With power comes responsibility, warns Martin Moore of the Hacked Off campaign 

There is no shortage of quotes or aphorisms about the corrupting nature of too much power. From Thomas Bailey’s warning that “The possession of unlimited power will make a despot of almost any man” to Lord Acton’s ”absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Why does this happen? Empathy, as readers of Machiavelli’s The Prince will know, can be detrimental to the pursuit of power. “It is much safer,” Machiavelli wrote, “to be feared than to be loved.” Powerful people, in other words, can cease to see other people as human.

This appears to be what happened at parts of News International, where the subjects of stories — whether they were politicians, celebrities, public figures or the victims of a tragedy — were harassed, hounded, intimidated and discarded. It reached such a scale — the victims of phone hacking number in the thousands — because News International accumulated enormous power, and this power went almost entirely unchecked.

The Leveson Inquiry has laid out the consequences of such unchecked power. Individuals’ lives turned over, scarred, and — in the case of some victims — irreparably damaged. Swathes of public life corrupted. The political process distorted and prostituted. The most important result of the inquiry therefore has to be checks on this power. Sensible and proportionate ways of making these big media corporations responsible for their actions.

The media corporations will argue — indeed already have — that any checks on their power equate to constraints on their freedom of expression. This is disingenuous and misleadingly blurs the line between a corporation’s power to say and do what it likes, and an individual’s right to free speech.

Individual speech and corporate speech are not the same thing. As Professor Onora O’Neill said in her 2011 Reuters Institute lecture at Oxford:

Powerful institutions, including media organisations, are not in the business of self-expression, and should not go into that business. An argument that speech should be free because it generally does not affect, a fortiori can’t harm, others can’t stretch to cover the speech of governments or large corporations, of News International or the BBC.

Big media corporations have voices far louder than individuals or small publishers. They are watched, listened to and read by millions. Their capacity to do harm is disproportionately greater for this reason. They are also able to drown out smaller voices, to deprive individuals and groups of the opportunity to speak for themselves. And, should someone try to get some redress if they have been “monstered”, demonised or unjustifiably intruded upon, the corporation has the legal firepower to prevent all but the richest and most powerful from taking action.

Reforms should, for this reason, focus on these large corporations. Individuals, bloggers, tweeters, independent news sites, small magazines and newspapers should not be Leveson’s focus. They should be free to publish whatever they like within the law. They should be excluded from any regulatory obligations that might risk constraining their free speech.

Large corporations should still be free to publish what they like — they have a right to free speech too — but require a regulatory obligation to take responsibility for what they publish. In other words, they should have the mechanisms in place to justify their decisions to intrude on someone’s privacy.

Equally, they should provide a decent opportunity for the subject of a story to respond, ensuring a fair hearing and potentially fair redress if an individual believes what was written to be misrepresentative or inaccurate. These accountability mechanisms should be both internal and external.

In the 60 years before the Leveson Inquiry was set up, there were three Royal Commissions on the Press, two inquiries into privacy, and countless calls for press reform. All were pleas for powerful press barons to take some responsibility. Each time these large organisations failed to respond adequately.

Lord Justice Leveson says he does not want his recommendations to gather dust on some academic’s shelf. Nor does he want his inquiry succeeded by yet another in a decade’s time. If that is the case, then he should focus reforms on big media organisations and oblige them, for the first time, to take proper responsibility for what they do.

