FREENo 191 January—February 2013 £1 Journal Press of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom

WHAT LEVESON WHAT WE WHAT THE EDITORS WHAT HAPPENED SAID WANTED DON’T WANT LAST TIME Beef up regulation How the report Dinosaurs don’t Government blocked of the press measures up like change reform in 1994 WHAT LEVESON WHAT THE WHAT JOURNALISTS WHAT’S WRONG DIDN’T SAY PEOPLE WANT DO WANT WITH LEVESON Report ducks issue Polls point to Conscience clause Serous faults of ownership tougher system a runner in the report PAGES 2-3 PAGES 4-5 PAGES 6-7 PAGES 8-9 LEVESON This time let’s stop the big stitch-up STEFANO CAGNONI/REPORTDIGITAL.CO.UK THE BRITISH government and national press are fighting to circumvent the main recommen- BBC IN dation of the Leveson report. There is a real danger that they CRISIS will succeed. AGAIN Lord Justice Leveson said that 10 legislation was “essential” to give Now they statutory backing to a self-regula- tory system set up by the industry. must sort The papers presented this modest proposal as a monstrous it out assault on press freedom, even though there could be no state involvement in the system. Indeed the proposed law would guarantee the freedom and independence of the press and outlaw censorship. Prime Minister David Cameron PRESS also baulked at the proposal, but told the industry to act fast and ABUSE get something plausible up and running. COMIC Government could then declare 12 Reporter’s the matter resolved and it would be up to the opposition and stand-up media reform campaigners to do something about it. act It is a cycle that has been acted through before: disgraceful behaviour by the popular press leads to public outrage; a government inquiry says there must be a stronger system of regulation; the press says “leave it For all the latest on to us” and tinkers at the edges; the government says “phew …”; and the campaign go to things carry on much as before. www.cpbf.org.uk This time it must be different. AFTER NO THREAT TO PRESS FREEDOM LEVESON REGULATION — ­SO WHY DO THEY SAY IT IS? OWNERSHIP TOM O’MALLEY uphold the rights and liberties of The board would establish a individuals. In short to honour the standards code balancing press explains Leveson’s very principles proclaimed and freedom and the public interest. It STEFANO CAGNONI/REPORTDIGITAL.CO.UK articulated by the would deal with complaints from careful formula for industry itself. individuals and groups and have Leveson went out of his way to the power to direct the nature and regulation — and balance freedom and responsibility placing of apologies. Systematic when recommending changes to and serious code breaches could why the owners the system of press regulation. He be punished by fines of up to 1 per left self-regulation in the hands of cent of turnover, to a maximum of have so badly the press and suggested a minor £1 million. statutory measure to verify the There would be a fast track arbi- misinterpreted it standards of the new body they tration service to deal with civil set up. legal claims against newspapers. He called for an independent Publications that subscribed WITH RIGHTS come responsibilities. self-regulatory body governed by an to the board would have their Lord Justice Leveson explained: independent board, the members membership taken into account The press, operating properly of which “must be appointed in in the determination of any legal in the public interest is one of a genuinely open, transparent costs in any civil cases which went the safeguards of our democracy and independent way, without to court. This was the key financial … As a result of this principle the any influence from industry or incentive Leveson offered to papers press is given significant and Government”, and with no powers to sign up to the system. special rights … With these rights, to prevent publication. It should be The sticking point has been however, come responsibilities to industry funded and have a majority Leveson’s recommendation that a Leveson: tried to make report the public interest: to respect the of members independent from of “recognition body” be appointed acceptable to government truth, to obey the law and to the industry. by statute to verify that the

