 24 separate opinion polls published that contained questions concerning some aspect of press regulation.

Table 1: All opinion polls featuring questions on press regulation, from May 2012

Poll Dates of Fieldwork IPPR/YouGov 20-21 May 2012 Hacked Off/YouGov 3-6 Oct 2012 Carnegie UK & Demos/Populus Published Oct 2012 Sun/YouGov 4-5 Nov 2012 Free Speech Network/Survation 12-13 Nov 2012 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 21-23 Nov 2012 ITV News/ComRes 23-25 Nov 2012 BBC Radio 5 Live/ComRes 23-25 Nov 2012 Sunday Times/YouGov 30 Nov – 1 Dec 2012 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 31st Jan – 1st Feb 2013 YouGov 10-11 Mar 2013 Sunday Times/YouGov 14-15 Mar 2013 YouGov 19 Mar 2013 Sunday Times/YouGov 24 Mar 2013 Free Speech Network/Survation 1 May 2013 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 1-2 May 2013 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 17-18 Jul 2013 ITV News/ComRes 4-6 Oct 2013 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 9-10 Oct 2013 Guardian/ICM 11-13 Oct 2013 Sun/YouGov 14-15 Oct 2013 Free Speech Network/Survation 18-21 Oct 2013 Media Standards Trust/YouGov 2-4 Jun 2013 Sunday Times/YouGov 26-27 Jun 2013

As a result, there is an unusually large amount of public opinion data on this issue – conducted by a range of different polling companies and commissioned by a variety of different organisations – between these dates. While the analysis of public

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 73 opinion data is often an inexact science, the high volume of comparable information generated on the topic of press regulation means that it is possible to draw some conclusions with confidence.

Table 1 shows the full list of opinion polls that relate to press regulation since the Leveson Inquiry was announced.1 The shaded area denotes the polls that were published between 29th November 2012 and 29th November 2013. The polls that were actually reported by the press (14 out of 24) during this period2 are in bold. Perhaps surprisingly, given the emotive focus in much newspaper coverage of press regulation, the volume of articles that referenced any aspect of public opinion on the matter was minimal. Out of 2,047 total articles, just 33 (1.6%) contained any mention of polling data. Two of those articles mentioned two polls simultaneously, meaning there were 35 separate references to actual public opinion data. As Table 2 shows, nine newspapers contained no reference to public opinion data, and the Guardian accounted for over one-third of all references to polls, with 13 references.

Table 2: References to polls on press regulation in national newspapers

No. of Title Polls referenced References

Sun 3 Free Speech Network (FSN) Nov ’12; FSN May ’13; Sun Oct ‘13 Daily Mirror 2 ITV/ComRes Nov ’12; FSN Oct ‘13 Sunday Express 2 Media Standards Trust (MST) Nov ’12; MST Jan ‘13 Daily Mail 4 MST Nov ’12 + Sun ‘Nov ’12; FSN Nov ’12; FSN Oct ‘13 Times 3 MST Jan ’13; Sunday Times Mar 24th ’13; FSN May ‘13 Sunday Times 3 Sunday Times Nov/Dec ’13 (x3) Daily Telegraph 2 FSN May ’13; FSN Oct ‘13 BBC/ComRes Nov ’12 (x2); MST Nov ’12 (x2); Sunday Times Nov/Dec Guardian 13 ’12; MST Jan/Feb ’13; YouGov Mar 19th ’13 (x2); MST May ’13; FSN May ’13; MST July ’13; Sun Oct 13 + MST Oct 13 Observer 1 MST Jan/Feb ‘13 Independent 2 MST Jan/Feb ’13; MST July ‘13

1 Links to the full data of all polls listed in Table 1 can be found here: http://mediastandardstrust. org/blog/a-list-of-all-polls-on-press-regulation-published-since-may-2012/ 2 Other polls were covered by the press (including the Hacked Off/YouGov poll of 3rd-6th Oct 2012, and the Free Speech Network/Survation poll of 12th-13th Nov 2012), but this coverage was published before the sampling for this project began on 29th November 2012.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 74 Did newspaper coverage of press regulation reflect public opinion?

Polling before publication of the Leveson Report

The four polls covered by the press that were conducted immediately prior to the publication of the Leveson Report found that the public wanted tough press regulation, that people were comfortable with legal backing for such a system, but that they were also wary of any political involvement. Within these findings there were considerable differences and some contradictions.

A Media Standards Trust/YouGov poll, conducted on 21st-23rd November 2012 (approximately one week before the publication of the Leveson Report), asked about how the press should be regulated:

Which of the following statements comes closer to your view on how you think newspapers in Britain should be regulated?

There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct: 79%

Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with complaints and decides "Which of the following statements comes closer to your view what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct: 9% "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out on how you think newspapers in Britain should be Neither: 4% of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers CHART 1 regulated?" CHART 2 Don’t know: 8% be obliged to join by law?"

There should be an independent body, There should be an independent established by law, which deals with 8% body, established by law, which complaints and decides what 10% 8% 4% dealssanctions with complaints there should and decides be if journalists whatbreak sanctions agreed there codes should of conduct" be if journalists break agreed codes of 9% conductNewspapers should establish their own body which deals with Newspaperscomplaints shouldand decides establish what Newspapers should be allowed to opt theirsanctions own body there which should deals be with if journalists out complaintsbreak agreed and codes decides of conduct what Newspapers should be obliged to join sanctionsNeither there should be if journalists break agreed codes of by law conduct Don't know Neither

Don’tDon't know know 79%

82%

"Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?"

not implementSource: Lord Media Justice Standards Trust/YouGovLeveson's Poll, recommendations?" 21st-23rd November 2012 100%

90% MEDIACHART STANDARDS 3 TRUST 75 CHART 4 24% 80% 74% The one approved by Parliament 70%

60% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers 50% 50% Neither

40% 13% Don't know 30%

20% 17% 9% 13% 10%

0% Should implement the Should not implement the Don't know recommendations recommendations Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory "Which of the following statements comes closer to your view system,"Do youor should think all national national newspapers newspapers be obliged should to join by belaw? allowed to opt out on how you think newspapers in Britain should be Newspapersof any new should regulatory be allowed to opt system, out: 8% or should all national newspapers CHART 1 regulated?" CHART 2 Newspapers should be obliged beto join obliged by law: 82% to join by law?" Don’t know: 10% There should be an independent body, 8% established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what 10% 8% 4% sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" Newspapers should be 9% Newspapers should establish their allowed to opt out own body which deals with Newspapers should be complaints and decides what Newspapers should be allowed to opt sanctions there should be if journalists obliged outto join by law break agreed codes of conduct Don’t knowNewspapers should be obliged to join Neither by law Don't know

Don't know 79%

82%

"Which Royal CharterSource: do youMedia thinkStandards the Trust/YouGov Privy Council Poll, 21st-23 shouldrd November 2012 "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" Polls conducted at the same time as the MST poll by ComRes for BBC Radio 5 Live 100% and ITV News both supported the claim that the public was in favour of a system of regulation underpinned by law: 90% CHART 3 CHART 4 80% 24% (For ITV News): In light of the Leveson Inquiry the Government should introduce 74% statutory regulation of the media: The one approved by Parliament 70% Agree: 51%

60% Disagree: 20% The one proposed by major newspaper Don’t know: 30% publishers 50% 50% Neither

40% 13% (For BBC Radio 5 Live): Who would you most like to see regulate newspapers in Don't know Britain? 30% A regulatory body with rules agreed and enforced by newspaper owners: 12% 17% 20% A regulatory body with rules agreed and enforced by the courts: 47% 9% 13% 10% Something else: 33% Don’t know: 8% 0% Should implement the Should not implement the Don't know recommendations recommendations The balance of these three results prior to the publication of Leveson’s report suggested that the public tended to support a solution that contained legal underpinning of a new system, while being wary of direct political involvement. A

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 76 subsequent Sunday Times/YouGov poll conducted immediately after the publication of the Leveson Report (fieldwork was conducted on the 30th of November and 1st of December) further supported this interpretation:

Do you believe there should or should not be new laws, passed by MPs, to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation?

New laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation: 58%

New laws should NOT be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation: 26%

Don’t know: 15%

Do you think MPs should or should not have a say in the design of the system of independent regulation?

Yes, MPs should; it’s important for MPs to give the regulation a legal underpinning: 31%

No, MPs should not; the involvement of MPs in this way threatens the principles of a free press: 52%

Don’t know: 16%

Again, the public tended to support legal underpinning, but preferred MPs to be removed from the process of setting up a new regulator.

One poll, however, found results that appeared to conflict with the other four commissioned at this time. A Sun/YouGov poll conducted on 4th-5th November 2012 found that the public were highly sceptical about the involvement of politicians in the establishment of a press regulator. When asked who they would like to see regulate the press, the response favoured the newspaper industry over MPs:

A regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs: 24%

A regulatory body set up through legally-binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners: 42%

Neither: 18%

Don’t know: 17%

At the same time, the Sun poll found the public were similarly sceptical of the role of newspapers and journalists in a new system of press regulation: 63% claimed that they would not trust ‘newspapers and journalists to set up a new system of press regulation’. The Sun’s reporting of its poll omitted this result.

The differences between the Sun poll and the other polls, particularly that of the MST, highlighted the effect of framing questions with certain phrases and language. As YouGov Director Peter Kellner put it, in a blog comparing the results, ‘In short, it is a matter of framing. We don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom of speech; but neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 77 regulation”.3 The Sun’s insertion of ‘Politicians’ and ‘MPs’ into questions, and the MST’s use of ‘independent’ may have had an effect on how respondents answered.

However, beyond the public scepticism with newspapers and politicians, it is clear that people wanted tough press regulation, did not see legal underpinning as a problem, and were generally supportive of a Leveson-type solution.

Polling in early 2013

After a short break in polling, another MST/YouGov poll (31 Jan – 1 Feb) revisited the question of legal underpinning, with a reworded question:

Thinking about the need to ensure independent and effective regulation of the press, and the need to protect press freedom, which of the following best reflects your view?

For press regulation"Which toof bethe effective following and statements independent comes it needs closer to beto yourbacked view up by a law: "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out on how you think newspapers in Britain should be 52% of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers regulated?" CHART 1 CHARTbe 2 obliged to join by law?" Any regulation of the press backed up by a law would risk the freedom of the press and

political interference: 23% There should be an independent body, 8% established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what 10% 8% Neither: 8% 4% sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" Don’t know: 16%9% Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with complaints and decides what Newspapers should be allowed to opt sanctions there should be if journalists out break agreed codes of conduct The poll also asked whether the public thought the Leveson recommendations Newspapers should be obliged to join Neither by law should be implemented. 74% thought they should be, while 9% thought they should Don't know not. An early question about the use of Royal Charter, which was emerging at that

Don't know stage as a potential method of implementing79% Leveson, received lukewarm support:

35% said they would have confidence in such a scheme, while 48% said they would 82% not. "Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" 100%

90% CHART 3 CHART 4 24% 80% 74% The one approved by Parliament 70%

60% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers 50% 50% Neither

40% 13% Don't know 30%

20% 17% 9% 13% 10%

0% Should implement the Should not implement the Don't know recommendations recommendations Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 31st January – 1st February 2013

3 http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/11/28/leveson-what-public-really-want/

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 78 On 11th March, YouGov re-ran some of the questions from the Sunday Times poll from November/December, and found that the public still supported legal underpinning (by 55% to 26%), and still thought MPs should not be involved in setting up a regulator (53% against; 28% for).

Another Sunday Times/YouGov poll conducted three days later produced conflicting results, although the wording of the statements used limits the validity of these results. The poll offered respondents two statements that were not mutually exclusive, the second of which contained two separate statements rather than one:

Which of these views comes closer to yours?

New laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation: 38%

It is wrong in principle for politicians to pass laws that curb newspapers: MPs should not get involved in any new system of regulation: 41%

Don’t know: 21%

The poll separately found relatively low support for setting up a new system via Royal Charter, with 30% supporting the scheme, and opposition at 39% (13% because it would limit press freedom; 26% because it would not be strict enough). The high proportion (32%) of ‘don’t knows’ indicated low levels of public knowledge about how a Royal Charter scheme would work.

Therefore whether the polling was by newspapers themselves or civil society organisations, the results remained much the same. The public continued to support the Leveson recommendations and would have much preferred them being instituted via legislation rather than by Royal Charter.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 79 Polling after the Cross-Party Charter

Immediately after the agreement of the Cross-Party Charter on March 18th 2013, YouGov conducted its own poll to test opinion on the decision. 43% supported the decision while 27% opposed it, although 30% were not sure. On whether there was support for specific provisions of the Charter, the results were more definitive:

When newspapers print inaccurate statements, being told not just to publish a correction but where to print them (e.g. so that a major front-page error has to be corrected on a future front page)

Support: 81%

Oppose: 6%

Don’t know: 13%

Giving courts the power to impose much larger fines on newspapers found guilty of libel, if they have chosen to stay out of the new system of regulation

Support: 70%

Oppose: 12%

Don’t know: 18%

Respondents also tended to disapprove of publishers choosing to remain outside the system (43% against 25% who felt newspapers remaining outside would be standing up for the principle of free speech). 32% were not sure.