Martin Moore is director of the Media Standards Trust and a founder of the Hacked Off campaign. The Media Standards Trust report, A Free and Accountable Media, can be found here

Exclusive extracts from our magazine:

The Lawyer | Mark Lewis | Do we need a free press?
The Blogger | Guido Fawkes | Where will this all end?
The Journalist | Trevor Kavanagh | The Leveson effect
The Editor | Alan Rusbridger | Striking a balance

The post The Leveson Inquiry: The danger of power appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-hacked-off/feed/ 5 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-alan-rusbridger/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-alan-rusbridger/#comments Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:29:21 +0000 Alan Rusbridger http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=39872

The post The Leveson Inquiry: striking a balance to protect public interest appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> To improve the culture, practice and ethics of the press, we must protect and promote the best of journalism. Alan Rusbridger makes the case for a new settlement

I have always believed that the most interesting period in the phone hacking story was the 18-month period following the Guardian ’s original revelation of the Gordon Taylor settlement — which blew apart News International’s “one rotten apple”  defence in July 2009. It was interesting precisely because almost nothing happened. All the dogs one would expect to bark in such a situation stayed silent. From the politicians, to the police, to the regulator, to the press themselves.

The Leveson Inquiry has finally given us some insight into what was happening in this period. The inquiry has had criticism — some merited, some not. But no one can doubt that Leveson has uncovered uncomfortable truths about the way a number of journalists — as well as politicians and police — have worked in the past. In what other sphere of public life do we think that transparency of this kind is an undesirable thing? I am confident that good things can flow from holding the press up to scrutiny, however difficult it may have been at times.

The press in this country has been under-regulated but over-legislated. There is a risk that by addressing only one side of this equation — by only strengthening regulation — the inquiry will undermine the strength of our press to do the work we all deem so vital. We therefore argued the inquiry should redress the balance between regulation and legislation and make recommendations that meet the twin objectives of protecting the public and protecting press freedom. It is not possible to improve the culture, practice and ethics of the press without protecting and promoting the best of journalism in the public interest.

We believe therefore in a new settlement which will address four deficiencies.

Defamation

The 2011 Global Press Freedom Rankings placed the UK in joint 26th place. Libel law has been cited by many investigative journalists as the main constraint on their work. The current defamation bill makes some improvements but says little, for example, on early dispute resolution. Libel is an essential piece of this jigsaw, especially through an alternative dispute resolution system which we hope Lord Justice Leveson will propose.

Plurality

Another measure of freedom is whether reporters are genuinely free to follow any story they wish — or to what extent proprietorial, editorial or commercial pressures circumscribe, or otherwise influence, the freedom to report on matters of genuine public interest. Without the sort of plurality that enables the Guardian to exist as well as other, much bigger and wealthier titles, it’s doubtful we would have learned about phone hacking. It is understandable that Leveson does not feel able to do a full review of plurality jurisprudence. But anything which concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer multi-billionaire proprietors will impoverish our society. The current plurality framework — which apparently granted no one the power to intervene over the BSkyB deal — is plainly insufficient to ensure the kind of plurality that is necessary for a healthy democracy. And this is about more than News Corporation, as anyone following developments in Australian media ownership will testify.

Public interest journalism under threat

While the digital transition brings many benefits — above all, an explosion in free expression that enriches democratic discourse — we must tackle one of its less desirable consequences: a diminution in public interest journalism. Investigative journalism — costly, unpredictable and with no direct revenues attached — is often among the first savings to be made. Other forms of reporting — foreign correspondents, court reporters, specialists — are next. So editors and reporters simply don’t have the freedom to do the reporting that society may want or need. Regulation should therefore enhance the climate for this work, not diminish it. This will include protections for public interest journalism in regulation as well as through consistent application of public interest defences in laws affecting the media.

Regulation

The press must accept that the breach of trust engendered by a series of Editors’ Code breaches and a discredited PCC needs tackling immediately and resolutely. That’s why we have argued for an ambitious system of regulation that includes the use of an alternative dispute resolution system that benefits both complainants and publishers by delivering meaningful redress for breaches of the Editors’ Code, quickly and cheaply. A measure of this strength is essential to prevent the introduction of compulsory or statutory mechanisms to deliver full participation that may undermine press freedom. But it also demonstrates that the press is determined to improve its standards and practices without recourse to judges. So let’s hope that Leveson proposes a balanced package of proposals, in effect a new settlement that both restores trust in journalism and strengthens our role in serving the public interest.

