In our increasingly digital times, freedom of expression may look like one of the positive beneficiaries of our ever more interconnected world. Countries like China or Iran build firewalls and employ small armies of censors and snoopers in determined attempts to keep their bit of the internet controlled and uncritical of their ruling elites. But with social media, blogs, citizen journalism, and ever greater amounts of news on a diverse and expanding range of sites, information is shared across borders and goes around censors with greater ease than ever before.

Yet online and off, free speech still needs defending from those in power who would like to control information, limit criticism or snoop widely across people and populations. And it would be a mistake to think the free speech attackers are only the obvious bad guys like China, Iran or North Korea.

While Putin’s Russia jails members of Pussy Riot, passes new laws to block websites and journalists continue to face risks of violent attack, it is Turkey, in 2013, that has more journalists in jail than even Iran or China. In 2004, the European Union assessed Turkey as democratic enough to be a candidate for EU membership. Today, Turkey’s government puts pressure on media companies and editors to rein in critical journalists and self-censorship is rife.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a fully paid-up member of the democracy club, the government and opposition argue over whether Parliament should regulate the print media (“statutory underpinning”, to use the jargon introduced by the Leveson Report into the phone-hacking scandal). On 18 March, the UK’s three main political parties agreed on a new press regulation system whereby an independent regulator would be set up by royal charter. And in this debate over media standards and regulation, the most basic principle, that politicians should not in any way control the press (given their interests in positive, uncritical press coverage), has been too easily abandoned by many. Yet the press faces big questions: what has happened to its standards, how can individuals fairly complain? Similar debates are under way in India, with corruption and the phenomenon of ‘“paid news” among concerns there. Falling standards provide easy targets for those who would control press freedom for other reasons.

Plenty of governments of all shades are showing themselves only too ready to compromise on civil liberties in the face of the large amounts of easily accessible data our digital world produces. Shining a light on requests for information — as Google and Twitter do in their respective transparency reports —  is one vital part of the campaigns and democraticdebate needed if the internet is not to become a partially censored, and highly monitored, world.

Google’s recent update of its figures for requests for user data by law enforcement agencies shows the US way ahead of other countries — accounting for over a third of requests with 8,438 demands, with India coming in at 2,431 and the UK, Germany and France not so far behind India.

Both India and the UK have also used too widely drawn laws that criminalise “grossly offensive” comments, leading to the arrest and prosecution of individuals for innocuous social media comments. Public outcry and ensuing debate in both countries is one sign that people will stand up for free speech. But such laws must change.

A new digital revolution is coming, as millions more people move online via their mobiles. As smart phone prices fall, and take-up expands, the opportunities for free expression and accessto information across borders are set to grow. But unless we are all vigilant, whether we face democratic or authoritarian regimes, in demanding our right to that free expression, our digital world risks being a partially censored, monitored and fragmented one. This is the global free speech challenge of our times.

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post Global view appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Newspapers [Shutterstock]

Already, the jockeying for position has begun. Labour leader Ed Miliband has suggested that he will “accept” the Leveson recommendations — perhaps recklessly, considering he has not, to our knowledge seen them yet. Senior conservatives such as Michael Gove and William Hague have implied wariness of anything the judge might come up with, with Hague saying he would “err on the side of free expression”.

What emerged during the Leveson Inquiry is no less shocking for the retelling. Lord Justice Leveson heard harrowing accounts of phone hacking and intrusion, of newsrooms that appeared to have lost any sort of ethical bearing, and of unnervingly intimate relations between politicians and media executives. The need for change is genuine, and urgent.

So what’s actually at stake in the coming months? The question most discussed is “statutory regulation or not?” Or, in simpler terms — Should the government create a law that will decide how the press is regulated?

It’s important to state the issue simply. Over the past year, the Leveson orbit has developed its own subculture and jargon, with angels-on-pinheads arguments on issues such as the difference between self regulation and independent regulation.

If parliament is allowed  to create a specific press law then a precedent is set whereby politicians may feel they have the right to meddle with press freedom, for party political reasons or short term gain. Even a “light dab” of statute could create a level of parliamentary power over the press. Maintaining a positive image is vital for politicians, and they may find themselves tempted to pressurise papers, who in turn may feel less free to criticise our leaders — a crucial function of a free press.