This poll was followed two days later by another Sunday Times/YouGov survey that asked more specific questions on the Cross-Party Charter. The results suggested that the public supported the plan and, since the questions dealt with issues of political interference and press freedom, they are worth reproducing at length:

Do you support or oppose the proposed new press regulation system?

Support: 52%

Oppose: 23%

Don’t know: 25%

Do you think the proposed new regulation system is or is not a threat to press freedom?

Is a threat to press freedom: 27%

Is not a threat to press freedom: 53%

Don’t know: 20%

Do you think it is right or wrong that newspapers who choose not to join the new regulator should face larger damages if they are taken to court over libel privacy or other civil matters?

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 80 Right that newspapers who do not join the regulator face larger damaged: 55%

Wrong that newspapers who do not join the regulator face larger damages: 23%

Don’t know: 22%

Do you think the new system will or will not give politicians too much influence in what news the papers report?

Will give politicians too much influence in what news the papers report: 31%

Will not give politicians too much influence in what news the papers report: 41%

Don’t know: 29%

The poll shows that, in the immediate aftermath of the passing of the Cross-Party Charter at least, there was substantial support for the new system, and little feeling among the public that press freedom was at risk. The specific provision on the incentive of exemplary damages was, as noted in the 19th March YouGov poll, generally supported. The Sunday Times did not publish the results of this poll.

Shortly after the Industry’s rival charter was launched in late April 2013, two opinion polls were conducted simultaneously. The first to be published, by the Free Speech Network/Survation, included a question that aimed to compare attitudes to the two Charters:

Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?

The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that gives politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made: 15.8%

The new press regulation system should be set up in a way that does NOT give politicians the final say if and when changes need to be made: 66.5%

Don’t know: 17.7%

This question raised concerns because it repeated the shortcomings of polls conducted in November 2012 – the prominent inclusion of ‘politicians’ in the questions, and the omission of any corresponding question on the role of newspaper publishers in a hypothetical alternative system. In addition, it did not make clear how and when politicians would have ‘the final say’. This poll result received comparatively prominent coverage in several newspapers, but also attracted adverse commentary for the nature of the question.4

A survey by the MST/YouGov conducted on the same day focused on public support for the Industry Charter, and found low levels of confidence in the Industry Charter (56% ‘Total No Confidence’ against 20% ‘Total Confidence’), and a perceived risk of a repeat of unethical or illegal practices if the Industry Charter went ahead in place of the Cross-Party Charter (73% ‘Total risk’; 9% ‘Total no risk’).

Some weeks later, In July 2013, another MST/YouGov poll asked respondents to

4 ‘Worthless opinion poll is beside the point – talk rather than scream’ Greenslade Blog (Guardian): http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/may/01/press-regulation-polls

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 81 "Which of the following statements comes closer to your view "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out on how you think newspapers in Britain should be of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers regulated?" CHART 1 CHARTbe 2 obliged to join by law?"

There should be an independent body, 8% established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what 10% 8% 4% sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct" 9% Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with complaints and decides what Newspapers should be allowed to opt sanctions there should be if journalists out break agreed codes of conduct Newspapers should be obliged to join Neither by law distinguish between both Charters. Don't know

Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve? Don't know 79% The one approved by Parliament: 50% 82% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers: 13%

Neither: 13% Don’t "Whichknow: 24% Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" 100%

90% CHART 3 CHART 4 24% 80% 74% The one approved by The one approved by Parliament 70% Parliament

60% The Theone oneproposed proposed by major by major newspaper newspaperpublishers publishers 50% 50% Don’tNeither know

40% 13% Don't know Neither 30%

20% 17% 9% 13% 10% Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 17th-18th July 2013 0% Should implement the Should not implement the Don't know recommendations recommendations

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 82 Which of these two statements comes closest to your own view?

Newspaper publishers should accept the system of press regulation agreed by all three main parties and Parliament, even if they object to it: 61% "WhichNewspaper of publishers the following should be allowed statements to set up theircomes own systemcloser of pressto your regulation view if "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out they objecton howto the systemyou think proposed newspapers by the parties and in Parliament: Britain 15%should be of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers regulated?" "What risk, if any, do you think there is CHARTNeither: "Which1 12% of these two statements comes closest to your own CHARTbe 2 obliged to join by law?" Don’t know: 12% view?" that there would be a repeat of unethical There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with and illegal practices (such as phone- 8% Newspaper publishers should accept complaints and decides what 10% 8% 4% sanctionsthe system there ofshould press beregulation if journalists agreed hacking and intrusions into people's by all three main parties and 12% break agreed codes of conduct" NewspaperParliament, even publishers if they object to it private lives) that were revealed during 9% Newspapersshould accept should the system establish of their own body which deals with press regulation agreed by the Leveson Inquiry?"Newspapers should be allowed to opt complaintsNewspaper and publishersdecides what should be sanctionsall three there main should parties be and if journalists 100% out allowed to set up their own system of 12% breakParliament, agreed codes even of if conduct they objectpress to itregulation if they object to the 86% Newspapers should be obliged to join Neither 82% 82% system proposed by the parties and by law79% Newspaper publishers Parliament 73% should be allowed to set up Don't know theirNeither own system of press regulation if they object to Don't know 15% 79% 61% the system proposed by the parties and Parliament 82% Don’tDon't know know Total 'Risk' Total 'No Risk' Neither "Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" 9% 8% 5% 6% 7% not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Poll, 17th-18th July 2013 100% 0% 21-23 Nov 31 Jan - 1 Feb 1-2 May 2013 17-18 July 9-10 Oct 2013 90% 2012 2013 2013 CHART 3 CHART 4 Though the questions included references to publishers and to Parliament – issues 80% 24% Polling Dates that have had74% an effect on respondents in past surveys, the addition of a ‘neither’ The one approved by Parliament 70% option allowed a route to register disapproval of both"How groups. Both much results indicated confidence would you have in " that the public was broadly in favour of the Cross-Party Charter. … 60% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers Therefore the polling after the cross-party charter was approved showed the public, 50% 50%A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1 12% Neither while sceptical of the use of a Royal Charter,Feb 2013) supported it in favour or an industry 73% 40% alternative, and did not believe it represented an unacceptable threat to press 13% Don't know freedom. 30% 20% The alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers (1-2 May 2013) 20% 17% 56% Polling in late 2013 9% 13% 10%

0% AAn system ITV/ComRes of press pollregulation in early established October 2013 by the (published major newspaper in the wake publishers of the (17Daily - 18 July 21% Mail’sShould article implement criticising the the legacyShould of Labour not2013) implement Leader Ed the Miliband’s father)Don't invitedknow 68% respondentsrecommendations to agree or disagree withrecommendations the following statement concerning statutory regulation: A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers, if that system 15% was not reviewed independently (9-10 Oct 2013) 73%

0% 100% Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence' MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 83 The newspaper industry does not seem to have learned the lessons from the hacking scandal and should face statutory regulation

Agree: 63%

Disagree: 16%

Don’t know: 21%

Another MST/YouGov poll in October 2013 asked whether the public agreed with the decision of certain newspapers not to participate in the Cross-Party Charter’s external recognition scheme for a new regulator:

How important, if at all, do you think it is that a new system of press self-regulation is periodically reviewed by an independent commission?

Total important: 71%

Total not important: 14%

Don’t know: 15%

A similar question was subsequently asked in a Guardian/ICM poll two days later:

The Leveson Inquiry was set up to look into media ethics and journalism practices following the News of the World phone hacking scandal. You may have seen or heard about arguments about how to take its recommendations forward, with some saying only self-regulation can protect free speech and others saying the industry needs stronger regulation by outsiders. Which of the following do you agree with more?

The press should get on with setting up its own regulator, without waiting for the state to recognise it: 27%

The press need to be subjected to independent external regulation, underpinned by an outside body – recognised by the state – to certify its work: 64%

Don’t know: 9%

Two days later, the Sun re-commissioned the questions it had set in November 2012, before the publication of the Leveson Report almost a year earlier. Again they found that neither politicians (61% not trusted) nor newspapers (66% not trusted) commanded public confidence. The Sun asked a variation of their previous question on regulators:

Thinking about how the press are regulated in the future, who would you most like to see regulate newspapers and the press?

A regulatory body set up through a Royal Charter, enforced by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs: 25%

A regulatory body set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners: 40%

Neither: 19%

Don’t know: 16%

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 84 It is important to note that responses to this question may have been distorted by two factual errors. The Royal Charter does not set up a regulatory body as stated in the first option. Nor is it ‘enforced by Parliament’.

The Free Speech Network commissioned another Survation poll in late October, which asked a variation of the same question, again including in the options the determinative term ‘politician’, and excluding ‘newspapers’ and ‘press’:

Thinking about how the press should be regulated in the future, what kind of regulatory body would you prefer to see regulate newspapers and the press?

A regulator overseen through a Royal Charter, with rules agreed by politicians: 20.2%

A regulator overseen through legal contracts, binding on the media industry, with rules agreed by their publishers: 37.8%

Neither: 18.6%

Don’t know: 23.4%

Therefore polling in late 2013 tends to repeat the themes noted earlier in the year – significant public support for the system of press regulation agreed in Parliament in March 2013 (Guardian/ICM; MST/YouGov; ITV/ComRes), and wariness about the role of ‘politicians’ (Free Speech Network/Survation; Sun/YouGov) when that specific term is introduced into questions.

Tracking public opinion over the course of the analysis

As well as the questions listed above, the Media Standards Trust commissioned two tracking questions several times between November 2012 and October 2013, to measure change in public opinion on press regulation over time.

The first of these questions asked, after a context-specific preamble asking respondents to consider a scenario in which the system of regulation proposed by the newspaper industry went ahead in place of the one agreed in Parliament:5

5 E.g. In the MST/YouGov 1-2 May 2013 poll, the preamble stated “Imagine that the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament did NOT go ahead, and instead the alternative system of press regulation proposed by the newspapers went ahead”.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 85 “What risk, if any, do you think there is that there would be a repeat of unethical and illegal practices (such as phone-hacking and intrusions into people’s private lives”

Poll ‘Total Risk’ ‘Total No Risk’ "Which of the following statements comes closer to your view "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out MST/YouGov, 21-23 Nov 2012 86% 5% on how you think newspapers in Britain should be of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers regulated?" "What risk, if any, do you think there is CHART "Which1 of these two statements comes closest to your own MST/YouGov 31 Jan – 1 FebCHART 2013be 2 obliged to82% join by law?" 6% view?" MST/YouGovthat 1-2 May there 2013 would be73% a repeat of9% unethical There should be an independent body, MST/YouGov 17-18 July 2013 82% 8% established by law, which deals with and illegal practices (such as phone- 8% Newspaper publishers should accept complaints and decides what MST/YouGov 9-10 Oct10% 2013 8% 79% 7% 4% sanctionsthe system there ofshould press beregulation if journalists agreed hacking and intrusions into people's by all three main parties and 12% break agreed codes of conduct" Parliament, even if they object to it private lives) that were revealed during 9% Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with the Leveson Inquiry?"Newspapers should be allowed to opt complaintsNewspaper and publishersdecides what should be sanctions there should be if journalists 100% out allowed to set up their own system of 12% break agreed codes of conduct press regulation if they object to the 86% Newspapers should be obliged to join Neither 82% 82% system proposed by the parties and by law79% Parliament 73% Don't know Neither

Don't know 15% 79% 61%

82% Don't know Total 'Risk' Total 'No Risk' "Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" 9% 8% 5% 6% 7% not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" 100% 0% 21-23 Nov 31 Jan - 1 Feb 1-2 May 2013 17-18 July 9-10 Oct 2013 90% 2012 2013 2013 CHART 3 CHART 4 24% Polling Dates 80% 74% The one approved by Parliament 70% "How much confidence would you have in…"Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Polls (multiple dates) 60% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers 50% 50%A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1 12%As the results indicate, there was little change over anNeither 11-month period. Feb 2013) 73% 40% 13% Don't know 30% 20% The alternative system proposed by newspaper publishers (1-2 May 2013) 20% 17% 56% 9% 13% 10%

0% A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers (17 - 18 July 21% Should implement the Should not2013) implement the Don't know 68% recommendations recommendations

A system of press regulation established by the major newspaper publishers, if that system 15% was not reviewed independently (9-10 Oct 2013) 73%

0% Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 100% 86 Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence' "Which of the following statements comes closer to your view "Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out on how you think newspapers in Britain should be of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers regulated?" "What risk, if any, do you think there is CHART "Which1 of these two statements comes closest to your own CHARTbe 2 obliged to join by law?" view?" that there would be a repeat of unethical There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with and illegal practices (such as phone- 8% The second, Newspaperrelated, publishers tracking should question accept asked about public confidence in a system of complaints and decides what 10% 8% 4% press self-regulationsanctionsthe system there ofshould pressproposed beregulation if journalists agreedby the newspaper industry:hacking and intrusions into people's by all three main parties and 12% break agreed codes of conduct" Parliament, even if they object to it private lives) that were revealed during 9% Newspapers should establish their own body which deals with the Leveson Inquiry?"Newspapers should be allowed to opt complaintsNewspaper and publishersdecides what should be ‘Total ‘Total No sanctions there should be if journalists 100% out “How muchallowed confidence to set up their ownwould system youof have in...” 12% break agreed codes of conduct press regulation if they object to the 86% Confidence’ Confidence’ Newspapers should be obliged to join Neither 82% 82% system proposed by the parties and by law79% ‘A press regulatorParliament set up voluntarily by the newspapers, 73% 12% 73% Don't know without anyNeither legal backing’ (31 Jan – 1 Feb 2013) Don't know 15% 79% 61% ‘The alternative system proposed by newspaper 20%82% 56% publishers’ (1-2 May 2013) Don't know Total 'Risk' ‘A system of press regulation established by the major Total 'No Risk' "Which Royal Charter do 21%you think the Privy Council68% should newspaper publishers’ (17-18 July 2013) "Generally speaking, do you think the government should or should approve?" 9% 8% 5% 6% 7% not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations?" 100% ‘A system of press regulation established by the0% major 21-23 Nov 31 Jan - 1 Feb 1-2 May 2013 17-18 July 9-10 Oct 2013 newspaper publishers, if that system was not reviewed 15% 73% 90% 2012 2013 2013 CHART 3 independently’ (9-10 Oct 2013) CHART 4 24% Polling Dates 80% 74% The one approved by Parliament 70% "How much confidence would you have in…" 60% The one proposed by major newspaper publishers ‘A press regulator set up voluntarily by the 50% 50%A press regulator set up voluntarily by the newspapers, without any legal backing (31 Jan - 1 12% newspapers, without any legal backing’ (31 Neither Feb 2013) 73% 40% Jan – 1 Feb 2013) 13% Don't know 30% ‘The alternative system proposed by 20% The alternative system proposednewspaper by newspaper publishers’ publishers (1-2 May(1-2 May2013) 2013) 20% 17% 56% 9% 13% 10% ‘A system of press regulation established 0% A system of press regulation established by theby major the major newspaper newspaper publishers publishers’ (17 - 18 (17-18 July 21% 2013) Should implement the Should not implementJuly 2013) the Don't know 68% recommendations recommendations A system of press regulation established A system of press regulation established by the majorby the newspaper major newspaper publishers, publishers, if that system if that 15% was not reviewed independentlysystem (9-10 was Oct not 2013) reviewed independently’ 73% (9-10 Oct 2013) 0% 100% Total 'Confidence' Total 'No Confidence'

Source: Media Standards Trust/YouGov Polls (multiple dates)

These results indicate that, despite the increasingly hostile coverage of Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter in the majority of newspapers, there was considerably less support for the alternative systems proposed by the newspaper industry over the course of the year. The lack of confidence in the press alternative increased after the industry plans for IPSO were published in July.

The public also believed that the systems proposed by the industry carried a substantial risk that there would be a return to the unethical and illegal practices that made a public inquiry necessary in the first place.

It is always difficult to draw decisive conclusions from a range of different public opinion polls, not least in a changing context and when the questions are subtly different and surveys are conducted by different polling companies using different

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 87 methods.

At the very least, it can be concluded from this list of questions that, overall, public opinion was supportive of Leveson’s recommendations and willing to see them put into practice by Cross-Party Royal Charter (though would have preferred legislation). At most, it can be said that the public strongly supported Leveson’s recommendations, were in favour of legal underpinning of a new system, and – though initially sceptical – were then broadly supportive of its implementation via a Cross-Party Royal Charter.

The early polls prior to the publication of the Leveson Report tended to show a substantial degree of public support for statutory underpinning, albeit with a distrust of any system in which MPs would be directly involved.

Polls conducted immediately after the publication of Leveson and in early 2013 showed fairly steady support for statutory underpinning, at around twice the level of opposition to the idea. After the agreement of the Cross-Party Charter the principle of the scheme was generally supported, and the specific provisions of the Charter received a high degree of support thereafter. In choices between the Cross- Party Charter and the Industry Charter, a larger portion of the public supported the former.

In October 2013 the principle of external, legally-underpinned recognition received high levels of support in two polls, despite a high degree of negativity towards the Cross-Party Charter in the majority of newspapers at that time. The remaining polls in October 2013 revisited the public’s suspicion of direct political influence in a new system of regulation, though factual errors raise questions about the legitimacy of those results.

Given the previous analysis of press coverage of the Leveson Report and the Royal Charter it is therefore clear that public opinion was not reflected in the national press’ coverage of the Leveson report and its implementation.

It is relevant, too, that where pro-Leveson or pro-Cross-Party Charter results were recorded in polls commissioned by newspapers, that this information was rarely published.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 88 Did newspapers’ coverage of press regulation reflect the opinion of their own readers?

In addition to the general polling, four MST/YouGov polls surveyed a larger sample that was then broken down by newspaper readership, allowing for comparisons to be drawn between aggregate public opinion and the opinion of the various newspaper readerships. In addition, some questions were directly targeted at those respondents who self-identified as reading a particular daily newspaper in order to measure their opinions directly.

MST/YouGov, November 2012

The poll in November 2012 asked whether respondents would prefer ‘an independent body established by law’, against a body established by newspapers.6 Of five newspapers, of which four (not including the Guardian) took a strong editorial stance against statutory underpinning,7 the level of support among their readerships was generally similar to the aggregate support. In other words, their editorial stance was in direct opposition to the views of their readers.

‘There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be in journalists break agreed codes of conduct’

Aggregate 79% Sun 74% Daily Mail 81% Times 77% Daily Telegraph 76% Guardian 90%

This conflict between editorial stance and the views of each newspaper’s readership was also reflected in other questions in the same poll. For instance, when asked whether newspapers should be allowed to opt out of a new regulatory system, or whether they should be obliged to join by law, the aggregate support for obligatory regulation was 82%. At the Sun (76%), Daily Mail (83%), Times (81%), Telegraph (82%) and Guardian (92%), support among readers was similar:

6 In this section, all references to individual newspaper readerships are drawn from samples of over 100. Missing newspapers tended to have smaller samples for which the margin of error would make any results highly unreliable 7 As established in Part 1 of this analysis (pp19-23): http://mediastandardstrust.org/wp-content/ uploads/downloads/2013/05/MST-Leveson-Analysis-090513-v2.pdf

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 89 ‘Do you think national newspapers should be allowed to opt out of any new regulatory system, or should all national newspapers be obliged to join by law?’

‘Newspapers should ‘Newspapers should be allowed to opt be obliged to join by out’ law’

Aggregate 8% 82% Sun 10% 76% Daily Mail 9% 83% Times 14% 81% Daily Telegraph 14% 82% Guardian 3% 92%

MST/YouGov, May 2013

In May, shortly after sections of the newspaper industry announced that they did not want to join the regulatory system set up by the Cross-Party Charter, the MST/ YouGov asked the following question to those respondents who identified as reading a newspaper:

Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but some newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator. Thinking about the newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?

I want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they don’t: 52%

I do not want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they do: 10%

I do not really mind either way: 28%

Don’t know: 11%

The results indicate that the proportion of newspaper readers who wanted their favoured newspaper to join the Cross-Party Charter was considerably higher than the proportion that did not. Results for specific newspapers showed a similar outcome. Of Daily Mail readers, 50% wanted the Mail to join, against 12% who did not. At the Daily Mirror, the figures were 49% to 12%, while at the Times (68% to 7%), Daily Telegraph (58% to 14%) and the Guardian (67% to 10%) readers of those papers were even more likely to support their paper joining the Cross-Party Charter system. Only the Sun (33% to 12%) was substantially different, due to a considerably higher proportion of readers who did not mind either way (40%):

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 90 “Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but some newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator. Thinking about the newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”

‘I do not want the newspaper ‘I want the newspaper I read to I read to join the new system Readership join the new system and will be of regulation and will be disappointed if they don’t’ disappointed if they do’ Aggregate 52% 10% Daily Mail 50% 12% Daily Mirror 49% 12% Times 68% 7% Daily Telegraph 58% 14% Guardian 67% 10% Sun 33% 12%

MST/YouGov, July 2013

The question was repeated around eight weeks later, yielding the following response overall:

I want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they don’t: 59%

I do not want the newspaper I read to join the new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they do: 11%

I do not really mind either way: 24%

Don’t know: 7%

Again, the balance is heavily in favour of publications joining, in direct contrast to the critical coverage prevalent across most of the press at that stage. Broken down by specific newspaper readership, the results show similar characteristics to those in the May poll:

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 91 “Imagine the new system of press regulation agreed by Parliament DID go ahead, but some newspaper groups continued to oppose it and did not join the new regulator. Thinking about the newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”

Aggregate 59% 11% Daily Mail 56% 10% Daily Mirror 55% 12% Times 69% 5% Daily Telegraph 70% 16% Guardian 79% 3% Sun 45% 15%

The results are consistent: there is a considerably greater degree of support among newspaper readers for their chosen paper to join the regulatory system set up by Parliament. In most cases, the readers of newspapers which had spent the intervening months publishing many articles containing strong and frequent criticism of the Cross-Party Charter and strong and frequent praise for the Pressbof Charter were more supportive of their chosen newspaper joining the former. Again, there was in most cases no substantial deviation from the opinion of the public as a whole.

Elsewhere in the poll, when respondents had been asked which of the two Charters they thought should have been approved by the Privy Council, the results by newspaper readership were as follows:

‘Which Royal Charter do you think the Privy Council should approve’

‘The one approved by ‘The one proposed by some Parliament’ major newspaper publishers’

Aggregate (all respondents) 50% 13% Daily Mail 48% 17% Sun 38% 17% Daily Mirror 48% 16% Guardian 64% 4% Times 55% 19% Daily Telegraph 69% 16%

Again, for all sets of newspaper readers support for joining the Cross-Party Charter system significantly outweighed opposition to the move.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 92 MST/YouGov, October 2013

The question on whether newspaper readers wanted their chosen paper to join the Cross-Party Charter system was included again in a poll in the immediate aftermath of the decision by the Privy Council to reject the Industry Charter. The results were similar:

I want the newspaper I read to participate in this new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they don’t: 56%

I do not want the newspaper I read to participate in this new system of regulation and will be disappointed if they do: 7%

I do not really mind either way: 28%

Don’t know: 8%

By newspaper readership, the results continued the pattern established in previous polls:8

“Imagine the new system of press regulation based on the Cross-Party Royal Charter DID go ahead, but some newspaper groups choose not to participate. Thinking about the newspaper you tend to read the most, which of these statements comes closest to your view?”

Aggregate 56% 7% Daily Mail 54% 6% Daily Mirror 56% 5% Daily Telegraph 63% 12% Guardian 66% 6% Sun 40% 9%

When asked how important they thought it was that a new regulator was periodically reviewed by an independent commission set up by a Royal Charter ‘agreed by the main political parties and supported in Parliament’, the results were as follows:

8 The sample of Times readers was below 100, so results were not included here due to the increased margin of error

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 93 “The Royal Charter will set up a body to recognise and periodically review a new press self- regulator, in order to check that it is working effectively on behalf of the public. Newspaper publishers have indicated that they will not participate in the cross-party Charter and will set up their own self-regulation scheme.

How important, if at all, do you think it is that a new system of press self-regulation is periodically reviewed by an independent commission?”

Readership Total ‘Important’ Total ‘Not Important’

Aggregate 71% 14% Daily Mail 71% 18% Daily Mirror 71% 18% Daily Telegraph 90% 9% Guardian 88% 5% Sun 57% 24%

These views did not reflect those of their chosen newspapers at the time. Following the rejection of the newspaper industry-proposed Charter just before this question was posed to the public, the majority of newspapers strongly criticised the Cross- Party Charter, which was consistently represented as a threat to press freedom.

