For some, the Inquiry has presented the British press with an opportunity for a shake-up not dissimilar to that triggered by the Calcutt Report of the early 1990s. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger praised the Inquiry for triggering a more nuanced look at regulation and statute. Others were less keen: Northern and Shell boss Richard Desmond called it “probably the worst thing that’s ever happened to newspapers in my lifetime”.

Leveson has learned a lot in the past few months. For one, the Inquiry has hammered the last nail into the Press Complaints Commission’s coffin. Harry Potter author JK Rowling called it a “wrist-slapping exercise at best”. In the same week, the  father of missing toddler Madeleine McCann suggested “repeat offenders” of incorrect coverage should lose their privilege of practising journalism. The editor of the Daily Express, Hugh Whittow, went so far as to suggest that one of the reasons for the paper withdrawing from the PCC was because it failed to stop the tabloid publishing defamatory articles about the McCanns.

Criticism also came from the Inquiry team. Counsel Robert Jay QC put it to ex-PCC director Tim Toulmin that the self-regulation body had failed to “test the boundaries of its powers” by choosing not to question former News of the World editor Andy Coulson after he resigned from the tabloid following the 2007 convictions of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire over phone hacking. Toulmin rejected the suggestion.

But PCC chairs past and present repeated that the body had been criticised for failing to exercise the powers it never had. Former chair Baroness Peta Buscombe argued that the body did not have investigatory powers to summon editors to give evidence under oath. She noted that broadcast regulator Ofcom cannot “deal with crime, nor should it”, and that the rest of the world “would kill” for the British press’s system of self-regulation.

“It is as if you say to the police ‘you are useless because you can’t stop crime’,” her predecessor, Sir Christopher Meyer said. “These are ridiculous arguments.”

The fear of statutory regulation is also alive and well. Times editor James Harding expressed concerns that a “Leveson act” would have a “chilling effect” on press freedom and make reporters submit to political influence. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop perhaps put it best when he said, “if the state regulates the press then the press no longer regulates the state.”

Meanwhile, current PCC chair Lord Hunt warned that “the road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions”, adding that there were“very strong views” in parliament that there should be tougher limits on the power of the press. Britain’s “much envied” press freedom, he said, was the country’s “greatest asset”.

It was left to Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, never one for timidity, to throw the debate wide open with his suggestion of a press card system. He suggested transforming the country’s “haphazard” system into an “essential kitemark for ethical, proper journalism”, with cards denoting “responsible” journalists. How this would translate in the online world of citizen media, however, was a question left unanswered.

Though not directly in Leveson’s remit, libel was one area flagged as in dire need of a revamp. Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood flew the flag for the Libel Reform Campaign, arguing that it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. FT editor Lionel Barber also alluded to the “chilling effect” mammoth libel costs have on pursuing a story, while alternative, cheaper means of resolution were proposed by several witnesses.

The Inquiry has also unearthed some misdemeanours. James Harding was recalled to discuss an instance of a reporter at his paper using email hacking to reveal the identity of anonymous police blogger, NightJack, in a 2009 story.  The controversial printing of Kate McCann’s diary without her permission was also referred to more than once. Former News of the World news editor Ian Edmonson was quizzed about extracts of the diary that appeared in the paper in 2008, contradicting claims made by former editor Colin Myler that Edmondson had sought permission to publish from the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell. Asked if he had led editor Myler to believe he had “made it clear” to Mitchell that the paper had the whole diary and planned to publish parts, Edmondson replied: “No.”

Page 3, a mainstay at the Sun since the 1970s, has also proved contentious. Women’s groups said the feature existed “for the sole purpose” of women being sex objects, while Sun editor Dominic Mohan claimed it was an “innocuous British institution” that celebrated natural beauty and represents youth and freshness. He argued that the Sun speaking out against domestic violence in 2003 and raising awareness of cervical cancer screening following the death of reality TV star Jade Goody in 2009 were proof that it was not a sexist tabloid.

The battleground of balancing privacy — “for paedos”, according to Paul McMullan — and public interest is an area we seem less clear on than three months ago. Leveson heard on more than one occasion that there may be a public interest in exposing hypocritical behaviour of celebrities who are “role models”.  Former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck defended his splash on David Beckham’s affair with Rebecca Loos, noting that the footballer had cultivated and marketed an image of having a fairytale marriage. Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion”, citing JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.

The Internet is also an issue keeping Leveson — and newspaper editors — up at night. Mohan called for a level-playing field between print and online, claiming that the combination of an over-regulated press with an unregulated internet was a “very, very worrying thought”. Mirror editor Richard Wallace suggested  ”legitimate” online news providers — whoever these may be — would want to join a new regulatory body because “it gives them a lot of cachet”. Meanwhile, media lawyer and commentator David Allen Green urged the Inquiry not to view bloggers and Twitter users as “rogues”, adding that social media users often act responsibly and regulate themselves by being transparent.

There is much to be done before Leveson makes any recommendations. In his next module he will examine the relationship between the press and police before delving into the mingling between the press and politicians, a union repeatedly lamented during module one.  Leveson has said he does not wish to become a “footnote in some professor of journalism’s analysis of 21st century history”. If the first module — and the Twitter attention — are anything to go by, it is doubtful he will.

Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index on Censorship and leads coverage of the Leveson Inquiry. She tweets at @martaruco

Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson

The post Leveson Inquiry: The story so far appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Labour peer’s call to end the self-regulation system if newspapers do not “improve their behaviour within a year” would endanger press freedom. The PCC’s Stephen Abell asks: Does Puttnam really want a public body to dictate the tone of political coverage?

I am very glad of the opportunity to comment more fully on the comments made recently by Lord Puttnam. It is absolutely right that the work of the Press Complaints Commission is scrutinised, discussed, and criticised, so we can look towards making it better. I would, of course, prefer it if it were based on well-informed and considered comment about our role and performance. Last night, sadly, Lord Puttnam offered neither.

What he appears to have done is called the PCC (or the environment in which it operates) a “snakepit” and said that newspapers should be given a year to “improve their behaviour” in some unquantifiable manner. As it turns out, the Labour peer and deputy chairman of Channel 4 has actually entered the snakepit and used the PCC on two occasions. Both of which led him to praise the service we offered him. At the time he wrote to us saying the following:

I would also like to take the opportunity to say how very grateful I am for both the speed and quality of the service I received from the PCC. I had no reason to expect anything less, but I assure you it’s very much appreciated. [Emphases his].

Now this does not mean the whole system overseen by the PCC is perfect, but what it shows is that Lord Puttnam was willing privately to recognise our value, but publicly eager to heap calumny on us. I find that objectionable.

He has since sought to clarify his criticisms, telling MediaGuardian.co.uk:

I believe the PCC does a pretty good job of handling individual complaints from those who feel themselves to have been in some way traduced. What they cannot do is prevent the slow reduction of politics to a form of gruesome spectator sport. Nor can they ensure the general representation of young people is more representative of reality.

I think here we have the basis for an important debate, which would have been preferable to the sideline sniping. Lord Puttnam is keen to assert that the PCC “cannot” instruct newspapers to be nicer to politicians and young people (two items on his wish list), without pausing to ask the question: should it? There must be the argument that if any body — even a self-regulatory body like the PCC — were to dictate the tone of political coverage, or suggest that there should be more positive stories on youth issues, the result would be a very significant restriction on freedom of expression.

Free expression must include the right to be critical and polemical, partisan and strident. I am afraid that it has been distorted by some of its supporters to mean the freedom to express only palatable, consensus views.

However, and this is very important, he is right that the PCC must be active agents in maintaining newspaper standards. The coverage of politics, or of issues affecting the young, are two important areas. The PCC must ensure that we hold editors to account for what they report and how they report it. We must ensure that inaccuracies are corrected, intrusions and distortions prevented.

The method by which to do this is to ensure that everyone is engaged in the PCC system, and makes good use of it. We certainly want to ensure that the activities of young people (although I am reluctant to characterise “the young” as a special interest group, as it feels slightly patronising) are reported accurately.

The PCC has done quite a lot of work in trying to open itself to young people, so that we can make their voice heard about how they are covered in the press. Last year we took part in a consultation organised by the Institute for Global Ethics, examining portrayals of young people in the media. This year, we were involved in research being conducted by the Media Trust about the feasibility of creating a media centre as a resource for journalists and young people. We have been in touch with the recently-formed Youth Media Council to discuss common aims and objectives. We regularly speak to school groups to explain the role of the PCC. We are speaking tomorrow at a conference on the subject of child bereavement.

There is no doubt we can do more. So, the PCC will use these thoughts from Lord Puttnam constructively, accepting that another manifestation of free expression, alongside a partisan press, is undue criticism from grumpy peers.

Stephen Abell is director of the Press Complaints Commission

The post Why Lord Puttnam is wrong about the PCC appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A record 25,000 people complained about the Jan Moir comment piece, which many considered to be homophobic, but the press watchdog has rejected their grievances arguing that to censuring Moir for her ‘uncomfortable’ opinions would represent censorship.

Extracts from the decision are below or you can read the judgment in full.

More on this story later.

Clause 5 – Intrusion into grief or shock

[T]he Commission did not consider that the publication of the article had breached Clause 5 of the Code. To rule otherwise would be to say that newspapers are not entitled to publish certain opinions (which may be disagreeable to many) on events that are matters of public discussion. This would be a slide towards censorship, which the Commission could not endorse.

None of this meant that the Commission sought to deny the validity of the strong reaction against the article or of the notion that the article could be held to be in questionable taste. It was indisputable that the article had caused the complainant great distress, as it had many others.

Cause 12 – Discrimination

The Commission made clear that this part of the Code was not designed to prevent discussion of certain lifestyles or broad issues relating to race, religion or sexuality. There was a distinction between critical innuendo – which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society – and discriminatory description of individuals, and the Code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former.

The Commission may have been uncomfortable with the tenor of the columnist’s remarks on the topic; it did not consider, however, that the column had crossed the line on this occasion such as to raise a breach of the Code.

The post PCC rejects Stephen Gately complaint appeared first on Index on Censorship.