Members of the press are already subject to restrictions on free expression: that is, the same restrictions everyone in the country is subject to. A law relating specifically to the press creates a kind of licensing, meaning that journalists would potentially face more restrictions on their right to speak freely than the average Briton.

So what do we do? Several newspaper proprietors and editors have come up with suggestions for independent regulation “with teeth”, in the hope of convincing the government that the industry can clean up after the disastrous and disturbing News of the World phone-hacking scandal. There are rumours that David Cameron is willing to give the press “one last chance” to put its house in order.

It’s important that the press shows willing here. The population was rightly horrified by the breaches exposed in the Inquiry, and newspapers, with trust at an all time low, must themselves make the case for high standards, good governance and common decency throughout the industry.

Whether the press is really in the last chance saloon or not, it’s vital that the government steps back from statute, and that the press makes a convincing case that it is really capable of reform.

Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index. He tweets at @mepadraigreidy

The post Leveson inquiry: Politicians must give weight to free speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In a matter of weeks Lord Justice Leveson will issue recommendations for a new system of press regulation. It’s an important moment for the British media: his Inquiry has exposed reprehensible press tactics and attacks on privacy in its extensive scrutiny of Fleet Street. Mistrust in the press is high, and claims that self-regulation has failed have come thick and fast.

But there is also the risk that the recommendations in Leveson’s report might endanger Britain’s centuries-old press freedom. This week, MP John Whittingdale, Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said the Inquiry had been used as a platform to kick the press, and that Leveson had “almost encouraged anyone who has a grudge against the press over many years to come and sort of unburden themselves in front of him”. As a result, the issues addressed in the hearings went outside Leveson’s original remit. Indeed, as Whittingdale said during Radio 4’s The Media Show, the Inquiry was hindered by its inability to look into the events at the News of the World that triggered the Inquiry “until after the criminal prosecutions had been finished”.

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
Hacked Off | Martin Moore | The danger of power

At the end of August Leveson, following procedure, issued Rule 13 notices to editors warning them of his forthcoming criticisms and giving them an opportunity to respond. Some were concerned: Independent editor Chris Blackhurst said the document was a “point-by-point demolition of the industry.”

Given the seriousness of the Inquiry’s trigger — mass criminality (the latest figure of possible victims is now over 4,700), the failure of our police to properly investigate the events and the unnaturally cosy relationship between editors, the political elite and the Metropolitan police — Leveson is keen to recommend something that will command public respect. Over the eight months of hearings various regulatory suggestions have been put to Leveson: a press-card model, a contractual system, a body able to fine errant newspapers up to £1m and a system backed by legislation to resolve privacy cases.

As for statutory regulation, Leveson is well aware of the dangers of getting the state involved in regulating a medium that is supposed to regulate the state itself, although he has not ruled out some form of statutory underpinning of a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission. During his day at the Inquiry, David Cameron called statutory regulation a “last resort”, with one report (£) suggesting the prime minister is preparing to reject statutory intervention even if Leveson recommends it.

Tougher regulation and the facility to provide redress and protection for the individual cannot be achieved at the price press freedom. Without this crucial element of our democracy and history, we lose the ability to hold power to account and investigate wrongdoing. Public discourse would be seriously undermined.

Self-regulation can be improved through more accountable newsroom management. Much of what triggered the Inquiry was a matter of culture: unethical newsroom practices flourished because they could; only stronger editorial governance and newsroom management can deal with them. The new regulator also needs to be effective in monitoring and setting standards and could provide effective, fair and rapid complaint resolution, as Index and English PEN argued in the joint Alternative Libel Project.

It is also essential Leveson pushes for a stronger public interest defence, a concept at the heart of investigative journalism, in the range of criminal offences that apply to the press. The ability to uncover serious wrongdoing and expose the truth is at the heart of a free press in a democratic society. Yet only a number of laws that editors may allow a journalist to breach in order to expose wrongdoing or impropriety carry a public interest defence, namely Section 55 of the Data Protection Act. It was under this section of the DPA that the Crown Prosecution Service found that any alleged misconduct on the part of reporter Amelia Hill in her coverage of the phone hacking scandal for the Guardian (using information from confidential sources) was in the public interest. It is worth remembering that phone hacking was exposed by the of one newspaper alone  — the Guardian — after the police failed to properly investigate in 2006 and 2009.