The polls that separated out the answers by newspaper readers showed one trend very consistently: the views of readers were, in most cases, very different from those set out by their chosen newspaper. Newspapers themselves, when commissioning polls, did not split their results by readership. Overall, there was a substantial difference between the editorial lines of the UK national press towards Leveson and the Cross-Party Charter system, and that of their readers.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this. First, newspapers did not fairly represent the views of the general public towards the Leveson recommendations and the Cross-Party Charter. Second, most newspapers did not fairly represent the views of their own readers towards the Leveson recommendations and the Cross-Party Charter.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 94 Summary

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 95 APPENDIX 1: NEWSPAPER COVERAGE BREAKDOWN

The Sun

Articles: With frame(s): 141 Overall: 179 Positive-only: 4 Negative-only: 116 Tone: Both: 21 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 82.2% Negative-to-positive ratio: 29 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 112 (79.4%) Supports Leveson: 12 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 31 Supports underpinning: 3 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 13 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 13 International Reputation: 9 Critical of March 17th Process: 12

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 83 3 72 8 86.7% Negative Cross-Party Charter 60 2 46 12 76.7% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 10 7 1 2 70.0% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 4 2 2 0 = Positive & Negative Industry Charter 7 7 0 0 100% Positive IPSO 3 3 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 4 0 3 1 75.0% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 1 1 = Negative & Both

Daily Mirror

Articles: With frame(s): 78 Overall: 98 Positive-only: 6 Negative-only: 52 Tone: Both: 20 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 66.7% Negative-to-positive ratio: 8.7 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 64 (82.1%) Supports Leveson: 17 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 14 Supports underpinning: 14 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 10 International Reputation: 4 Critical of March 17th Process: 7

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 37 5 20 12 54.1% Negative Cross-Party Charter 43 3 33 7 76.7% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 6 4 0 2 66.7% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative Industry Charter 8 6 2 0 75.0% Negative IPSO 4 4 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 7 0 7 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 96 Sunday Mirror

Articles: With frame(s): 11 Overall: 13 Positive-only: 4 Negative-only: 6 Tone: Both: 1 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 54.5% Negative-to-positive ratio: 1.5 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 6 (54.5%) Supports Leveson: 2 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 0 Supports underpinning: 0 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 4 International Reputation: 0 Critical of March 17th Process: 1

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 6 2 4 0 66.7% Negative Cross-Party Charter 6 3 2 1 50.0% Positive

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter 4 0 4 0 100% Negative IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 1 0 0 100% Positive

People

Articles: With frame(s): 3 Overall: 5 Positive-only: 0 Negative-only: 3 Tone: Both: 0 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 100% Negative-to-positive ratio: N/A Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 3 (100%) Supports Leveson: 0 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 1 Supports underpinning: 0 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 0 International Reputation: 1 Critical of March 17th Process: 0

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 2 0 2 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter 2 0 2 0 100% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 97 Daily Star

Articles: With frame(s): 12 Overall: 23 Positive-only: 1 Negative-only: 9 Tone: Both: 2 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 75.0% Negative-to-positive ratio: 9 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 10 (83.3%) Supports Leveson: 1 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 1 Supports underpinning: 0 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 0 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 2 International Reputation: 0 Critical of March 17th Process: 2

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 6 0 5 1 83.3% Negative Cross-Party Charter 6 1 4 1 66.7% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

Daily Star Sunday

Articles: With frame(s): 0 Overall: 1 Positive-only: 0 Negative-only: 0 Tone: Both: 0 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: N/A Negative-to-positive ratio: N/A Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 0 Supports Leveson: 0 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 0 Supports underpinning: 0 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 0 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 0 International Reputation: 0 Critical of March 17th Process: 0

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 0 0 0 0 N/A Cross-Party Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A IPSO 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 98 Daily Express

Articles: With frame(s): 68 Overall: 94 Positive-only: 9 Negative-only: 33 Tone: Both: 26 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 48.5% Negative-to-positive ratio: 3.7 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 44 (64.7%) Supports Leveson: 28 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 16 Supports underpinning: 10 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 10 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 7 International Reputation: 2 Critical of March 17th Process: 7

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 46 10 18 18 = Negative & Both Cross-Party Charter 27 2 20 5 74.1% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 3 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter 7 2 2 3 42.9% Both IPSO 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative Industry Charter Rejected 2 0 2 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

Sunday Express

Articles: With frame(s): 15 Overall: 16 Positive-only: 6 Negative-only: 5 Tone: Both: 4 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 33.3% Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.8 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 8 (53.3%) Supports Leveson: 9 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 2 Supports underpinning: 5 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 1 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 1 International Reputation: 1 Critical of March 17th Process: 2

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 12 6 3 3 50% Positive Cross-Party Charter 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 3 1 2 0 66.7% Negative Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 2 0 2 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 99 Daily Mail

Articles: With frame(s): 200 Overall: 251 Positive-only: 5 Negative-only: 169 Tone: Both: 26 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 84.5% Negative-to-positive ratio: 33.8 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 147 (73.5%) Supports Leveson: 20 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 74 Supports underpinning: 2 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 31 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 12 International Reputation: 12 Critical of March 17th Process: 41

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 123 5 106 12 86.2% Negative Cross-Party Charter 80 1 68 11 85.0% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 12 8 0 4 66.7% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 0 0 2 100% Both Industry Charter 12 10 0 2 83.3% Positive IPSO 9 8 0 1 88.9% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 10 0 10 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 4 0 2 2 = Negative & Both

Mail on Sunday

Articles: With frame(s): 31 Overall: 53 Positive-only: 2 Negative-only: 25 Tone: Both: 4 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 80.6% Negative-to-positive ratio: 12.5 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 23 (74.2%) Supports Leveson: 5 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 6 Supports underpinning: 1 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 7 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 2 International Reputation: 1 Critical of March 17th Process: 3

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 17 3 13 1 76.5% Negative Cross-Party Charter 19 2 17 0 89.5% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative Industry Charter 6 6 0 0 100% Positive IPSO 2 2 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 0 0 0 0 N/A Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 100 The Times

Articles: With frame(s): 137 Overall: 217 Positive-only: 16 Negative-only: 83 Tone: Both: 37 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 60.6% Negative-to-positive ratio: 5.2 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 82 (59.9%) Supports Leveson: 30 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 60 Supports underpinning: 8 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 9 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 22 International Reputation: 18 Critical of March 17th Process: 18

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 57 9 27 21 47.4% Negative Cross-Party Charter 84 8 60 16 71.4% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 9 5 1 3 55.6% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 2 0 1 1 = Negative & Both Industry Charter 13 7 3 3 53.8% Positive IPSO 16 12 0 4 75.0% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 6 1 5 0 83.3% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative

Sunday Times

Articles: With frame(s): 45 Overall: 53 Positive-only: 5 Negative-only: 30 Tone: Both: 10 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 66.7% Negative-to-positive ratio: 6 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 35 (77.8%) Supports Leveson: 10 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 11 Supports underpinning: 1 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 6 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 5 International Reputation: 4 Critical of March 17th Process: 6

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 28 6 18 4 64.3% Negative Cross-Party Charter 21 2 15 4 71.4% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 4 2 1 1 50% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter 7 6 1 0 85.7% Positive IPSO 2 2 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 101 Daily Telegraph

Articles: With frame(s): 189 Overall: 270 Positive-only: 20 Negative-only: 123 Tone: Both: 46 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 65.1% Negative-to-positive ratio: 6.2 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 143 (75.7%) Supports Leveson: 41 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 53 Supports underpinning: 12 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 7 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 26 International Reputation: 18 Critical of March 17th Process: 10

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 103 15 63 25 61.2% Negative Cross-Party Charter 88 7 62 19 70.5% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 20 9 3 8 45.0% Positive Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 0 2 1 66.7% Negative Industry Charter 21 16 3 2 76.2% Positive IPSO 10 7 1 2 70.0% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 7 0 6 1 85.7% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 2 0 100% Negative

Sunday Telegraph

Articles: With frame(s): 30 Overall: 33 Positive-only: 3 Negative-only: 22 Tone: Both: 5 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 73.3% Negative-to-positive ratio: 7.3 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 26 (86.7%) Supports Leveson: 7 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 9 Supports underpinning: 0 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Charter: 1 International Reputation: 1 Critical of March 17th Process: 6

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 13 3 6 4 46.2% Negative Cross-Party Charter 18 1 17 0 94.4% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter 2 2 0 0 100% Positive IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 1 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 1 0 100% Negative

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 102 Guardian

Articles: With frame(s): 236 Overall: 403 Positive-only: 86 Negative-only: 86 Tone: Both: 64 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 36.4% Negative-to-positive ratio: 1 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 83 (35.2%) Supports Leveson: 101 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 94 Supports underpinning: 38 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 10 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 60 International Reputation: 4 Critical of March 17th Process: 13

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 131 59 40 32 45.0% Positive Cross-Party Charter 111 35 52 24 46.8% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 29 4 11 14 48.3% Both Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both Industry Charter 22 5 12 5 54.5% Negative IPSO 19 6 10 3 52.6% Negative Industry Charter Rejected 6 0 5 1 83.3% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 2 0 2 0 100% Negative

Observer

Articles: With frame(s): 48 Overall: 72 Positive-only: 10 Negative-only: 26 Tone: Both: 12 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 54.2% Negative-to-positive ratio: 2.6 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 16 (33.3%) Supports Leveson: 11 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 19 Supports underpinning: 4 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 5 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 11 International Reputation: 4 Critical of March 17th Process: 4

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 26 7 15 3 57.7% Negative Cross-Party Charter 26 4 14 7 53.8% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 3 1 2 0 66.7% Negative Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 0 1 0 100% Negative Industry Charter 3 2 1 0 66.7% Positive IPSO 3 3 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 1 0 2 0 100% Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 1 0 100% Negative

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 103 Independent

Articles: With frame(s): 97 Overall: 148 Positive-only: 22 Negative-only: 19 Tone: Both: 56 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 19.6% Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.9 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 30 (30.9%) Supports Leveson: 37 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 43 Supports underpinning: 16 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 6 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 40 International Reputation: 3 Critical of March 17th Process: 5

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 52 18 13 21 40.4% Both Cross-Party Charter 45 9 6 30 66.7% Both

February 12th Draft Charter 12 2 1 9 75.0% Both Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 4 0 2 2 = Negative & Both Industry Charter 9 1 3 5 55.6% Both IPSO 5 2 0 3 60.0% Both Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 1 0 0 1 100% Both

Independent on Sunday

Articles: With frame(s): 12 Overall: 21 Positive-only: 6 Negative-only: 2 N/A Both: 4 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 16.7% Negative-to-positive ratio: 0.3 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 4 (33.3%) Supports Leveson: 6 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 4 Supports underpinning: 4 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 1 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 4 International Reputation: 0 Critical of March 17th Process: 0

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 8 3 2 3 = Positive & Both Cross-Party Charter 5 4 1 0 80.0% Positive

February 12th Draft Charter 0 0 0 0 N/A Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter 1 0 1 0 100% Negative IPSO 1 1 0 0 100% Positive Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 = Positive & Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 0 0 0 0 N/A

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 104 Financial Times

Articles: With frame(s): 69 Overall: 97 Positive-only: 11 Negative-only: 25 Tone: Both: 33 Percentage of articles ‘negative-only’: 36.2% Negative-to-positive ratio: 2.3 : 1 Negative Positive Threat (with % prevalence): 26 (37.7%) Supports Leveson: 27 Leveson/Charter Specific Criticism: 43 Supports underpinning: 19 Frames Questions Legitimacy of Leveson: 2 Supports Cross-Party Charter: 16 International Reputation: 0 Critical of March 17th Process: 3

Pos- Neg- How Issues Were Framed Total Both Predominant Tone only only Leveson Report 41 6 14 21 51.2% Both Cross-Party Charter 28 7 12 9 42.9% Negative

February 12th Draft Charter 9 2 0 7 77.8% Both Cameron ends Cross-Party talks 0 0 0 0 N/A Industry Charter 6 4 2 0 66.7% Positive IPSO 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both Industry Charter Rejected 2 1 1 0 =Positive & Negative Cross-Party Charter sealed 3 0 1 2 66.7% Both

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 105 APPENDIX 2: ALL LEADER ARTICLES WITH CLASSIFICATIONS

Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Silencing the cold call Compares Leveson Inquiry favourably against internal 29.11.12 Daily Mail Pro-Leveson claim sharks BBC investigation

Anticipates Leveson recommendations on statute as a 29.11.12 Sun Freedom fight Anti-Leveson threat to free speech

General support for Leveson Report recommendations; Lord Justice Leveson 30.11.12 Guardian Both critical of certain specific recommendations, including throws the ball back Ofcom Support for the inception of the Leveson Inquiry; Freedom of the press 30.11.12 Daily Express Both describes potential threats to free speech through political must be used for good interference Critical of Ofcom recommendation, and questions 30.11.12 Daily Mail Daily Mail Comments Both legitimacy of conclusions. Threat to free speech cited. Some recommendations supported Crackdown that could “Draconian crackdown on the public’s right to know” – 30.11.12 Daily Mail stifle your right to Anti-Leveson criticism of recommendations on ‘off-the-record briefings’ know and press-police relations Let us implement Criticises recommendation on statutory underpinning: 30.11.12 Daily Telegraph Leveson, without a Both “slippery slope to state meddling”; supportive of some press law recommendations

Supports recommendations generally; critical of Ofcom 30.11.12 Times The Leveson Report Both recommendation, and potential threats to press freedom

No turning back if we Focuses on perceived threat to press freedom throughout: 30.11.12 Daily Mirror Anti-Leveson cross the line “shackling the free press”, etc

Support of some Leveson recommendations; critical of 30.11.12 Sun No to censors Both statutory underpinning: “could bring in state control of newspapers” Supports some Leveson recommendations; criticises Leveson’s lessons for 30.11.12 Financial Times Both statutory underpinning (“licencing”) and of Ofcom Fleet Street recommendation

Political class out of Mentions Leveson report in conjunction with criticism of 01.12.12 Daily Mail None tune with the public BBC

Supports recommendations on arbitration, critical of Improving on the 01.12.12 Daily Telegraph Both others. Mentions potential threats to press freedom Leveson Report (“would hand ultimate control of the press to MPs”) Critical of Data Protection recommendations; “press When public trumps 01.12.12 Times Anti-Leveson freedom at risk”; “chilling effect on investigative private journalism” The press must 01.12.12 Independent show that statute is Pro-Leveson Supports Leveson recommendations superfluous

We cheapen justice at Highly critical of Leveson Report (“backlash against a free 02.12.12 Mail on Sunday Anti-Leveson a massive cost press”; “unrealistic plans”; “illogical”, etc)

Independent on Only a free press is Qualified general support for the conduct of the Leveson 02.12.12 Both Sunday democratic Inquiry, raises threat (“Rubicon”)

Newspapers must respond in a reasoned General support for Leveson recommendations; outlines 02.12.12 Observer Both manner to Leveson’s potential threats to press freedom proposals Leveson shows how Supportive of Leveson (“a seminal moment for 02.12.12 Sunday Express press can regain Both democracy”); critical of omissions and conclusions of public respect report