For many people, it was the arrogance that No change without comes with this kind of power that gave rise to phone hacking in the first place. The idea that existing competition rules can address this effec- tively is wishful thinking when you consider that changing ownership no major newspaper acquisition has been Leveson recommended that discretionary power remain with the Secretary of State in DES FREEDMAN and elephant in the room, the genuine absence that respect of public interest decisions over media will make it hard to achieve the aim of an ethical mergers. This is in conflict with much of the JUSTIN SCHLOSBERG say and representative press, is the need to tackle evidence presented to the inquiry which demon- concentrated media ownership. strated the pervasive nature and influence of there must be limits to what Leveson does not ignore it altogether. There industry lobbying. is discussion of News International’s purchase of This was particularly evident in the run-up any media group The Times and Sunday Times in 1981 and News to key decisions taken by ministers such as Corp’s proposed takeover of BSkyB in 2010/11, a Jeremy Hunt’s approval of News Corp’s bid to can control consideration of the relationship between politi- buy out BSkyB prior to the unfolding of the cians and powerful news groups, and an entire phone hacking scandal, or Margaret Thatcher’s chapter on plurality and media ownership. The permission for News International to buy up The THE NATIONAL papers have tried to pick problem is that the gap between the problem and Times and Sunday Times in 1981 without a proper holes in Lord Justice Leveson’s report on the the solution is so vast. investigation. culture, practices and ethics of the press. The Leveson suggests that triggers for regulatory Evidence of tacit deals between political Sun described the recommendations as “a intervention should be “considerably lower” than leaders and media industry lobbyists is unlikely basis on which to destroy 300 years of Press those used for ordinary competition concerns and to be substantive — indeed Leveson notes that freedom”, which was predictable enough, but it that the scope of the public interest test might be “not surprisingly, the contemporary documents do also lamented that it had nothing to say about extended within competition law. He further says not evidence any form of express ‘deal’ between the internet. that plurality should be kept under review. Thatcher and Murdoch” — but this does not mean The “elephant in the room remains the But he has no concrete proposals about how that deals are not done. internet,” it wrote. “An over-regulated press to tackle the facts that three news organisations In the absence of definite ownership in parallel with an unregulated internet spells in the UK control 75 per cent of national daily thresholds, established in law, the door will chaos and will be the nail in the coffin of the circulation and that the build-up of this kind of always be open to both “commercial capture” newspaper industry”. press power is bound to distort both media and (politicians taking certain decisions under pressure This seems an odd target. Because the real politics in this country. from media groups) and/or politicisation (media 2 Free Press January–February 2013 NO THREAT TO PRESS FREEDOM — ­SO WHY DO THEY SAY IT IS? Leveson self-regulator fulfilled the criteria In any case, as many have Leveson was keen to placate set out in the report. This was gleefully pointed out, most of the the press. He wanted to deliver intended to meet the public papers that reject this measure something which even a Prime was keen concern that regulation is by a body have signed up to a similar one in Minister as closely bound up with which is independent of the press, the Republic of Ireland. the proprietors as David Cameron government and Parliament. The answer is simple. The propri- could support. to placate The statute would place an etors and their supporters who have But the owners have refused to explicit duty on the Government to been pumping out these distortions accept the fundamental principle uphold the freedom of the press, fear an effective regulator would that there has to be statutory the press. something which might be used in limit their capacity to push up circu- underpinning if self-regulation is the future to challenge repressive lations, or online traffic, by trading to work. Only this can guarantee He wanted measures proposed by future in extreme forms of lies, sensation- that the reformed system does governments. alism and distortion. not succumb to the inevitable, and If you needed evidence of the Characteristically they have used often hidden, economic and cultural something overweening power of the national their platform to push their views pressures that will in the end make papers – including the Guardian and rather than give equal space to it ineffective. the Observer – over the minds of arguments in support of the recog- Anything short of recom- that even politicians, the response to Leveson nition body. mending continued self-regulation has provided just that. They have But this time there is real public was always going to be unaccep- David chosen to characterise this “recog- anger and a chance for change. table to the press. Leveson perhaps nition” function as real or potential We must not allow the owners to knew this. threat to press. get their way and re-establish yet If he didn’t then the venomous Cameron Why? It can’t be about another form of regulation which and distorted reception his censorship. The recognition body they dominate. Otherwise we recommendation for a recogni- has nothing to do with decisions could only look forward to more of tion body has received will have could support about what goes into the papers. the same. enlightened him.

groups being favoured or disadvantaged by AN OPPORTUNITY MISSED political decisions). SUPPORT for limits on Of course, any threshold will be to some media ownership — and extent arbitrary. But the Media Reform Coalition regret at an opportunity proposed to the Leveson Inquiry a 15 per cent missed by the Leveson benchmark that would trigger regulatory inter- Leveson report — has come from vention. This would be a specific public interest Sir Harold Evans (right), obligation to ensure editorial autonomy. the former editor of The On top of that would be a 20 per cent overall has no Times and Sunday Times limit in the key sub-markets of national print, often regarded as the one television, radio and online. proposals of the greatest. We argue this on the basis that no fewer than He was sacked from five owners —- within or across media markets both positions by Rupert —- is the minimum basis for media plurality. on how Murdoch for standing up It was, therefore, a little surprising to read for the editor’s right to in the Leveson report that “there have been edit. He wrote on the no suggestions as to what level of plurality to tackle Guardian website of is sufficient”. the report: Tackling media concentration is a popular issue The biggest disappointment in Leveson is how far with the public: nearly three quarters of those the fact he skates over the crucial issue of ownership. It polled in an IPPR survey in May 2012 supported matters very much that the law on competition was limits on media ownership. that three broken by Margaret Thatcher’s participation in 1981 If we are ever to produce a press system that in a secret deal by which Times Newspapers came is genuinely independent, we need to be pressing under News International’s control. not just for ethical forms of regulation but also companies All Leveson’s fine language about the need for for a range of remedies, including ownership caps future transparency is justified by the vaguest of and public interest obligations, to achieve the control 75% references to what made it necessary in the plurality our democracy so desperately needs. first place. It surely matters a great deal that the greatest ■■ Des Freedman and Justin Schlosberg concentration of the British press was achieved by a represent the Media Reform Coalition. Go to of daily backroom deal that gave News International www.mediareform.org.uk. The CPBF is a member such sway over British public life. of the coalition. circulation January–February 2013 Free Press 3 Polls: you get AFTER LEVESON THE CAMPAIGN what you want THE POLLS DESPITE THE noisy campaign in the press against solution to press misbehaviour is make sure the existing legally-backed regulation, the public seem to like the law is fully enforced ... Other people believe that the law idea, though their responses are erratic. needs to be changed to add further regulations to the Two opinion polls in the week of the Leveson behaviour of journalists. What should the government report showed healthy majorities for the principle. focus on to stop bad practices and misbehaviour by One conducted by YouGov for the pro-Leveson Media the media?” Standards Trust returned 79 per cent in favour of “an Put like that, the responses were only 24 per cent independent press regulator, established by law”. for “new laws and regulations”, while 71 per cent said The sample of 3,620 adults showed just 9 per “ensure that the existing laws are actually enforced.” cent wanting a “new self-regulator” and a further 9 ■ per “neither”. ■ MEANWHILE the online campaigns go on with On other questions, 82 per cent said that “national impressive returns. newspapers should be obliged by law to join any new The Hacked Off! campaign launched a petition regulatory system.” And 70 per cent “totally disagreed” immediately after David Cameron rejected the Leveson with the statement: “We can trust newspaper proposal for statutory backing. The petition demands Asked ‘to what editors to ensure that their journalists act in the that party leaders implement the recommendations public interest.” in full; to “ignore pressure from media barons and A Comres survey for BBC Radio 5 Live asked 1,002 introduce legally-backed regulation, independent of extent, if at people: “Who would you most like to see regulate politicians and the press”. newspapers in Britain?” 47 per cent said: “A regulatory It also asks for “tighter limits on how much of our body with rules agreed and enforced by the courts” media an individual is allowed to own.” all, do you (stronger than Leveson’s option), and 12 per cent said By December 9 it had attracted 145,020 signatures. “a regulatory body with rules agreed and enforced by The pressure group Avaaz followed up with a newspaper owners”. petition calling on government to “implement a 20% trust British Asked “to what extent, if at all, do you trust British ownership cap by revenue on each media sector.” newspapers to tell the truth?”, some 2 per cent said “a This one had 52,443 signatures on December 9. great deal”, 31 per cent said “a fair amount”, 42 per cent ■ newspapers to said “not very much” and 24 per cent said “not at all”. ■ TWO PETITIONS have been started on the Downing Earlier in November the press owners commissioned Street e-petition site. tell the truth?’, their own poll, via the Free Speech Network, which One calling for the full implementation of Leveson, asked different questions and got different answers. including state backing, had 5,526 signatures, while It posed the question: “Some people believe that the another opposing it had 1,153. some WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS COMES CLOSER 2 per cent said TO YOUR VIEW ON HOW YOU THINK NEWSPAPERS IN BRITAIN SHOULD BE REGULATED? ‘a great deal’, 8% Don't know 31 per cent 4% Neither said ‘a fair 9% New self-regulator amount’, 79% Independent body, 42 per cent established by law said ‘not very much’ and 24 per cent said ‘not at all’ The YouGov survey showed massive support for state backing 4 Free Press January–February 2013 WHO WANTED WHAT: THE DIFFERENCES THAT MATTER The CPBF Leveson PCC/Lords Hunt & Black* Clear limits on the share of media Ofcom has presented a menu of No reference markets that companies can be potential remedies ... each of them 1 allowed to hold. might be appropriate The power for Ofcom when it sees The Secretary of State should No reference fit to invoke the public interest remain responsible for public 2 test on media ownership and the interest decisions in relation to application of these limits. media mergers