Other legislation investigative journalists find a legal barrier, such as the Computer Misuse Act, Official Secrets Act and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), do not carry such a defence.

Imagine a journalist hacked into a minister’s email to expose corruption. No matter how small the intrusion, there would be no public interest defence in the Computer Misuse Act for that reporter if he or she were to be prosecuted. Greater consistency across various laws is needed to reassure reporters that, in cases where they do transgress the law, they would have the option of a defence available (£) and not feel deterred from doing good journalism.

Ensuring high standards of professionalism, including high ethical standards, while protecting the freedom of the press is Leveson’s challenge. Before the year is over we will see how the scales will tip.

Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. She tweets at @martaruco

The post Leveson must protect press freedom appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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/2012/07/kirsty-hughes-leveson-inquiry-press-freedom-politics/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/07/kirsty-hughes-leveson-inquiry-press-freedom-politics/#comments Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:08:33 +0000 Kirsty Hughes http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=38368 The Leveson Inquiry must put press freedom first, says Kirsty Hughes PLUS: Read our policy note on the challenges facing Leveson here

The post Leveson, politics and the press appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]>

This post originally appeared on the Independent Blogs

As the often theatrical spectacle of the Leveson hearings — with its mix of posturing, jousting, inquisition and exposé — draws to a close, the big question is what Leveson will recommend this autumn. Will we see proposals that defend press freedom and promote high professional standards, or do we risk facing proposals that limit press freedom and serious investigative journalism?

Given the range of unethical and illegal behaviour exposed in the phone-hacking scandal, and the tawdry tales of political-media cronyism under the spotlight at the Inquiry, there may be a risk that Lord Justice Leveson will prioritise standards and regulation over our sometimes riotous press freedom.

Calling for independent, self-regulation in the face of the excesses of some in News International and elsewhere cuts little ice with many. But it is worth recalling the most basic elements of our democracy that underpin the need to keep the state well out of our press. Our universal and fundamental right to free speech, to hold opinions, share information (across borders and different types of media), and express views is enshrined in international charters and laws for good reason, not least given governments’ proclivity to interfere in that right.

The governments that most go in for controlling the press, bugging their own citizens, snooping on the net, or criminalising speech tend to be the authoritarian or totalitarian ones, whether we are thinking China, Azerbaijan, Iran or North Korea. But intrusions into press freedom in Italy and Hungary show the problem is closer to home and within democracies too. Without a free press — both online and off — we would lose a big element of our free speech, our ability to hold government and other power-holders (including big business) to account, to investigate wrongdoing, lies, and other cock-ups and conspiracies.

So higher press standards cannot come from statutory government control or regulation. But if the excesses of phone-hacking, and over-close cronyism between some in the media, police and politics, are to be tackled, then we need a new deal. That must include a new self-regulatory body with greater teeth to tackle unwarranted invasions of privacy, false allegations and unethical behaviour. It must be a body that can set and monitor standards. And one that can offer rapid, effective and fair resolution of complaints — including a quick, fair voluntary mediation service as an alternative to lengthy, expensive court cases.

One solution propounded by some given the inadequacies of our current set-up is that press outsiders and retired editors should run the new body. But a press regulator that does not include current senior representatives of the press — not least at a time of rapid change in the technology and business model — will not get buy-in.  Nor do we need to reinvent the wheel. Where appropriate laws exist we don’t need to give those powers to a statutory regulator: current laws can tackle most unwarranted invasions of privacy and can deal with bribery of public officials.

One big challenge for a new self-regulating body — and for Leveson in his report — will be how to balance the right to privacy with the need for serious journalism in the public interest. Journalists need to know that if they are digging deep into questions of misleading or false statements by politicians, or investigating public health or security risks, or tracking potentially criminal behaviour, that they have a public interest defence. At the moment, some UK laws allow such a defence, others don’t. Journalists are operating in an ad hoc and unclear legal framework that can lead them to draw their horns in and shift towards self-censorship.