The press has to fight Claims “there is much to commend in the Leveson Report”; 02.12.12 Sunday Times Both for its freedom multiple descriptions of perceived threats to press freedom

The scandal that state Sunday Voices support for some Leveson recommendations; 02.12.12 control would have Both Telegraph repeats threats to press freedom throughout buried

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 106 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Taking Leveson to Supports Leveson recommendations; describes fact of 03.12.12 Guardian Pro-Leveson heart industry opposition

Outlines and supports campaigner’s opposition to the 04.12.12 Sun Sara’s right Anti-Leveson Leveson recommendations

Critical of statutory underpinning (Scottish context); 05.12.12 Sun No Leveson law Anti-Leveson politicians “would relish the opportunity to decide what you can or can’t read in your newspapers” (Scottish context): links Leveson to loss of press freedom 07.12.12 Daily Telegraph Salmond’s press law Anti-Leveson (“the state would still monitor and invigilate the new regulator”)

Describes LJ Leveson’s subsequent public comments about 08.12.12 Daily Mirror Net a chance None the internet and regulation

Critical of perceived threats posed by Leveson report via Grotesque legacy of Anti-Leveson 11.12.12 Daily Mail Labour’s draft Bill (“would unravel liberties that have been censors who failed us (Draft Bill) Britons’ birthright for 300 years”)

Anti-Leveson Claims statutory underpinning would be a restriction on 11.12.12 Times The unnecessary Bill (Draft Bill) press freedom

11.12.12 Daily Mirror Press pause Anti-Leveson Critical of statutory underpinning via Leveson/Draft Bill

A timely example of Draws explicit link between statutory underpinning and 13.12.12 Daily Telegraph Anti-Leveson state interference political interference in publication

Links Maria Miller expenses story to potential 13.12.12 Daily Mirror Our right to probe Anti-Leveson state interference in publication following Leveson recommendations

Describes Leveson recommendation on statutory 13.12.12 Sun Blood stains Anti-Leveson underpinning as likely to “shackle a free press”

Links Maria Miller expenses story to justified rejection of 14.12.12 Sun Hands off Anti-Leveson Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning

A silly warning that Links Maria Miller expenses story to potential political 14.12.12 Independent conveys a serious Anti-Leveson interference after “state regulation of the press” message (Scottish context) Describes perceived threat to press 15.12.12 Sun Ludicrous, m’lud Anti-Leveson freedom following the Leveson Report: “The real danger is a press muzzled by self-serving politicians”

Dirty Dick, saviour of 16.12.12 Sunday Times Anti-Leveson Describes a “repressive, post-Leveson climate” ye printed word

Shadow of fear over Describes Leveson Inquiry as directly responsible for 18.12.12 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson public’s right to know police restrictions on information

Links Leveson to potential criminalisation of 18.12.12 Sun Over the top Anti-Leveson whistleblowing

A sinister new twist Critical of Leveson recommendation on off-the-record 19.12.12 Daily Telegraph Anti-Leveson in the Mitchell saga briefings, claims it will limit the flow of information

Support for some Leveson recommendations and for 21.12.12 Times Three wise men Both speculative Royal Charter Draft; describes statutory underpinning as a threat to press freedom Victories for the Dismisses the Leveson Inquiry as a means for critics of the 06.01.13 Sunday Mirror press… and the Anti-Leveson press to attack the industry people too

Explicitly links the Leveson Inquiry to “attempts to stifle 09.01.13 Sun Gag’s no joke Anti-Leveson free speech” by a local council

Brussels’ oversight of Describes Leveson Inquiry in context of proposed EU 23.01.13 Financial Times regulators would be a None regulatory changes retrograde step

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 107 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Describes potential underpinning as “a Leveson law to 05.02.13 Sun Press for truth Anti-Leveson muzzle the press”

Leveson and the 07.02.13 Daily Telegraph None About Lords amendments to legislation related to Leveson Lords

The Tories hang the Describes Inquiry conclusions as pre-ordained, describes 08.02.13 Daily Mail police and Press out Anti-Leveson Leveson as a threat to press freedom and end to “400 to dry… years” of a free press

Lords a-leaping to gag Multiple descriptions of threats to press freedom: “gag the 10.02.13 Sunday Times Anti-Leveson the press press”; “death knell for press freedom”, etc.

From Beaverbrook to Contains arguments for and against Feb 12th Charter draft; 13.02.13 Guardian None Blackadder no focus on Leveson or Cross-Party Charter

Critical of Leveson’s “flawed” report; supportive of Feb Anti-Leveson (Pro 12th Charter draft; describes Leveson as a “vehicle for 13.02.13 Times The fine print Feb 12th Charter) politicians… to impose regulation and obligations on the press” General support for Feb 12th Charter, with criticism of The least worst option 13.02.13 Independent None certain provisions. No focus on Leveson or Cross-Party for the British press Charter

Perils of press laws Critical of Leveson recommendations, which would have 13.02.13 Financial Times Anti-Leveson and Royal Charters led to “statutory control”

Leveson and a gag on “It is impossible to overstate the Leveson report’s chilling 14.02.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson whistleblowers effect on the public’s right to know”

Claims Leveson would be the “first statutory controls on 15.02.13 Daily Telegraph A new press regulator Anti-Leveson the press for more than 300 years”; supports Feb 12th Royal Charter draft

A Lib-Lab pact based Misrepresentation of Leveson recommendation on 18.02.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson on the politics of envy whistleblowers; links to future restrictions on information

And still the man with “[T]he truly chilling effect of the Leveson Inquiry on the 21.02.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson no shame won’t go public’s 21right to know”

Putting self-interest Critical of certain Leveson recommendations; describes “a 21.02.13 Daily Telegraph ahead of press Anti-Leveson chilling effect on investigative journalism” freedom

Culture of secrecy is Critical of (misrepresented) Leveson recommendation on 22.02.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson killing trust in NHS whistleblowing

Statutes against Critical of Leveson recommendation regarding the Police 22.02.13 Times Anti-Leveson liberty and Criminal Evidence Act

General support for Leveson recommendations; critical Leveson and libel: 23.02.13 Guardian Both of Leveson recommendations on exemplary damages; another fine mess criticism of Feb 12th Charter Draft “No true liberal would support the Leveson proposals to 23.02.13 Daily Mail Daily Mail Comment Anti-Leveson shackle free speech”; claims that Leveson will be used by politicians to stifle criticism

Libel law of Describes Leveson recommendations (through draft Bill 24.02.13 Sunday Times Anti-Leveson diminishing returns amendments) as “state regulation of the press”

Mentions Leveson in relation to Lords Amendments to 02.03.13 Times The price of cynicism None Defamation Bill

Lord Puttnam’s libel 07.03.13 Independent Both Outlines arguments for and against statutory underpinning folly

A public inquiry Contains arguments for and against clauses of various 12.03.13 Guardian demands a public Both iterations of Royal Charters debate In favour of statutory underpinning for a new regulator, Time for the media to 12.03.13 Independent Both but critical of Leveson recommendations on Ofcom and find a compromise potential “chilling effect on free speech”

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 108 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Time for sensible Qualified support for statutory underpinning through 12.03.13 Financial Times Both press compromise modification of Feb 12th Royal Charter

Critical of Leveson recommendations, and raises threat Now disinfect all the to press freedom: “The fact is that since the Leveson 14.03.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson other public services Inquiry… transparency has been under chilling threat in Britain”

Leveson vote: some Claims Leveson report “plainly not insane”; indicates 15.03.13 Guardian Both way from resolution paper’s stance against certain Leveson recommendations

Freedom of the press Anti-Cross-Party Describes draft Cross-Party Charter as Labour “pushing for 15.03.13 Daily Express is a benchmark of our Charter draconian controls on the press”; supports Feb 12th Charter liberty A tawdry alliance Anti-Cross-Party Support for Feb 12th Charter; criticism of draft Labour/Lib 15.03.13 Daily Mail and a threat to a free Charter Dem Charter as a threat to press freedom press Claims “press will be less free than it is now” under Parliament must 15.03.13 Daily Telegraph Anti-Leveson Leveson proposals; “despots around the world will be support a free press delighted”; supports Feb 12th Charter Against draft Labour/Lib Dem Charter due to Leveson Unwise and Anti-Cross-Party recommendation on statutory underpinning that will 15.03.13 Times unnecessary Charter “interfere with freedom of speech”; supports Feb 12th Charter Describes Leveson statutory underpinning Anti-Cross-Party recommendation as a choice to “end centuries of 15.03.13 Sun Day of destiny Charter free speech and open the door to State supervision of newspapers” Support for statutory underpinning, describes positive and An end to Leveson 15.03.13 Independent Both negative interpretations of Cameron’s decision to suspend within sight at last cross-party talks Multiple descriptions of perceived threats to press Defy the zealots and Anti-Cross-Party 16.03.13 Daily Mail freedom, which is described as “in grave and imminent defend liberty Charter danger”; supports Feb 12th Charter (Scottish context): describes Scottish interpretation of 16.03.13 Sun Read & Rights Anti-Leveson Leveson report as “a death warrant for a free Press in Scotland”; supports Feb 12th Charter Claims that “Press freedom – that ancient, crucial Anti-Cross-Party ingredient of our democracy [is] now in grave, imminent 16.03.13 Sun Wish Granted Charter peril” due to Cross-Party draft Charter; supports Feb 12th Charter

The Mail on Sunday Anti-Cross-Party Repeated raising of perceived threats to press freedom as a 17.03.13 Mail on Sunday Comment Charter result of the draft Cross-Party Charter

After Leveson, let’s Supportive of certain aspects of draft Cross-Party Charter, 17.03.13 Observer put hysteria and Both but notes potential downsides of statutory underpinning mistrust behind us Anti-Cross-Party Repeated description of perceived threats to press freedom Don’t give up on press 17.03.13 Sunday Times Charter (pro-Feb (“slippery slope towards political control of the press”); freedom now 12th Charter) supports Feb 12th Charter Supportive of implementation of certain Leveson Regulating the press Sunday recommendations via Cross-Party Draft Charter; describes 17.03.13 by statute is the first Both Telegraph perceived threats to press freedom as a result of statutory step to censorship underpinning Leveson vote: Covers arguments for and against Cross-Party and Feb 12th 18.03.13 Guardian no cause for Both Charters, as well as the Leveson recommendations hyperventilating Describes Cross-Party draft Charter as representing a Don’t sacrifice our Anti-Cross-Party 18.03.13 Daily Mail potential loss of freedom of expression; supports Feb 12th hard-won freedoms Charter Charter

A muzzled media will Anti-Cross-Party Describes draft Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press 18.03.13 Daily Telegraph make victims of us all Charter freedom

Anti-Cross-Party Cross-Party Charter described as representing a loss of 18.03.13 Times Paper chase Charter press freedom; support for Feb 12th Charter

Claims that the passing of the Cross-Party Charter in Free speech and Anti-Cross-Party 18.03.13 Sun Parliament would result in “shackling free speech”, and revenge Charter represents “scrapped Press freedom”

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 109 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

A Royal Charter alone Supportive of Charter backed by statute; lists arguments 18.03.13 Independent Both will not restore trust against state interference by other voices

Royal Charter must Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Charter process and links forthcoming Charter 18.03.13 Financial Times guide, not dictate Charter to a potential threat to press freedom

Pro-Cross-Party 19.03.13 Guardian A good deal on paper Qualified support for Cross-Party Charter Charter

Multiple representation of perceived threats to press Anti-Cross-Party 19.03.13 Daily Mail Daily Mail Comment freedom (“political interference in British newspapers”, Charter etc.) MPs cross the Anti-Cross-Party Equates Cross-Party Charter with a “Rubicon” and 19.03.13 Daily Telegraph Rubicon on press Charter “inimical to a free press” regulation Anti-Leveson; Critical of specific provisions of Cross-Party Charter, as 19.03.13 Times Across the Rubicon Anti-Cross-Party well as perceived threat of Parliamentary interference; Charter critical of Leveson Report

Anti-Cross-Party Critical of the nature of the Cross-Party Charter process; 19.03.13 Sun Wait and free Charter incorrectly claims “Orwellian” Charter creates a regulator

A Leveson deal worth Pro-Cross-Party 19.03.13 Independent Supportive of Cross-Party Charter backing Charter

Pro-Cross-Party 19.03.13 Financial Times Turning the page Qualified support for Cross-Party Charter Charter

Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom, Another betrayal of Anti-Cross-Party 20.03.13 Daily Mail being based on “late-night talks on crushing Press stay-at-home mothers Charter freedom”

Anti-Cross-Party Described Cross-Party Charter as a “sinister new press 21.03.13 Sun Don’t fudge it Charter law”, designed “to nobble newspapers”

Critical of certain provisions of Cross-Party Charter Still work to be done 21.03.13 Independent Both (exemplary damages and arbitration free of charge); on Leveson supportive in general of Charter

Anti-Cross-Party Claims International disapproval of Cross-Party Charter; 23.03.13 Times The right to offend Charter criticism of process of agreement of Charter

Anti-Cross-Party Describes Cross-Party Charter as “illiberal”, representing 23.03.13 Daily Mirror Gag falls flat Charter “shackles”