Alan Rusbridger is editor-in chief, Guardian News & Media

Exclusive extracts from our magazine:

The Lawyer | Mark Lewis | Do we need a free press?
The Blogger | Guido Fawkes | Where will this all end?
The Journalist | Trevor Kavanagh | The Leveson effect
Hacked Off | Martin Moore | The danger of power

 

The post The Leveson Inquiry: striking a balance to protect public interest appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-alan-rusbridger/feed/ 5 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-guido-fawkes/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-guido-fawkes/#comments Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:28:53 +0000 Guido Fawkes http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=39859

The post The Leveson Inquiry: Where will this all end? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> Tougher legislation will lead to judges becoming censors, says political blogger Guido Fawkes

So far Lord Justice Leveson has been angry with me, threatened me with jail, censored me, twice summoned me, argued with me at his inquiry and thrice ordered me to write for him — unpaid — 5,000 words so far. To be fair, I did publish Alastair Campbell’s evidence before he gave it to the inquiry and ignored Leveson’s subsequent stern orders to keep evidence to the inquiry secret, publishing all the bits of the Operation Motorman files [the information commissioner’s investigation into data protection breaches] that I could get my hands on. I also told him to his face that his inquiry will be judged a failure if no journalists named in the Operation Motorman investigation files are prosecuted — something Leveson disputes in a hand-wringing legal decision not to advise in favour of the prosecution of hundreds of illegal information blagging journalists.

Leveson has been given a tough job — squaring the press freedom circle with a public sense that the tabloids went too far with phone hacking and info blagging. Not forgetting that the broadsheets still want to be able to do a little bit of hacking and info blagging when it is in the public interest as determined by themselves. Nobody wants judicial or political control of the newspapers, and nobody is really convinced that the ferociously competitive tabloids will restrain themselves in the long run.

My initial opinion of Leveson was that the prime minister appointed him to make sure that all the media groups got it in the neck, not just News International —  that is still my view of the politics of it all. Leveson and Jay have in my view figured out what has been going on and are far from naive. Self-important hacks like to jump on any evidence of lack of knowledge of their ink-stained ways to prove how they are misunderstood. When it came out that the inquiry lawyers had not realised that sub-editors wrote headlines, hacks were quickly tweeting self-satisfied harrumphs to the effect that no meaningful informed reform was possible because the lawyers didn’t even know journalists were not responsible for the headlines above their bylines. Hacks resent the whole process and the chilling effect it is having on press freedom. For example, my own sideline in broking political scandal stories to the Sunday tabloids is experiencing a bit of recession as editors fear to rock the boat at this sensitive period for the press.

Where will this all end? Leveson will recommend some sort of beefed up successor to the Press Complaints Commission. It may or may not have a statutory underpinning, something that I think should be avoided because legislation will inevitably lead to judges becoming censors. My admittedly minority view is that we don’t need more regulations or regulators; the hacking of Milly Dowler was illegal, information blagging was illegal, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

None of the forthcoming regulations will make a blind bit of difference to me. I realised early on that the British libel laws were too oppressive and based the Guido Fawkes Blog site offshore from the outset. Lord Black’s draft proposal on behalf of media proprietors for a contractually based regulator is not even designed to govern offshore sites like mine. In truth it would be in my commercial interest and distinct competitive advantage to see the British media heavily regulated, draconian privacy laws enacted and politically correct “media standards” enforced. All of which I would cheerfully ignore. It would, however, be a sad day for press freedom.