And last but not least, while the tales of texts, lunches and cosy chats between some leading media figures, politicians and police may encourage an ever downward trend in trust for these groups, regulating such contacts, beyond existing law, is not the way to go either. Whether it’s the whistle-blower, or just a good source in a government department tipping a journalist off in the right direction, serious probing journalism depends on informal interaction with politicians and officials.

Some of our senior figures have shown they have little idea of where to draw the line in such relationships, so clear professional standards need setting out.  But the state will over-regulate given a chance. Voluntary and professional standards combined with good corporate governance remain the only route to go if we still credit press freedom and democracy as inextricable. That is the challenge for Leveson.

Kirsty Hughes is Index on Censorship’s Chief Executive.

Index is co-hosting a panel discussion, What will Lord Justice Leveson conclude about the future of the British press? at the Frontline Club on 19 July. Details and tickets are available here.

 

The post Leveson, politics and the press appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/07/kirsty-hughes-leveson-inquiry-press-freedom-politics/feed/ 1 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-guardian-journalist-and-police-officer-not-charged-over-phone-hacking-leak/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-guardian-journalist-and-police-officer-not-charged-over-phone-hacking-leak/#comments Tue, 29 May 2012 10:31:28 +0000 Alice Purkiss http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=36901 Guardian journalist Amelia Hill will not be charged over a police leak relating to phone hacking that took place in the early stages of the inquiry. The Crown Prosecution Service made the decision not to prosecute Hill, who was one of the journalists who revealed Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, or the police officer [...]

The post UK: Guardian journalist and police officer not charged over “phone-hacking leak” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> not be charged over a police leak relating to phone hacking that took place in the early stages of the inquiry. The Crown Prosecution Service made the decision not to prosecute Hill, who was one of the journalists who revealed Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, or the police officer who was alleged to have passed her early information about the inquiry. A spokesperson for the director of public prosecutions said that there was no evidence the police officer had been paid for the information, and the information disclosed was not highly sensitive.

The post UK: Guardian journalist and police officer not charged over “phone-hacking leak” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-guardian-journalist-and-police-officer-not-charged-over-phone-hacking-leak/feed/ 2 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-phone-hacking-police-charge-rebekah-brooks/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-phone-hacking-police-charge-rebekah-brooks/#comments Tue, 15 May 2012 11:12:46 +0000 Alice Purkiss http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=36425 Former News International Chief executive Rebekah Brooks has been  charged with perverting the course of justice, as part of the. Brooks has been charged along with several others, including her husband Charlie, and four former members of News International staff, in relation to the destruction of evidence and concealing documents and computers from police. In a [...]

The post UK: Phone-hacking police charge Rebekah Brooks appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]>  charged with perverting the course of justice, as part of the. Brooks has been charged along with several others, including her husband Charlie, and four former members of News International staff, in relation to the destruction of evidence and concealing documents and computers from police. In a statement Brooks, who faces three charges, declared the decision “weak and unjust”.

The post UK: Phone-hacking police charge Rebekah Brooks appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/05/uk-phone-hacking-police-charge-rebekah-brooks/feed/ 1 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-hacked-sarah-paynes-mothers-phone/ http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-hacked-sarah-paynes-mothers-phone/#comments Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:34:40 +0000 Laura MacPhee http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=25161 The Guardian has revealed that the News of the World hacked Sara Payne’s phone, which Rebekah Brooks had given her as a gift. Payne had previously been told, accurately, that her name did not appear in Glenn Mulcaire’s notes, but her personal details were found there on Tuesday. The News of the World used its final issue [...]

The post News of the World hacked Sarah Payne’s mother’s phone appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> revealed that the News of the World hacked Sara Payne’s phone, which Rebekah Brooks had given her as a gift. Payne had previously been told, accurately, that her name did not appear in Glenn Mulcaire’s notes, but her personal details were found there on Tuesday. The News of the World used its final issue to congratulate itself for its campaign for Sarah’s law. Sara Payne herself wrote a column for the farewell edition, describing the News of the World reporters as her “good and trusted friends.” Tom Watson MP has decried this as “a whole new low”; and Sara Payne has said that she is “absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed.” Read Brian Cathcart’s writing on the phone hacking scandal here.  

The post News of the World hacked Sarah Payne’s mother’s phone appeared first on Index on Censorship.

]]> http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/07/news-of-the-world-hacked-sarah-paynes-mothers-phone/feed/ 1