Anti-Cross-Party Describes Cross-Party Charter as “Parliament’s destruction 23.03.13 Sun Wrong again Charter of 300 years of Press freedom”

A muddle may be as Anti-Cross-Party 23.03.13 Financial Times Criticises “flawed” Charter bad as a muzzle Charter

Instead of sensible Critical of the process of agreement over Cross- 24.03.13 Observer reform, we now have Both Party Charter; supportive of component on statutory a sloppy mess underpinning

Press freedom in the Anti-Cross-Party “British people risk losing the freedom of the press…”; 24.03.13 Sunday Mirror balance Charter “sleep-walking into the loss of a critical freedom”

Press freedom: no Anti-Cross-Party Describes Cross-Party Charter as representing the loss of 24.03.13 Sunday Times longer made in Charter press freedom Britain Let’s get on and put Supportive of Cross-Party Charter generally; criticism 26.03.13 Independent press regulation into Both of specific provisions (exemplary damages and cost of practice arbitration) Anti-Leveson; Claims the Leveson Inquiry was unnecessary; criticises 27.03.13 Times Back of the scrum Anti-Cross-Party Cross-Party Charter as a loss of free speech Charter Describes Cross-Party Charter as “a frighteningly illiberal End this culture of Anti-Cross-Party 06.04.13 Daily Mail system of statutory regulation which has been condemned welfarism and greed Charter across the free world”

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 110 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Critical of (misrepresented) Leveson recommendation A chilling new threat 08.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson on whistleblowing; links Leveson to restrictions on to the right to know information

Chilling spectre of a “Lord Justice Leveson’s insidiously wrong-headed 11.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson secret police force proposals to rein in the freedom of the Press”

Links Leveson recommendation on identification of arrests 11.04.13 Sun Secret society Anti-Leveson to “a nail in the coffin of freedom”

Anti-Cross-Party 12.04.13 Times Shush money Links Cross-Party Charter to threatened press freedom Charter

Directly links Leveson recommendation on arrest 12.04.13 Sun Ed on the block Anti-Leveson identification with the prevention of victims of sex attacks coming forward Critical of “short-sighted” Leveson recommendation on 13.04.13 Sun Press gag folly Anti-Leveson arrest identifications; describes “the campaign by Lord Justice Leveson… to silence the free Press” Leveson Inquiry linked to threatened Press freedom: Press freedom is at 15.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson “Leveson’s Inquiry has cast such a shadow over free risk from all sides expression” Secret arrests would Describes Leveson’s recommendation on arrest 15.04.13 Daily Telegraph be an affront to None identification, without comment justice

How can exposing the Critical of Leveson recommendations on press-police 19.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson truth be a crime? relations

Leveson and a very Questions legitimacy of Leveson’s “deeply flawed Inquiry”; 20.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson disturbing affair describes report as a “sloppy piece of work”

This cult of secrecy “Since the Leveson Report dealt a severe blow to press 21.04.13 Mail on Sunday Anti-Leveson will harm us all freedom…”

Anti-Leveson; Describes Cross-Party Charter as the end of “300 years of 21.04.13 Sun Brief encounter Anti-Cross-Party Press freedom”; questions legitimacy of Inquiry Charter

The public interest in 22.04.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson Links Leveson with “stifling free speech” this ‘private’ affair

Cross-Party Charter described as encouraging Anti-Cross-Party 23.04.13 Times Your right to know “infringements of freedoms”; describes Leveson report as Charter linked to threats to newspapers

Support for Leveson Inquiry and recommendations, in 25.04.13 Guardian More work ahead Pro-Leveson context of IPCC report on police and media relations

Anti-Cross-Party 26.04.13 Times Turning the page Charter; Pro- Multiple criticisms of Cross-Party Charter Industry Charter

Two Royal Charters, Outlines both potential support for Cross-Party Charter 26.04.13 Independent Both one big impasse and for Industry Charter

Contains arguments for and against both Cross-Party and 26.04.13 Guardian Time for a ceasefire Both newspaper Industry Charters

Anti-Cross-Party; A truly independent Describes Cross-Party Charter as “state-directed regulation 26.04.13 Daily Mail Pro-Industry regulator of the Press of the Press”; fully supportive of Industry Charter Charter Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Instead of a free pres… we The key to a fair and 26.04.13 Daily Mirror Charter; pro- would have state regulation”; describes Industry Charter as free press Industry Charter “the answer to the question of newspaper regulation” Self-regulation Anti-Cross-Party; Describes Cross-Party Charter as ending “300 years of Press 26.04.13 Daily Telegraph that is tough but Pro-Industry freedom”; supportive of Industry Charter independent Charter Anti-Cross-Party; A step forward for a Cross-Party Charter “used to muzzle the media to the 26.04.13 Daily Telegraph Pro-Industry responsible press benefit of the powerful”; supports Industry Charter Charter

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 111 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Anti-Cross-Party Describes Cross-Party Charter as “an unworkable sambles 27.04.13 Sun A new Charter Charter; Pro- that would destroy three centuries of Press freedom in Industry Charter Britain” Critical of Cross-Party Charter and supportive of Industry A better way to 28.04.13 Sunday Times Both Charter; offers qualified support for original Leveson regulate the Press recommendations Anti-Cross-Party Sunday A step forward for a Raises potential of regulation to “muzzle the press”; critical 28.04.13 Charter; Pro- Telegraph responsible press of Cross-Party Charter, supports Industry Charter Industry CHarter

Charging headlong Leveson Inquiry described as “at the root of this insidious 03.05.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson towards a secret state attack on openness and transparency

03.05.13 Daily Telegraph The right to know None Mentions Leveson in relation to Stuart Hall arrest

Stand up for free Describes Leveson as “the battering ram in a co-ordinated 03.05.13 Sun Anti-Leveson speech assault on free speech”

You couldn’t make Anti-Cross-Party Suggests that Cross-Party Royal Charter would be subject to 08.05.13 Guardian it up Charter political interference

‘Improvements’ Anti-Cross-Party; Critical of Cross-Party Charter and process of agreement; 12.05.13 Mail on Sunday shouldn’t cost lives, Pro-Industry cites press support for Industry Charter Minister Charter

Police, secrecy and Anti-Cross-Party Describes Cross-Party Charter as a potential threat to 15.05.13 Daily Mail the legacy of Leveson Charter public access to information

The police should Mentions Leveson recommendations in relation to 22.05.13 Daily Telegraph not be shielded from None identification of arrests scrutiny Critical of Leveson recommendations on arrest 22.05.13 Sun Secret Justice Anti-Leveson identification; describes Report as “flawed”; links Leveson with restricted public information

The price we pay for Mentions Leveson in relation to press-police relations 22.05.13 Independent None open justice following the Inquiry

High time to clean up Claims that after Leveson it is risky to investigate the 02.06.13 Sunday Times Anti-Leveson the House of Lords powerful

Is this why politicians Anti-Cross-Party 03.06.13 Daily Mail Links Leveson to attempts “to muzzle Britain’s free Press” want to gag the press? Charter

Gay marriage, Claims “post-Leveson, politicians increasingly think they 04.06.13 Daily Mail peers and a vote of Anti-Leveson have the right to tell the Press what it can print” principle Questions cost of Leveson Inquiry and the legitimacy of its 05.06.13 Sun Seize him now Anti-Leveson conclusions, and describes it as an attempt “to muzzle the Press”

Criticises Leveson recommendations on press-police 07.06.13 Sun Secrecy fails Anti-Leveson relations; describes “the chilling effect of Leveson’s report”

In praise of… Michael Mentions Michael Grade as playing a possible role in 19.06.13 Guardian None Grade resolving the Royal Charter dispute

The perils of lurching Links the Leveson Report with restrictions on public 21.06.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson towards a secret State information

Describes the Leveson Inquiry outcome as threatening “to 23.06.13 Sun Illegal eagle Anti-Leveson destroy Britain’s free Press”

Lawyers, hacking Criticises legitimacy of Leveson conclusions on corporate 24.06.13 Daily Mail and a conspiracy of Anti-Leveson hacking: “Leveson knew what was going on, and decided silence to ignore it”

Claims Leveson Inquiry “recommended new controls 25.06.13 Sun Call Leveson Anti-Leveson shackling newspapers”

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 112 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Other hackers need Claims narrowness of remit reduces the legitimacy of the 25.06.13 Independent Anti-Leveson scrutiny too Leveson Inquiry

Claims that the Leveson Inquiry was the direct result of Publish and be 26.06.13 Times Anti-Leveson “politically and commercially-motivated campaigning and damned reporting”

26.06.13 Sun Secret police Anti-Leveson Describes Leveson Inquiry as “destroying” transparency

Royal Charter set Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Wrongdoings of a minority Anti-Cross-Party; up by the Press is of journalists have been used by politicians and celebrities 30.06.13 Mail on Sunday Pro-Industry the ideal answer as as pretext for shackling a free press”; supports Industry Charter Leveson fades away Charter

Hacking Scandal: Mentions Leveson Inquiry in relation to leaked Rupert 05.07.13 Guardian None Back in the Sun Murdoch reporting

Mentions Royal Charters in relation to Lord Prescott’s 08.07.13 Daily Telegraph Right on Rt Hon None resignation from the Privy Council

Miliband must show Anti-Cross-Party Cross-Party Charter described as “plans to curb Press 09.07.13 Daily Mail us who runs Labour Charter; pro-IPSO freedom”; supports new Industry regulator

Anti-Cross-Party Links Cross-Party Charter with state interference; 10.07.13 Daily Telegraph A free press Charter; pro-IPSO supportive of IPSO

Anti-Cross-Party Supports IPSO, with reference to “protecting freedom of 11.07.13 Times A big step forward Charter; pro-IPSO speech” against Cross-Party Charter

MP’s pay and the peril Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Cross-Party Charter, described as “statutory 12.07.13 Daily Mail of legislating in haste Charter Press regulation”

Anti-Cross-Party The right answer to Critical of March 18h Charter on arbitration and standards- 18.07.13 Financial Times Charter; pro- press regulation setting; supports Industry Charter Industry Charter

Hacking, Hypocrisy 20.07.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson Questions legitimacy of “flawed” Inquiry and a flawed Inquiry

Questions legitimacy of the Inquiry “led by appalling Cameron must stand double standards” to “protect law firms, insurers and 20.07.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson by his pledge on porn celebrities, while ruthlessly pursuing newspapers and journalists” Critical of conduct of Leveson Inquiry (“contempt” for most 20.07.13 Sun Hack hypocrisy Anti-Leveson witnesses) and decision to “choose to ignore” evidence of hacking

Mentions Hacked Off and phone-hacking; no evaluation of 28.07.13 Sun Hugh there? None press regulation

Describes Leveson Report as “discredited”, and a leading to 31.07.13 Sun This is our Britain Anti-Leveson “life without press freedoms”

Describes Leveson Report as having “chilling implications Hacking: why the 01.08.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson for Press freedom”; criticises Leveson decision on SOCA silence of the Left report

The hacking scandal 01.08.13 Daily Telegraph Anti-Leveson Critical of “unsatisfactory” remit of the Leveson Inquiry goes beyond the press

Riddle of who got Mentions Hacked Off and phone-hacking in relation to 01.08.13 Sun None screwed corporate hacking

Britain must remain a Criticises remit of Leveson Inquiry, and decision on SOCA 06.08.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson rock to Gibraltar report

The hacking scandal Critical of Leveson Inquiry remit: “focused far too 11.08.13 Mail on Sunday Anti-Leveson that’s still growing narrowly”

Why won’t police Mentions Leveson in relation to corporate hacking 25.08.13 Mail on Sunday None reveal SOCA files? revealed in SOCA report

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 113 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

After 60 years, bring Describes Leveson’s report as a “draconian crackdown on 04.09.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson back Britain’s rights the press”

Weak leader in a trap 08.09.13 Mail on Sunday Anti-Leveson Describes “the flawed Leveson inquisition” of his own making

A weak leader beaten Claims the Leveson Inquiry “suppressed” the corporate 09.09.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson by the union bullies hacking revealed in the SOCA report

This vomit-inducing article proves why 10.09.13 Sun None References Hacked Off in relation to Chris Huhne article journalists have to scrutinise politicians

The cost of libel Critical of Leveson recommendations on costs protection, 16.09.13 Daily Telegraph Anti-Leveson reform describes as a threat to free press

17.09.13 Independent Fettering of the press None Mentions Leveson Inquiry in relation to libel reform

Links Leveson Report to political interference in the The sensible solution press: “after the Leveson Inquiry, MPs are manoeuvring 26.09.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson to overpriced energy to impose political control on the Press after 400 years of freedom” An evil legacy and Anti-Cross-Party Claims Cross-Party Charter will be “a politically controlled 01.10.13 Daily Mail why we won’t Charter body to oversee what papers are allowed to publish” apologise Anti-Cross-Party An ominous threat to Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom 05.10.13 Daily Telegraph Charter; pro- shackle our free press (“statutory control”); supportive of Industry Charter Industry Charter Miliband, the Mail 06.10.13 Observer and the return of None Mentions Leveson, contains no opinion or evaluation Leveson Anti-Cross-Party Freedom of speech: Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “Slippery slope”; “end of 06.10.13 Sunday Times Charter; pro- warts and all 300 years of press freedom”; supports Industry Charter Industry Charter Anti-Cross-Party Sunday Emotion has no place Support for Industry Charter; Critical of Cross-Party 06.10.13 Charter; pro- Telegraph in press regulation Charter – could be “used to muzzle the press” Industry Charter Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; Describes Cross-Party Charter as “statutory press controls 09.10.13 Daily Telegraph A threat to freedom against rejection for the first time in 300 years” of Industry Charter by Privy Council Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; Critical of Cross-Party Charter and recommendations; 09.10.13 Times Paper jam against rejection critical of the Privy Council rejection of the Industry of Industry Charter Charter by Privy Council Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; A dire day for Critical of Cross-Party Charter, described as a threat to 09.10.13 Daily Mirror against rejection freedom press freedom; supportive of Industry Charter of Industry Charter by Privy Council Describes Cross-Party Charter as a “historic subversion of Anti-Cross-Party 09.10.13 Sun Hate campaign democracy”, and “the first dangerous step towards state of Charter Britain’s free Press”