Government support for local No reference No reference media by investing in ventures 3 that must adhere to public interest criteria.

An effective regulator, An independent self-regulatory New, independent regulatory structure representative of the public and body ... independent of government. ‘with real teeth’, operationally 4 journalists and free from state The power to direct the nature, independent both of politicians and the or proprietorial interference, to extent and placement of apologies newspaper industry. The supervisory promote media freedom and should lie with the board. Funding board would have specialist panels, on standards, oversee a right of reply should be settled in an agreement all of which the chairman and majority to factual inaccuracies and to between the industry and the board. of membership would be independent adjudicate on complaints. To be of the industry — but not the Code funded by the state. Committee or the Industry Funding Board that controls the operation.

A code of conduct setting out The standards code must be Publishers undertake to abide by the 5 principles of professional practice. adopted by the board code Statutory back up powers to be The law must provide a mechanism No statutory involvement used in the last resort to enforce the to recognise and certify that a new 6 regulator’s adjudications. body meets the public concern. The role of recognition body should fall on Ofcom

Powers to undertake wide ranging The Board should have authority to A Standards Arm of the regulator would research into press standards examine issues on its own initiative. promote, monitor and enforce standards 7 and behaviour and to promote Publishers must be required to across the industry. The regulator would measures designed to maintain high co-operate. The law should place an have power to investigate. journalistic standards. explicit duty on the government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press.

A clear definition of the public The code must take into account the The regulator should be imbued with interest in journalism to justify public interest the public interest. 8 publication of potentially defamatory material or the use of intrusive or surreptitious means.

A conscience clause for journalists A regulatory body should establish a Publishers should be required to provide to empower them to refuse whistleblowing hotline. The industry an externally-run whistle-blowing 9 instructions to work unethically should consider a clause to the service to all employees and freelances. without putting their jobs at risk. effect that no disciplinary action should be taken as a result of a refusal to act in a manner contrary to the code.

*THE PRESS Complaints Commission, its chair Tory peer Lord Hunt and its former director Tory peer Lord Black have made a number of submissions. There is no single document containing the often-mentioned “Hunt-Black proposals”, because they change with circumstances. The entries in the third column are from Lord Hunt’s submission to Leveson.

EDITORS’ LANGUAGE PROBLEM: WHEN ACCEPTANCE MEANS REJECTION IN THE negotiations that In all Leveson made 47 on as agreeing to “all but seven” memo and others recorded as followed David Cameron’s media regulation. The editors of them. “acceptances” were so heavily rejection of Leveson’s held a power-breakfast But an analysis of the memo qualified as to make them, in statutory option, the editors meeting to go through them at by the Media Standards Trust effect, rejections. were reported to have a London restaurant. showed that in reality the total Of the list in this table, only agreed to most of Leveson’s A leaked memo of the was less than half. Some were numbers 5, 8 and 9 were recommendations. meeting was widely reported missing altogether from the wholly agreed.

