This Time Let's Stop the Big Stitch-Up
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 STEFANO 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 STEFANO 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.