Anti-Cross-Party Cross-Party Charter as a means of bringing newspapers “to 09.10.13 Sun Freedom fight Charter heel”; freedom of the Press “about to be binned”

Supportive of Cross-Party Charter in general; critical of 11.10.13 Independent Stalemate Both process of agreement of Cross-Party Charter

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 114 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Described dispute over Cross-Party Charter as “essentially Anti-Cross-Party 12.10.13 Daily Mirror Charter of chains about the principle of politicians interfering in Charter newspapers” Anti-Cross-Party Critical of multiple aspects of Cross-Party Charter, Flawed Royal Charter; pro- including the potential for restrictions of press freedom 13.10.13 Sunday Express Charter will put our IPSO; against (“an assault on free speech”); supports new Industry democracy at risk rejection of regulator Industry Charter Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; Don’t allow sleazy Describes Cross-Party Charter as representing the end of 13.10.13 Sun against rejection MPs to kill freedom press freedom; supportive of Industry Charter of Industry Charter by Privy Council Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom: Rallying to fight for Anti-Cross-Party 17.10.13 Daily Mail “deeply chilling implications of… efforts to impose the cause of freedom Charter statutory controls on the Press”

Anti-Cross-Party 17.10.13 Times Pressing truths Supports Minister’s opposition to Cross-Party Charter Charter

Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; Claims Cross-Party Charter equals “state control” of the 17.10.13 Daily Mirror Royal doubts against rejection press; critical of rejection of Industry Charter of Industry Charter by Privy Council Describes the Cross-Party Charter as “a politically-driven Against Cross- 17.10.13 Sun Throne it out assault on the Press and on our democracy itself”; “ending Party Charter three centuries of press freedom at the stroke of a pen”

Anti-Cross-Party 18.10.13 Guardian Balancing acts Critical of Cross-Party Charter Charter

A flawed blueprint Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Cross-Party Charter provisions on arbitration 19.10.13 Financial Times for press regulation Charter and control of standards code

Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “could bring an end to three Privy Council must Anti-Cross-Party 25.10.13 Daily Mail centuries of Press freedom in this country”; support for not be above the law Charter; pro-IPSO new Industry regulator

Supportive of certain Leveson recommendations; critical of 25.10.13 Times Hacked Off Both Cross-Party Charter; supports IPSO

A royal seal, with no Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Cross-Party Charter, including potential for 29.10.13 Guardian deal Charter political interference

Contains arguments for and against IPSO and the Cross- 29.10.13 Independent Open judgement Both Party Charter

Anti-Cross-Party A judicial farce and a Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “dark day for freedom”; “far 31.10.13 Daily Mail Charter, against dark day for freedom from independent” sealing of Charter Anti-Cross-Party Charter; pro- Industry Charter; against rejection Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom; The fight goes on for 31.10.13 Daily Telegraph of Industry critical of Privy Council decisions to seal Cross-Party press freedom Charter by Privy Charter and to reject Industry Charter. Council; against sealing of Cross- Party Charter

Anti-Cross-Party 31.10.13 Times Pressing concerns Critical of Cross-Party Charter on multiple counts Charter

Anti-Cross-Party A dark day for Describes Cross-Party Charter as a “death warrant for 31.10.13 Daily Mirror Charter; against freedom press freedom” sealing of Charter Anti-Cross-Party (Scottish context) Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat 31.10.13 Sun No hiding Charter; against to press freedom sealing of Charter

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 115 Date Publication Headline Tone Reason

Why is Mrs Miller’s Describes Cross-Party Charter as a threat to press freedom: Anti-Cross-Party 01.11.13 Daily Telegraph case dragging on and “chilling effect that statutory regulation of the press might Charter on? exert”

Let’s end this impasse Anti-Cross-Party Critical of Cross-PartyCharter, and lists Observer’s 03.11.13 Observer on press regulation Charter; pro-IPSO intention not to join; gives qualified support to IPSO

Anti-Cross-Party Charter; against rejection of Critical of Cross-Party Charter: “The chilling effect on Not a Charter for 03.11.13 Sunday Times Industry Charter, freedom of speech that comes from the proposal to press freedom against sealing establish political interference in the press” of Cross-Party Charter Anti-Cross-Party Shadowy figures who Charter; Pro- Sunday Describes Cross-Party Charter as “muzzling [the] press”; 03.11.13 would like to muzzle IPSO, against Telegraph support for IPSO the press sealing of Cross- Party Charter Anti-Cross-Party Charter, pro- Critical of Cross-Party Charter (“state dictating for the first 04.11.13 Daily Mirror Ditch stitch-up IPSO, against time in hundreds of years how newspapers operate”); sealing of Cross- supportive of IPSO Party Charter

Migration: Labour’s Anti-Cross-Party Critical of how Cross-Party Charter could supposedly be 13.11.13 Daily Mail spectacular mistake Charter used to “silence all critical reporting”

How much lower can Critical of Leveson recommendations on police-press 26.11.13 Daily Mail Anti-Leveson greedy City stoop? relations

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 116 APPENDIX 3: DATASET VARIABLE LIST

General Variables:

• Date: Date of publication of article • Publisher: Publishing group 1. Northern & Shell 2. DMG Media 3. Trinity Mirror 4. News UK 5. Telegraph Media Group 6. Guardian Media Group 7. Pearson 8. Independent Print Ltd • Title: National newspaper title 1. Sun 2. Daily Mirror 3. Daily Star 4. Sunday Mirror 5. Daily Star Sunday 6. People 7. Daily Express 8. Sunday Express 9. Daily Mail 10. Mail on Sunday 11. Times 12. Sunday Times 13. Daily Telegraph 14. Sunday Telegraph 15. Guardian 16. Observer 17. Independent 18. Independent on Sunday 19. Financial Times • Sunday: Sunday Paper (0=No; 1=Yes) • Online only: Article only published online (0=No; 1=Yes) • Scottish: Scottish relevance only (0=No; 1=Yes) • Word count: No. of words in article • Category: Type of article 1. News 2. Feature 3. Leader 4. Opinion • Headline: Full headline of article • Guest: Guest column (0=No; 1=Yes) • Guest name: Name of guest columnist • Source identity (1-10): Name of source quoted in article (max. 10) • No. of sources: Number of sources in article

Tone Variables:

• Has tone: Article contains one or more frames (0=No; 1=Yes)

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 117 • Overall tone: (Based on frames) 0. Negative-only 1. Positive-only 2. Both • Tone (Leveson Report)(based on frames) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (February 12th Charter) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (Cameron’s Decision) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (Cross-Party Charter) (Based on frames) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (Industry Charter) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (IPSO) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (Rejection of Industry Charter) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both • Tone (Sealing of Cross-Party Charter) 1. Negative-only 2. Positive-only 3. Both

Framing Variables:

• Threat: threat to press freedom (0=No; 1=Yes) • Critique: Critique of Leveson recs/Cross-Party Charter provisions (0=No; 1=Yes) • Illegitimate: Questions legitimacy of Leveson Inquiry/Report (0=No; 1=Yes) • Supports Leveson: Support for Leveson Inquiry or Report(0=No; 1=Yes) • Supports Underpinning: Support for statutory underpinning (0=No; 1=Yes) • Supports Cross-Party Charter: Support for Cross-Party Charter (0=No; 1=Yes) • International: UK’s reputation damaged by Leveson/Charter • Critical of Process: Criticism of process of deciding Charter (March 17th) (0=No; 1=Yes)

Extra Variables:

• Group attack: Contains attack on pro-Leveson/pro-Charter group(s) (0=No; 1=Yes) • Group support: Contains support for pro-Leveson/pro-Charter group(s) (0=No; 1=Yes) • Mentions Pressbof: Contains any specific mention of Pressbof (0=No; 1=Yes) • Mentions IPSO: Contains a specific mention of IPSO (0=No; 1=Yes)

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 118 • Mentions polling: Contains a mention of specific opinion polling data (0=No; 1=Yes) • Poll identity (if mentions polling): Specific poll mentioned

Explanatory variables: • Reason for framing decisions: Short explanation for choosing tone variables, based on article text. • Reason for group attack decision: Short explanation for flagging article as containing an attack on pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups • Groups mentioned: List of any pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups mentioned in article • Group description: Exact wording of description of pro-Leveson/pro-Charter groups in article

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 119 APPENDIX 4: PRESS REGULATION COVERAGE GUIDE FOR CODERS

This is a short coding guide that contains the following:

• A “checklist” outlining how to approach coding articles • Some examples of the framing variables – what to watch out for • A summary of dates and the contextual issues • A summary of the special cases to watch out for

Coding Checklist

This is an example of how to approach the coding, which should help with the first few cases, after which it should start to become more familiar. Briefly, the checklist is:

1) Which, if any, of the contextual issues does the article refer to? (NB: this is just a first scan – don’t mark something just because it’s mentioned) 2) Does the article contain evaluative statements or positions on these contextual issues? 3) Are the viewpoints for each contextual issue positive or negative; does the article contain both? 4) Which of the framing variables are present?

NB: In almost all cases, the treatment of a given contextual issue in an article will be determined by the presence of one or more framing variables, but occasionally general statements of support or criticism of (e.g.) IPSO may be present.

1) Which of the contextual issues does the article refer to?

This can be any combination of references to the seven contextual issues that the project focuses on: 1. The Leveson Report and its recommendations 2. The First Royal Charter (the “Feb 12th Charter”) 3. Cameron’s decision to end cross-party talks (March 14th) 4. The cross-party Charter that was eventually sealed (the “Cross-Party Charter”) 5. The rival Charter (the “Industry Charter”) 6. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) 7. The decision to reject the Industry Charter 8. The decision to seal the Cross-Party Charter

Often, these are linked to the date the article was published, and sometimes it takes a bit of analysis to work out which charter or decision is being referred to. Part 3 of this document sets out a description of which dates each of the contextual issues is relevant. It is important to read and understand these, as much of the newspaper coverage assumes at least some familiarity with then-current events.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 120 Again, this should just be a check-through to orientate yourself to the first 10 or 20 articles; don’t code anything at this stage

2) Does the article contain evaluative statements or positions on these contextual issues?

Not all articles contain a viewpoint. Many simply refer to a development regarding press regulation (e.g. “the Privy Council is due to meet today to discuss…”). However, the majority will contain some evaluation of one or more of the contextual issues. These can be expressed in three ways, each of which is valid: • Quotes: (either direct – “quoted” – or indirect) by sources, or – if a comment piece – by the journalist writing • Attributed opinions: Also very common are statements within articles that an individual, group or political party has an opinion or position on the issue. Commonly, this will be something like “newspaper groups have rejected the Charter, which they feel threatens investigative journalism”, or “most Conservatives reject statutory underpinning” • Statements of fact: There may in some cases be a blurring of the line between fact and comment. Watch out for statements like “Parliament will today announce draconian measures that will introduce political controls over the press for the first time”.

3) Which contextual events are referred to (with evaluation) in each article, if any?

This is relatively self-explanatory, and is down to the coder’s interpretation. While it should be linked to the consideration of which framing variables are present (see below), an initial read-through of the article should give you a good idea of the viewpoints expressed.

The different contextual issues are not mutually exclusive; an article can contain references to one, two or more events. For example: an article containing opposing quotes from sources both for and against the Leveson Report’s recommendations would be coded like this:

Cross- Industry Leveson Feb 12th RC Cameron IPSO Rejected Sealed Party RC X

While an article which contains criticism of the Cross-Party Charter and support for the Industry Charter and IPSO would look like this:

Cross- Industry Leveson Feb 12th RC Cameron IPSO Rejected Sealed Party RC X X X

As mentioned above, the purpose is not to count all the instances of variables appearing, just to determine whether or not they appear.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 121 Finally, it is important to check through to the end of the article – often a viewpoint will be given in the very last paragraph, so an article that has contained nothing but criticism of an issue may contain a supportive quote at the end.

4) Which of the framing variables are present?

Though linked to the contextual issues, the framing variables should be analysed separately. Though almost all articles will contain one or more framing variables, not all will. These will usually be:

• Articles in which no evaluative statement or viewpoint is included • Articles that contain only positive and/or negative viewpoints on IPSO, the Feb 12th charter, or the Industry Charter, but do not refer to Leveson or the Cross-Party Charter (or threats to press freedom) – there are a small number of these.