January–February 2013 Free Press 5 The Fleet Street press may be in decline but the barons who own AFTER it can still do great damage. LEVESON TIM GOPSILL says their THE EDITORS journalists need to wise up and THE JOURNALISTS stand up to them Dinosaurs at bay

STEVE BELL’S long-running Guardian cartoon Leveson assessor”. Why should he have resigned strip “If …” was originally called “If dinosaurs before? roamed Fleet Street”, and the first frames in 1981 Professor Tim Luckhurst of the University of showed the beasts marauding up the street, Kent, a former editor of The Scotsman, wrote the laying waste to all in their path. FSN’s manifesto Responsibility Without Power, The dinosaurs have left Fleet Street of course concluding: “Westminster’s statutory backing for and are facing extinction, but when they dimly a Press Ombudsman would become President perceive a threat to their survival they can still Putin’s State Censorship Committee or Mahmoud crash about and roar and do a lot of damage. Ahmadinejad’s Board of Righteousness.” And while the national newspapers’ noisy such things. Their inanity did not occur to them campaign against the Leveson inquiry didn’t THAT THE rogues’ gallery of tyrants might and probably wouldn’t have mattered if it had. help them or anybody else, it did draw attention represent the mild and urbane Brian Leveson, and “This debate [over Leveson] is not about to to the problem Leveson had been set to solve the wild scaremongering about the end of press be settled with facts and reasoned argument,” – which is precisely the damage that the freedom might represent his report, was evidently wrote Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter who blundering, bullying, insensitive owners and absurd. Equally evident was the arrogance and persisted with his revelations of phone-hacking editors of the press can themselves do to free insouciance of the people who could produce in defiance of all the roaring and intimidation speech, to journalism and society at large. from the dinosaurs. “It will be conducted under In October all the nationals joined together the same old rules — of falsehood, distortion and to launch the Free Speech Network (FSN), a bullying. Will any government stand up to it?” vehicle to promote their advance retaliation to Nick Davies, who says he sees “no obvious Leveson’s report. problem” for reporters with Leveson’s regulatory The FSN put full page ads in their own papers proposals, added: “These people are just used asking: “These people believe in state control of to having their way and they don’t like anyone the press. Do you?”, with pictures (clockwise from daring to stand up to them. top left) of Vladimir Putin, Robert Mugabe, Bashar “But thank God their day is over – I hope. al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Un “Those full page advertisements, all that and Fidel Castro. high-octane coverage about ‘state regulation of In their own pages, the Sun said it was Britain’s free press’ have proved to be no more “alarmed by [Leveson’s] main proposal that could than another round of the same old distortion allow State officials to walk into papers like the that did so much to create this inquiry in the first Sun and censor stories.” place. The Daily Mail allocated 11 pages to a “To lose control of the regulator is to lose their demented expose of a supposed left-wing licence to do exactly as they please.” Free speech, conspiracy to seize control of the media for the in effect, is for the owners. state. The target was a Blairite network called Naturally the dinosaurs will defend aggres- Common Purpose, one of whose luminaries, Sir sively the territory they have occupied for David Bell of the Financial Times, was among hundreds of years, regardless of the havoc they Leveson’s six “assessors”. wreak on their environment. They have poor He was also chairman of the Media Standards eyesight and are, to be frank, a bit dim and not Trust, the body that set up the Hacked Off! very self-aware, so they can’t see that it is their campaign. The Mail solemnly noted that he own blundering about that is destroying their “stepped down as chairman of the Media The owners used an ID parade of dictators to world, not Lord Justice Leveson. Standards Trust only when he was appointed a scare readers about Leveson’s approach But a rather alarming number of honest 6 Free Press January–February 2013 WILL THEY PRACTISE WHAT THEY PREACH? NEWSPAPER BOSSES are coming under greater pressure to grant their staff the right to produce responsible journalism in the public interest. One of Leveson’s most far-reaching proposals is to advocate the “conscience clause” in journalists’ contracts to allow them to refuse to undertake unethical work. The clause would make it unlawful to dismiss a journalist for insisting on adhering to the code of practice to be introduced by the new regulator if instructed by editors to breach its terms. The NUJ has been promoting the idea since 1998 but has been persistently rebuffed by the Press Complaints Commission and the newspaper employers. In the report, Lord Justice TIM SANDERS Leveson says that he was “struck by the evidence of interference by the politicians whom it is the press’s duty to scrutinise, when all the evidence journalists who felt that they The press barons has pointed to unhealthily cosy relation- might be put under pressure ships between Big Media and governments for to do things that were were required by 30 years. unethical or against the code. Who was scrutinising the invasion of Iraq or “I therefore suggest that Leveson to submit the catastrophic social effects of the coalition’s the new independent self- supposedly essential “austerity” project? The regulatory body should to public questioning press seems to manage quite well to be subject establish a whistle-blowing to censorship on these matters without formal hotline and encourage its involvement by the state of any kind. for the first time members to ensure that It’s not really surprising that so many in journalists’ contracts include a newspapers have followed the owners’ line. conscience clause protecting The message they hear every day is that print and decent journalists have followed their journalism is doomed — the dinosaurs. them if they refuse.” leaders into the swamp. The National Union On top of the internet with its cheating news The report does not call of Journalists, which has stood firmly by the aggregators and consumers refusing to pay for for legislation to enact the Leveson principle of state-backed self-regulation, news online, on top of the slump in sales and proposal, since employment has suffered resignations among members who classified advertising, now here comes another law was not within Leveson’s imagine they see their union joining the enemies threat: all the people the journalist are told to remit. Instead it says only of a free press. hate — all the lefties, the liberals, expense- that the industry “should These people are not fools. They are right to fiddling politicians and pampered celebrities consider” the idea. be concerned about threats to press freedom. — ganging up to bring the British press to But the NUJ has picked They have just got the wrong threat. its knees. up on it and written to all There is a siege mentality. Gripped by the employers urging them to act THE EDITORS have abused press freedom for paranoia of the press barons, required by Leveson years, to advance the owners’ commercial and to submit to public questioning for the first time and asking for talks. political interests. Alongside the brilliant work in their lives, journalists don’t realise how big, Labour MP John still produced by many is not only the rotten strong and dangerous these dinosaurs still are. McDonnell, chair of the NUJ consumer- and celebrity-led journalism but the Nor that their freedom of speech could well Parliamentary Group, said: peddling of political interest and the corruption be enhanced by working in a fairer regime, with “There should be no reason that led to Leveson. a right to stand by professional principles in the for such a clause not to form One of the more breathtaking hypocrisies of face of bullying editors, for a press that takes its part of a journalist’s contract.” the anti-Leveson campaign is this allegation of responsibilities more seriously. January–February 2013 Free Press 7 JESS HURD/REPORTDIGITAL.CO.UK