Guido Fawkes is the pen name of Paul Staines, who runs the Order Order political blog

Exclusive extracts from our magazine:

The Lawyer | Mark Lewis | Do we need a free press?
The Journalist | Trevor Kavanagh | The Leveson effect
The Editor | Alan Rusbridger | Striking a balance
Hacked Off | Martin Moore | The danger of power

 

The post The Leveson Inquiry: Where will this all end? appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/leveson-inquiry-guido-fawkes/feed/ 7 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-fallout-could-change-britains-media-culture/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-fallout-could-change-britains-media-culture/#comments Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:50:19 +0000 John Kampfner http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=24881 Axing the PCC means re-examining the balance of privacy v public interest – but will investigative journalism pay the price?
PLUS: Rohan Jayasekera: Making a courtroom drama out of a media crisis
John Kampfner: Britain’s media must start policing itself

The post News of the World fallout could change Britain’s media culture appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> Axing the PCC means re-examining the balance of privacy v public interest – but will investigative journalism pay the price? Asks John Kampfner

This article first appeared in the Guardian

On virtually any day of the week, if you so fancy, you can attend a conference somewhere in Britain on the state of the media. Even before the Guardian revealed the depravity of the hacking scandal, you could discuss the rights and wrongs of privacy, courtesy of Max Mosley et al; the need to reform our hideous libel laws, which my organisation and others have led; or the relationship between open information and confidentiality, thanks to Julian Assange.

Throw in the long-running discussion about print versus internet, and a veritable industry has been created on the future of the press. With so many people worrying about so much for so long, how did this crisis unfold before our eyes?

Two inquiries will seek answers. The first, which the government claims will have to await the outcome of police criminal investigations, will provide the great drama. Men and women, including some of the most powerful people in the land, may be led into the dock. The extent of corruption in the Metropolitan police will be unearthed. The biggest prize of all, if achieved, will be the emasculating of News International as a political force.

Free expression

The less exciting but just as important investigation will focus on the ethics of journalism. It is likely that a successor will emerge from the ruins of the Press Complaints Commission, a body that in its composition, remit and powers was woefully inadequate from the start.

Senior figures at the PCC became agitated with me for my criticisms, arguing that advocates for free expression should be more supportive. The opposite is true, and demonstrated their lack of understanding of the problem. Free speech is undermined by consistently poor standards and by limp supervision – a point forcefully put by the Commons culture select committee in March 2010.

The PCC, chaired by Lady Buscombe, was a mediation service, not a regulator. Even at the height of last week’s saga, it seemed to have no idea of the scale of the scandal. Its consistent plea over the years that it could intervene only after a complaint was made further eroded its credibility.

Up to this point there is some consensus. Root out and punish this industrial-scale criminality for sure; but then what? Can a strong media ever be whiter than white? And even if one could be created, would it benefit democracy?

In order to unearth wrongdoing, investigative journalism uses a variety of nefarious methods: secret recording and filming, impersonation, trading in “stolen goods”, and, yes, phone hacking. From WikiLeaks, to MPs’ expenses, to documentaries about MPs and lobbyists, to exposing arms trading, some of the most lauded reporters – including on this paper – have pushed the boundaries of legality. The inquiry should be careful about blanket bans.

For some there is an easy answer: stop the redtops plying their grubby trade and focus on political and business journalism and other “respectable” subjects. I would love the tabloids to return to the values of the Mirror of old, before the advent of celebrity and the paps – and we should certainly try – but do we want to replicate the media culture of countries such as France where three or four posh papers are read by a tiny proportion of the population?

The answer, as with privacy and other issues, requires a proper definition (which has so far eluded us) of public interest and accountability. Does a particular investigation serve the public good? That is almost always a subjective judgment. As for accountability, any such activity must on each occasion be signed off by an editor, responsible in law for those actions.

Impose further impediments to investigative journalism and the only people who will benefit are those with power who have something to hide. Hark back to Tony Blair’s illusory weapons of mass destruction or the sharp practices of bankers and ask: do we, as a society, know too much about what goes on or too little?

During the parliamentary debate last Wednesday, a number of MPs showed a creditable sensitivity to the problems. Others are simply chomping at the bit to exact revenge on a profession that has, in their minds, done them in.