The framing variables are discussed in full below, but the brief list is:

“Negative” variables: • Threat to press freedom • Critique of recommendations (Leveson or Cross-Party Charter only) • Questions the legitimacy of the Leveson Inquiry • UK’s international reputation • Criticism of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party Charter

“Positive” variables: • Supports Leveson recommendations • Supports statutory underpinning • Supports Cross-Party Royal Charter

“Neutral” variable: • Critical of use of Royal Charter in principle (not specifically about one version of the Charter)

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 122 A guide to the framing variables – what to watch out for

Negative:

“Threat” – Often criticism of the Cross-Party Royal Charter or the Leveson recommendations are framed as a threat to press freedom. In some cases this can be nuanced; in others it is very obvious. The following phrases are common, and each denotes the potential threat to press freedom:

• “shackles/shackle/shackled” • “muzzled/muzzle” • “chilling effect” (usually on investigative journalism) • “political interference/political control” • “controls on the press”; “statutory controls” – see also “critique” frame, below • “end of a free press/press freedom” • “[end of/threat to] 300 years of press freedom” • “politicians’ Charter”; “written by politicians”

Often, though, it may be down to your interpretation, but these should serve as a guide

“Critique of Leveson recommendations or Cross-Party Charter provisions” – This includes any reference to whether certain recommendations are bad or could have a damaging effect. These are usually restricted to:

• Statutory underpinning, e.g. references to “new press laws”; “statutory control”(in conjunction with “threat”); or the use of legislation • The internet (usually criticism that Leveson didn’t focus enough on it) • The Data Protection Act (DPA) (Leveson recommended that journalists should not be able to hold information on private individuals indefinitely) • Whistleblowing • “Secret arrests” • Exemplary damages / court costs for newspapers outside an approved regulator • The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) – usually referred to regarding journalist source protection.

Though this might seem complicated, the text of articles should be quite clear on whether Leveson/Cross-Party Charter is being criticised or supported.

“Questions the Legitimacy of Leveson” – ONLY related to the Leveson Report/ Inquiry. Occasionally articles refer to flaws in the Inquiry or the report. They are usually manifested in certain very specific ways: • Leveson didn’t understand journalism/newspapers/tabloids • The remit of the Leveson Inquiry was “too narrow” • The Leveson Inquiry was a political/establishment stitch-up, and its conclusions were pre-decided

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 123 • The Leveson Inquiry should never have happened (usually refers to it being set up in a panic, or that everything it covered should have been dealt with by existing laws)

Though there are specific triggers for this frame throughout the year: • The alleged affair between lawyers involved in the Leveson Inquiry, though the “legitimacy” frame should only be used if there is a direct link drawn within the article between the affair and the compromised legitimacy of the Inquiry • The revelations of “blue-chip hacking”, and the related report by SOCA. Occasionally it is stated that Leveson deliberately ignored the report, in order to focus only on newspaper hacking

“UK’s International Reputation” – Any reference to either of two approximate arguments: • Britain will no longer set a good example for press freedom worldwide • The decision to introduce Leveson/Cross-Party Charter will be copied by undemocratic governments to crack down on their own journalists.

“Criticism of the process of agreeing the Cross-Party Charter” – any critical reference specifically to the late-night meeting on March 17th, in which the text of the Charter agreed the next day was finalised. Often referred to as a “stitch-up”; “deal over pizzas” etc. Can be used in articles to criticise the Cross-Party Charter’s legitimacy.

Positive:

“Supports Leveson recommendations” – Any statement in support of (a) the Report as a whole, or (b) any of its recommendations. These will usually be expressed as support for the need for legislation (statutory underpinning/new law/ new legislation), in which case the following will also be present:

“Supports statutory underpinning” – to be used in two contexts: 1) Specific support for the Leveson recommendation that a new regulator should be underpinned by law (in which case “supports Leveson recommendations” should also be coded) 2) General support for the need for statutory underpinning of any new regulatory system, where specific reference to the Leveson report or the Cross-Party Charter is not provided

“Supports Cross-Party Royal Charter” – as with “supports Leveson recommendations”, but with the Cross-Party Charter. This means that it can also similarly overlap with “supports statutory underpinning”

Neutral:

“Critical of the use of Royal Charter in principle” – Any reference that using a Royal Charter in this area is a bad idea (where no specific Charter is referenced in

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 124 the statement). NB: Not to be confused with specific criticisms of the Cross-Party Royal Charter, which is covered in the ‘Negative’ frames above)

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 125 Contextual issues – explanations and key dates

The Leveson Report: Published 29/11/2012, relevant throughout the entire sample. The Leveson Report, and the Inquiry that created it, is the backdrop to the entire analysis. Initially, almost all references to “Leveson” are to the report. By March 2013 onwards, more of the analysis is of the Royal Charter(s), though the coverage often returns to specific Leveson recommendations and opinion pieces often refer back to Leveson.

The First Royal Charter (published on February 12th 2013), relevant from around 01/01/2013, to shortly after the Cross-Party Charter was decided. The first Royal Charter was created by the Conservative Party in conjunction with the newspaper industry. It was first announced in mid-December, and by January some details were being announced. At that time, the main area of conflict between different parties was whether there should be a Charter (Conservatives), or a new piece of legislation (Labour, Lib Dems, supporters of the Leveson recommendations, including Hacked Off).

Cameron’s decision to end talks (Relevant from 14th March 2013 to around 25th March 2013. NB: doesn’t exist before 14/3/13): On 14/03/2013, cross-party talks on agreeing a Royal Charter were ended by Cameron (by this time all parties had agreed on the use of a Charter, but were disagreeing on certain points (most notably whether statutory underpinning was needed (Labour and Lib Dems) or not (Conservatives). This led to a likely Commons vote on the following Monday (March 18th), and a frantic few days as both sides tried to reach agreement behind the scenes before a potentially embarrassing vote. After a week or so, his decision was no longer relevant, although it did generate comment for a few days.

The Cross-Party Charter, agreed on March 18th (Relevant from 14th March 2013 Onwards): Besides the Leveson Report, this is by far the most common subject in all the newspaper coverage. It is referred to from around 14th March (when Cameron’s decision to end talks meant that the Labour/Lib Dem version of a Royal Charter might be the chosen template) until the end of the sample period. The key to this is working out when it is being referred to. It can be referred to as “the Leveson Charter”, “the Hacked Off Charter”, “the politicians’ Charter”, etc.

The Rival/Industry/Pressbof Charter (25th April 2013 Onwards): This Charter was written and submitted by the Press Standards Board of Finance (Pressbof) to the Privy Council on 25th April 2013, and remained valid for the rest of the analysis. It is almost always referred to as “the newspaper industry’s favoured Charter” or “newspaper groups have drawn up their own royal charter”, or something similar.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) (8th July 2013 Onwards): This replacement to the PCC was announced on 8th July 2013, and remained relevant thereafter. It is almost always referred to be name, and should be straightforward to code. NB: very occasionally articles can confuse IPSO (the regulator) with the Industry’s Royal Charter. Where an article refers to something like “a tough new system with the power to levy £1m fines” etc, make sure that it mentions

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 126 IPSO, otherwise it should be taken to be referring to the Industry Charter. Articles may refer to both.

The decision to reject the Industry Charter (around 5th October 2013 Onwards): The Privy Council rejected the Industry Charter on 8th October, but speculation of the likely result began shortly before. This period saw an increase in analysis of both the Cross-Party Charter and the Industry Charter, so articles that mentioned the decision usually also referred to the different Charters

The decision to seal the Cross-Party Charter (30th October 2013 Onwards): The Privy Council officially sealed the Charter agreed on March 18th on 30th October.

Contextual Issues to Avoid

There are two issues that may crop up in articles, and which may be relevant to the discussions of press regulation, but which there is not the space or scope to measure or analyse here. These are:

Draft “Leveson Bills”: Before Royal Charters entered the debate, there were four attempts (between December 2012 and February 2013) to create “Leveson Bills” intended to turn the report’s recommendation on statutory underpinning into law. These Bills were: 1) The Conservative/Department for Culture, Media and Sport draft Bill 2) Labour’s draft Bill 3) Hacked Off’s draft Bill 4) Lord Anthony Lester’s draft Bill

In any articles where these Bills are referenced, code only those statements relating to the Leveson report and its recommendations, most likely to be statutory underpinning. For example, an argument in favour of legislation would be “support for statutory underpinning”

The Puttnam and Skidelsky amendments in the House of Lords: In February and March 2013, Lord Puttnam, and then Lord Skidelsky introduced amendments to the Defamation Bill and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which would have enshrined some of Leveson in law. This caused a parallel argument to the whole Leveson/Royal Charter debate that brought a lot of discussion about defamation and libel laws.

As with the “Draft Bill” articles, if you come across any of these, code only the references to Leveson or Royal Charter recommendations.

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 127 APPENDIX 5: INTER-CODER RELIABILITY (ICR) TESTING - METHODS AND RESULTS

To test the validity of the variables used in the analysis, Inter-Coder Reliability (ICR) testing was carried out in April and May 2014. Two independent coders from the LSE MSc Media and Communications Governance programme, with research experience and knowledge of the subject area were engaged in a two-stage ICR test.1

Methods

Following a preliminary meeting and a practice coding session, each coder was allocated approximately 100 cases each to code, ensuring that approximately 10% of the total sample was independently analysed. Each coder was given a different sample of cases, and comparisons were between the results produced by the relevant coder, and those produced by the main project researcher.

Samples were chosen from the main database of 2,047 cases using an open-access random-number generator,2 with duplicates removed and replaced by subsequent generations.

Coders were then asked to record the presence of the following frames in the subset of articles they were allocated, in order to replicate the analysis of ‘tone’ used throughout the project.

‘Positive’ statements: • Supportive of Leveson Recommendations: Any statement in support of (a) the Leveson Report in general, or (b) any of its recommendations. • Supportive of statutory underpinning of press regulation: either (a) a statement in support specifically of the Leveson recommendation on statutory underpinning; or (b) a general statement in support of statutory underpinning for press regulation. • Supportive of Royal Charter: Any statement in support of the Cross-Party Charter, or its specific provisions.

‘Negative’ statements: • Threat to press freedom: Any reference to either Leveson or any proposed method of press regulation as a potential threat to press freedom, or to freedom of expression. • Criticism of Leveson recommendations/cross-party Royal Charter provisions: Any critical reference to specific recommendations in the Leveson Report, or to any of the provisions of the Cross-Party Royal Charter. • Questions the Legitimacy of the Leveson Report: Critical references that directly imply that the Leveson Inquiry or Report were flawed, corrupt, or otherwise illegitimate (including conspiracy, narrowness of remit or

1 Special thanks to Anri van der Spuy and Anuradha Santhanam for help with coding 2 http://www.random.org/integers/

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 128 expertise of the judge, misconception in setting-up of the Inquiry, waste of public money). • Damage to the UK’s international reputation: Any reference to either of two approximate arguments: that Britain will no longer set a good example for press freedom worldwide if Leveson or the Royal Charter system were to be implemented; or, the implementation of Leveson or the Royal Charter will be copied by undemocratic governments to crack down on journalists. • Criticism of the process of agreeing the Royal Charter: Critical references specifically to the process of agreeing the Royal Charter – references to the “pizza deal”, “stitch-up”, etc.

Following the coding exercise, a follow-up meeting was conducted in order to discuss any issues with the coding project. Problematic issues were addressed, and uncertain cases were analysed and recoded, if necessary. Problems of coding arose primarily in three areas:

• Uncertainty over context, and the various different iterations of Royal Charters • Occasional uncertainty about the difference between specific criticism of the Cross-Party Charter, and general criticism of use of Royal Charters in general • The application of the “Leveson Inquiry legitimacy” variable

Where uncertainties of the first type arose, they were almost always resolved via reference to the date of the article, for example references to the “Pressbof Charter” could not have been made prior to the publication of that charter on 25th April.

Uncertainties of the second and third type were in most cases resolved by reference to the coding instructions issued to coders prior to the exercise (See Appendix 4 for the full coding instructions). Where necessary, the coding instructions were amended to ensure clarity. Resolutions of any cases were made only where factual evidence was relevant; resolutions were not made on the basis of differences in opinion between coders.

Results

Once the final results were collated, ICR scores were calculated using an open-source reliability calculator.3

The list below shows the results for each variable, including the Percentage Agreement between coders (i.e. how often the guest coder agreed with the main researcher), and the Cohen’s Kappa score - a statistical measure of inter-coder agreement, where values of over 0.8 (on a scale of -1 to 1) are generally agreed to indicate very high level of agreement:

3 http://dfreelon.org/utils/recalfront/recal2/

MEDIA STANDARDS TRUST 129 Frame Percentage Agreement Cohen’s Kappa Score

Threat 91.6% 0.831

Criticism 94.1% 0.837

Legitimacy 98.0% 0.836

International 99.0% 0.936

Process 98.5% 0.895

Supports Leveson 96.1% 0.862

Supports Statutory Underpinning 97.5% 0.844

Supports Charter 98.0% 0.872

An Excel file containing all of the Inter-Coder Reliability data is available to the public on the Media Standards Trust website.

Analysis: Press Coverage of Leveson (Part 2) 130

King’s College London Virginia Woolf Building 22 Kingsway London WC2B 6NR

0207 848 7930 [email protected] www.mediastandardstrust.org

Media Standards Trust, Company Limited by Guarantee Registered in England and Wales 05514310 Registered Charity 1113680