AFTER LEVESON HISTORY CRITICISM

The campaign group Avaaz held a demonstration at Parliament the day the Leveson report came out, with puppets symbolising David Cameron gagged by Rupert Murdoch. Let history repeat itself as triumph GRANVILLE WILLIAMS disbanded and replaced by the Press Complaints responsibility of Mellor’s eventual successor Commission which would concentrate on Stephen Dorrell. By that time the government of looks back at previous “providing an effective means of redress for John Major was the focus of unrelenting hostility complaints against the press.” from the newspapers, with a stream of stories reports on the press that There was a warning: “Should it at any time about sleaze, scandal and corruption. become clear that the reformed non-statutory This was the context that shaped Stephen came to nothing but says, mechanism is failing, this should be replaced by a Dorrell’s response. In his evidence to Leveson statutory tribunal.” he said: “There was the reality that if you were this time it’s different In July 1992 David Mellor, now Heritage going to even contemplate going down that road Secretary, asked Sir David Calcutt to conduct [statutory regulation], you would encounter huge another review of press self-regulation. The opposition from the press themselves … WHEN LORD Justice Leveson presented his report came out in January 1993. “It would be powerful, vigorous opposition, report he made great play of the fact that “this is A week later the People reported Mellor had and that would, as a practical matter, have made the seventh time in less than 70 years … that the been having an affair with an actress, Antonia it, I think, impossible for such a proposal to have issues have been addressed. No-one can think it been carried through the House of Commons.” makes any sense to contemplate an eighth.” So, in spite of the government’s own scathing During the inquiry he had an opportunity to assessment of the effectiveness of the PCC and reflect on the fate of a previous one that recom- We have a broad- the clear proposals in Calcutt’s second report, mended statutory regulation of the press but based media Stephen Dorrell presented a do-nothing strategy: which was, through political procrastination, the government would act “when Parliamentary kicked into the long grass. reform movement time permitted”. This is not speculation but the truth according pushing for the The government suggested changes that the to the evidence presented by Stephen Dorrell MP PCC itself could adopt to make it more effective, to the Leveson Inquiry. implementation of many of which were ignored. In Parliament in 1988 two Private Members’ Clearly there are parallels between David Bills, on Protection of Privacy and the Right the Leveson report Cameron’s response to Leveson and John Major’s of Reply, secured first and second place in the government to Calcutt. Cameron desperately ballot for backbench legislation and won a lot of needs the support of Murdoch and the other support. To take the heat off, the government Conservative newspapers proprietors and wants set up the Calcutt Committee into Privacy and de Sancha, whose telephone calls with him had to avoid any statutory oversight. Related Matters. somehow been recorded. She was paid £35,000 But there are also differences. Firstly, we have During its deliberations a Home Office for her story. Mellor resigned. a broad-based media reform movement outside minister, David Mellor, attacked the tabloids for Calcutt’s second report reached brutal conclu- Parliament pushing for implementation of the their intrusion into the private lives of individ- sions on the PCC: “a body set up by the industry, Leveson report. uals and the close-up pictures of the dead and financed by the industry, dominated by the Secondly, unlike in 1995, when Tony Blair was dying at the Hillsborough football disaster. In industry, and operating a code of conduct devised desperately seeking Rupert Murdoch’s support, a phrase that would come back to bite him he by the industry and which is over-favourable to we have clear statements from Labour, the said the popular press was “drinking in the Last the industry.” LibDems and some Tories, in support of statutory Chance Saloon.” He recommended the establishment of a oversight of press regulation. The Calcutt Report of June 1990 was statutory Press Complaints Tribunal. That combination can make a difference the sweeping. The Press Council was to be The government’s response became the seventh time round. 8 Free Press January–February 2013 Nobody’s perfect …