Ignore the newfound piety of politicians bemoaning the influence of Rupert Murdoch. Did Blair have to fly halfway round the world in the mid-90s to pay homage? To what degree did some journalists help get some in Downing Street off the hook during the Hutton inquiry? And when that inquiry was published, controversially exonerating Alastair Campbell and others, how did it end up in the pages of the Sun in advance? At each year’s party conference, special seats would be reserved for Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) and her entourage, and she would take hers with the imperiousness of Cleopatra.

As David Cameron argued on Friday, in a vain attempt to deflect attention from his unhealthy links with Andy Coulson, Brooks and the Murdochs, they were all in it together, all these ministers and these editors and proprietors.

It is simply not good enough for politicians to claim they had no choice. They loved it. Labour chose not to deal with media cross-ownership when it had the chance. The Tories sought to wave through television dominance, until being shamed into a rethink.

This was a sordid trade-off in which politicians of all parties were culpable. In return for this humiliation, perhaps a sense of self-loathing, they sought to bully journalists from other stables who had the temerity to ask inconvenient questions. Any consideration of the ethics of journalism should look at the personal links between the Westminster press gallery and spin doctors and advisers. A much more subtle form of corruption has been at play there for decades.

So exactly what kind of media do we want? A new focus on standards, transparency and accountability can only be beneficial. Journalists love to dish it; most of them hate to take it. The industry operates a virtualomerta on exposing its own failings. Private Eye’s Street of Shame column provides a valuable public service in exposing what newspapersdo not publish as much as what they do. Several newspapers operate “non-aggression pacts”, in which they do not report the wrongdoings of their rivals – including revelations of affairs that they would readily publish about people in other walks of life.

Dogged reporting

This broader culture of collusion was one of the most appalling aspects of the phone-hacking scandal. Some of the journalists opining now in print or on Twitter about the evils of Murdoch-land either ignored the Guardian’s dogged reporting or sniped at the newspaper for its “obsessiveness”. Even in recent days, a number of newspapers – not only in the News International stable – tried hard to play down the significance until they were forced to give the story due prominence.

This story has pointed to the many dark corners of journalism. It is also a triumph of journalism. It would be a tragedy if, through the wrong kind of regulation, this kind of tenacious work was now stunted. Thanks to our libel laws, editors have for years advised reporters not to pursue certain people, even when they knew the story would stand up to scrutiny. Causing trouble usually damages cashflow.

This is a tough time to be promoting freedom of expression. You cannot have only the free speech you think is worthy. The instinct now is to tar everyone with the same brush. Even before this scandal happened, the government was looking at tightening controls of the internet. It has been moving towards libel reform with publication of the draft defamation bill; it should not use the past week’s events to dilute planned changes that are already cautious.

No country has the perfect media. The Americans love to scoff at our press standards, pointing to their “fact-checking” as a norm. Yet even that high altar of journalism, the New York Times, has got it terribly wrong on several important occasions. The US culture can lead to self-censorship on sensitive issues, particularly at times of crisis such as after 9/11, and to excessive respect for authority.

I remember wincing at summits when the Americans would stand to attention as president and prime minister walked in, while the Brits sat sullenly in their chairs. I know which I prefer and which is healthier for democracy. The same goes, in different ways, for France. Do we want privacy laws that render every photograph, every action private unless specifically rendered public?

It would be a tragedy if the impetus behind the past week’s events dissipated and, with a few short-term improvements in behaviour, the media returned to its past practices. It would be an equal tragedy if – as a result of both genuine and disingenuous anger – a new culture were developed of dull, hemmed-in journalism that appealed only to an elite.

The task facing the inquiry is to help foster a new journalism as a fearless and painstaking challenge to authority, one that makes mistakes, oversteps the mark, irritates and offends, but that is fully accountable for its actions.

John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship and author of “Freedom For Sale

The post News of the World fallout could change Britain’s media culture appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-fallout-could-change-britains-media-culture/feed/ 1