WHILE MOST public discussion of the Leveson THE CPBF has posted two podcasts on “other-worldly naivety that can only undermine report has been about press regulation and its site discussing the aftermath of the public faith in his understanding of the issues statutory underpinning, important criticisms of Leveson report. at stake”. the proposals have been aired by journalists and ■ editors alike. ■The first, The Leveson Report: Let Online publishing down by Cameron?, was recorded Had some of them already been in effect, LEVESON has been widely criticised for his on the day of the report, with former journalists are warning, important stories would apparent failure to tackle issues surrounding the BBC political correspondent Nicholas never have seen the light of day – including the internet. Just one of the report’s 1,987 pages deal Jones interviewing seven media reform phone-hacking story itself. campaigners, including CPBF activists with the issue of social networks and blogs. He described the internet as an “ethical Relations with police and Labour MP John McDonnell, on their reaction to the events of the day. vacuum” that “does not claim to operate by LEVESON wants an end to off-the-record express ethical standards, so bloggers and others ■ briefings by police, which Guardian reporter Nick ■The second, Leveson: The Great may, if they choose, act with impunity. Stitch Up?, features Frances O’Grady, Davies, who broke the story, said would stop “Most blogs are read by very few people and the new TUC general secretary; Michelle leaks by officers. “If that rule had been in place rarely as news or factual, but as opinion and Stanistreet, leader of the NUJ; and over the last few years, it is fair to say that the must be considered as such”. Guardian Julian Petley, co-chair of the CPBF and might not have been able to expose the professor of media studies at Brunel Internet consultant Gary Herman — who hacking scandal.” University. manages the CPBF website — said that to imply such a distinction from newspapers is a mistake. ■ Protecting sources ■Go to www.cpbf.org.uk/podcasts “Leveson clearly has an idea of news and ANOTHER danger lay in a section which implies factual writing which runs counter to most that reporters should be able to conceal the people’s experience of the press, much of which identities of confidential sources only if they they win the case. does not deal in fact either, but rather gossip, have some kind of proof of the obligation for The Daily Mail said this would mean that “for titillation and PR. confidentiality, such as a written agreement the first time, the principle of punishing the “Did Leveson ask Sun readers how much of with the source. “This would hardly be possible if innocent would be enshrined in British law”. the paper they thought was factual? How does your source is a criminal, or a police officer,” Nick It later accused Leveson of displaying an he know what people read blogs for?” Davies said. Data protection THERE ARE queries about proposals to give the Information Commissioner new powers to Trade union rights and prosecute journalists and for the press to have fewer public interest exemptions from data protection rules. press freedoms The idea seems to be to tighten the laws on phone-hacking and other unlawful means of Regulation of the media by means of statutory underpinning to protect the public is essential, acquiring confidential personal information. But along with a right of reply. the effect could again be to undermine the jour- Restriction on the scale and range of media ownership is fundamental. But effectiveness nalist’s duty to protect sources of information. in curbing press and media excess is also linked with union rights. Criminal evidence Rupert Murdoch built his worldwide media empire on the backs of his UK unionised FURTHER proposed changes to the Police and workers. Those workers presented a challenge to employer and editorial excess by strong Criminal Evidence Act would give police more trade union organization and industrial action, which included demanding the right of reply. power to gain access to journalistic material. Together, the NUJ is warning, the measures In 1986, with the connivance and support of government and police, Murdoch got rid would have major consequences for investigative of those workers and their unions, handing unchecked power to his editors and managers, journalism. extending dramatically the debasement of the British media. Repeated staffing cuts in the industry The News International dispute at Wapping 26 years ago illustrated just how much the have already had an impact on the pursuit of UK law on trade union rights and action favours the employers. Workers and progressives quality journalism. The new measures would be yet another inhibiting factor on investigative will fight for justice, equality and peace whatever the state of the law. journalism, already becoming something of an A crucial part of support for those struggles is the twin duty of the trade union movement endangered species. to increase pressure on the Tory government, and to demand that the Labour Party is The judge also recommended that it should committed to repealing the anti-union measures, at the very least bringing our law into line be made “abundantly clear” that the names of people who have been arrested should not be with international law and rights. released to the press “save in exceptional and News International Dispute Exhibition Working Party clearly identified circumstances”. November 2012 This too, journalists say, could stop stories that might be in the public interest. Court costs PUBLISHERS have criticised Leveson’s suggestion that publications that refuse to sign up to the new regulator should be made to pay the full costs of an ensuing civil court action – even if January–February 2013 Free Press 9 ELSEWHERE … Look out local hacks: Montgomery’s back ON ONE HAND THEY WERE WRONG. DAVID MONTGOMERY, the reviled newspaper manager of the 1990s, is back at the helm of a new local paper chain. When he managed the Mirror group in London in the early ON THE OTHER, WRONG AGAIN 1990s he earned himself the sobriquet Rommel from staff, IN NOVEMBER 2011 the BBC took not necessarily a bad decision. because “Monty was on our side”. a decision it was not even aware Editors have to face tough calls, Journalists were defenceless as Monty rampaged through of. Sir Jimmy Savile had died on particularly BBC editors, whose their ranks, sacking hundreds, including at least six NUJ reps. October 30. Unknown to each formal independence is limited He went on to take over the management of the other, two departments started by the stifling cowardice of Independent , where he sacked dozens (it’s a smaller paper) preparing conflicting programmes their managers. They have the including two NUJ chapel reps in quick succession. about his life. Unconsciously, the right to kill stories they’re not Montgomery reduced the Mirror group to such an BBC decided to broadcast one and confident about. emaciated remnant of its former glory that it was taken over not the other. Meanwhile, the other BBC by Trinity, a small group of provincial newspapers. In the Newsnight editor Peter was pressing on with its gushing process he found himself kicked out of the company; the new Rippon’s spiking of the investi- tributes to Savile – and that’s owners didn’t want him. gation into Savile’s crimes was where it went wrong. Montgomery set up a company called Mecom that bought big daily papers in half a dozen central and eastern European countries. Journalists protested at his brutal managerial style and his fellow directors succeeded, after several attempts, in ‘20 per cent must kicking him out of the company. Now he has re-emerged back home at the head of another vehicle called Local World. A couple of existing regional fail. The rules say so’ publishers — the Northcliffe and Iliffe Media groups — have sold him their titles. Working for the BBC in fear of redundancy and the Last year Northcliffe Media, the regional arm of the Daily these times is hard, impending abolition of pay progres- Mail group, made only £26 million profit last year, up 53 per sion and grading. cent on the previous year, on sales of £213 million; that is 12 says a staff programme What you earn will be deter­ per cent, more than most big corporations can manage. mined by your manager, based not This was achieved by sacking 324 employees, one in eight maker on the job you do or your skills, but on your “attitude”. With ever more of the payroll. journalists on rolling fixed term Nothing seems to go Rupert’s way online THE BBC has been brought to its contracts, “acting up”, or working on a knees by a direct assault on its “casual” basis, the ability to question RUPERT MURDOCH’S News Corporation suffered another resources, its much-vaunted values editorial decisions is reduced. online setback when forced to close its supposedly pioneering and ultimately its output. Leading news programmes that digital newspaper The Daily in November. The Daily This assault may have been used to be overseen by assistant was accessible solely as an iPad application and cheered on by the usual critics of editors are outputted by acting failed to build a readership in 18 months. the Corporation in Wapping and Senior Broadcast Journalists, who The closure follows the forced sale of MySpace and the Northcliffe House, but it has been are often themselves substantively Times failure of the website paywall as the latest instance of aided and abetted by a self-serving Broadcast Journalists. Important Murdoch’s inability to comprehend the internet. management within the BBC, who packages are produced or even It also coincided with the announcement that Murdoch have recklessly promised to deliver reported by Broadcast Assistants. favourite Robert Thomson would head the publishing division more for less without any regard to Newsnight insiders have when News Corp splits in half to protect the more lucrative obvious effects on morale or quality. testified that this downgrading film and TV business from the toxic print assets in London. There is no point blaming indi- of responsibility was the case at At the same time the head of that operation, News viduals even as they resign, “step the programme, whose funding International chief executive Tom Mockridge announced his aside” or are sacked. Removing an has been slashed by half in the resignation. He had held the fort and steadied the ship since individual, however publicly, will last decade. the arrest and disgrace of Rebekah Brooks and felt he had achieve nothing while a rotten When the cuts programme earned the new top job. management culture continues “Delivering Quality First” (DQF) with the guarantees of quality as was announced last year, the then US media regulations relaxed. The UK next? sturdy as the emperor’s latest outfit. Director-General Mark Thompson REGULATIONS restricting media ownership in the USA are Professionalism and the oppor- said it could not be made through about to be relaxed to help recession-hit companies in the tunity to reflect, question and check the usual salami-slicing if quality our work is being gradually replaced was to be maintained. Last week newspaper business. by a culture of acquiescence. acting D-G Tim Davie defended DQF The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is pushing Within the senior ranks this is but acknowledged that “we cannot through new regulations to allow cross-ownership of typified by senior managers who keep cutting forever”. newspapers and TV or radio stations by the end of the year. are always looking for their next Now having been stretched The current rules prohibit major newspapers from merging move up, collecting between them by various “productivity” and with major television and radio stations in the same metro- £3 million in car allowances (even “efficiency” programmes, the BBC’s politan market – though waivers can be granted to companies if they don’t drive), £2 million in reputation has finally shattered. in particular difficulties. private healthcare and £4.7 million It is time for the Corporation to The changes are intended to make it easier for TV in golden goodbyes . stop, look and listen. To invest in its companies to buy ailing newspapers, whose owners cannot At more junior levels, acqui- staff, resources and creativity; to afford to invest in them any further. escence is achieved through an reassert quality and independence; Newspaper advertising has more than halved, from $47.4 arbitrary appraisal system (in which and to rebuild trust. billion in 2005 to $20.7 billion last year. 20 per cent must fail), a constant Just like it says in the BBC values. 10 Free Press January–February 2013 With all the ON ONE HAND THEY WERE WRONG. inhouse ON THE OTHER, WRONG AGAIN collective With all the inhouse collective in to steady the ship — that is, world’s top media jobs: chief memory of the behaviour of to neutralise the journalism and executive of the New York Times. memory Savile over the years, the BBC make concession after concession Opprobrium was applied was stupid, complacent and to government — after the BBC’s instead onto Peter Rippon and obtuse to produce these shows, crushing defeat by the Blair George Entwistle, the walking of the whether Newsnight was investi- government over the Hutton briefcase who was briefly gating or not. The fault was not Report and the reporting of the Thompson’s successor. dropping the story but running US-led invasion of Iraq. The outcomes of the inquiries behaviour of the tributes. Yet Thompson has had a fairly into what went wrong over Savile The blame must rest with easy time of it. In the midst of were awaited as Free Press went Mark Thompson, Director-General the crisis he left behind he was to press. Savile over at the time. He had been brought able to stroll into one of the Tim Gopsill the years, No more crises. the BBC was stupid, Just get it right complacent

NUJ official LAURA a key part of the problem has affairs, in the World Service and and obtuse been enforcing a series of cuts on the regions. He should make the DAVIDSON says the programme budgets, while bloating political arguments for re-invest- new Director-General the management. ment in these core areas. to produce Meanwhile a National Audit Remember the mooted will have a real chance Office report has highlighted expansion of the BBC’s local concerns that the BBC is carrying websites which met its death these shows, to make the changes out a programme of major cuts because of lobbying by organisa- without basic mechanisms in place tions which feared it would damage needed to monitor the effect on quality. them commercially? Remember whether The unions have warned of their promises of investment the potential impact in terms of in regional journalism as an WHEN CRISES strike the BBC, the quality of the journalism, the alternative? Newsnight which happens not infrequently, diversity of the organisation and Instead, regional newspaper they swamp the airwaves and groups have continued to make jour- was screens, as other broadcasters, Shouldn’t the Trust nalists redundant, clamped down papers and politicians frenziedly on pay, driving many out of the dive in. have ordinary industry, and failed to take account At the height of the Savile of disadvantaged people without investigating crisis the chair of the BBC Trust, licence fee payer internet access by closing papers and Lord Patten, suggested splitting representation turning them online only. Not very or not. The the Director-General job in two — public service. managerial and editorial — as part on it? Charter renewal is never far of a radical overhaul of the BBC’s away at the BBC and the danger fault was not systems. But what of reviewing the from those hostile to the very Trust itself? damaging the relationship with concept of the BBC and its licence Is the relationship with the BBC viewers and listeners. fee is as real as ever. This was dropping Executive functional? Shouldn’t the The new D-G has a chance exposed during the Savile scandal Trust have ordinary licence fee payer to undo the damage caused by when opponents attacked the BBC representation on it? his predecessor but one, Mark and used it as a political tool to the story but The enquiries into the Savile Thompson, who agreed to the argue that regulation had failed, in affair include: examining the current licence fee freeze until order to try and undermine Lord culture and practices at the BBC 2017 and to take on an extra £340 Justice Leveson’s enquiry. running the in the era of alleged sexual abuse million in spending commitments, Now Tony Hall has a chance by Savile; sexual harassment including the funding of the World to undo the damage done by policies at the BBC; and the Pollard Service, kick-starting local TV and Mark Thompson and his cuts tributes enquiry into the decision not to the roll-out of fast broadband. programmes “Creative Futures”, broadcast a Newsnight programme He should put a stop to the “Delivering Quality First”, “Future about Savile. job cuts on the front line that Focus” and other Birtspeak Others have given their view: have damaged the BBC’s journal- nonsense. This opportunity must Jeremy Paxman has argued that istic capacity in television current not be missed. January–February 2013 Free Press 11 REVIEW Star hack makes an honest man of himself STEVE ULLATHORNE One Rogue Reporter, Richard Peppiatt has done more than most and is making a living of it, as a stand-up comic. one-person show with Well, he’s got some good material. Cuts of his more outlandish stories – poncing Richard Peppiatt, Soho around in a burka, for instance — flash up on an onstage screen while he tells how people Theatre, London W1 congratulate him on his “dignity”, for resigning. Stories by fellow hacks get the same treatment, but the best is the footage of the ON THE EVE of the publication of the Leveson pranks he gets up to doorstepping the editors. report, actor Hugh Grant presented his documen- Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail and High Whittow of tary to the nation via Channel 4. Taking On The the Express both get the treatment. Tabloids it was called. The show is called One Rogue Reporter – lifting The same evening in a basement theatre the phrase immortalised by News International club in London’s Soho, another rather raffish yet as its lying explanation for phone-hacking — and personable character was doing just that, and Richard Peppiatt does his roguish best to get his taking them on with even more gusto. own back. Richard Peppiatt is not yet a big star but does He even manages to trap Kelvin MacKenzie enjoy a degree of fame in certain circles. He was into an interview in which he gets him to the Daily Star reporter who walked out in 2009 denounce some saucy texting that he turns out in disgust at the degrading things reporters on Richard Peppiatt: from Daily Star newsroom to have sent himself. Richard Desmond papers are expected to do, to Soho theatre We see the truth slowly dawning and the dressing up in stupid costumes and making up former editor’s sheepish retreat. stupid stories. One Rogue Reporter is going on tour Perhaps the targets are too easy. The only He gave refreshingly candid evidence to the in 2013, opening in Belfast at the Black thing that everyone agrees on in the wake of the Box on January 11, playing in Colchester, inquiry and joined the Leveson circuit — that Leveson report is that national paper editors are Exeter, Berwick, Glasgow, Crawley, bunch of individuals who have spent much of a revolting and hypocritical breed and no-one Taunton, Barton on Humber, Selby, last year and will probably the next trooping to except them can fail to enjoy their discomfiture. Chipping Norton, Barnsley, Leamington ever more predictable meetings and debates on Spa and Halifax (May 5). Other venues to Richard Peppiatt is going to have to expand the regulation of the press. be confirmed. his range if he really wants to make it as a comic. A number of CPBF activists are in this little More info at www.rich-peppiatt.com But he can’t really go back to the day job. community. Tim Gopsill

MEMBERSHIP RATES PER YEAR AFFILIATION BY ORGANISATION a) Individual membership £15 f) Fewer than 500 members £25 b) Unwaged £6 g) 500 to 1,000 £30 Join the c) Supporting membership £25 h) 1,000 to 10,000 £50 (includes free CPBF publications) i) 10,000 to 50,000 £115 d) Institutions (eg libraries) £25 j) 50,000 to 100,000 £225 campaign (includes 10 copies of FREE Press) k) Over 100,000 £450 for press and I/We want to join the CPBF and enclose a cheque/PO for £ ______Name______broadcasting Address______freedom Postcode______Tel______Email______Join online at Organisation (if applicable)______Return form to CPBF, 2nd floor, Vi and Garner Smith House, 23 Orford Road, www.cpbf.org.uk Walthamstow, London E17 9NL tel: 07729 846 146, email [email protected]

© Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. Free Press is edited by Tim Gopsill on behalf of the National Council. This issue went to press on December 10. Send letters, comments, articles and ideas to [email protected] Printed by Printciples, www.printciples.co.uk