Index urges that there is a serious, considered debate about Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. The free speech organisation opposes the statutory underpinning of press regulation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:

 We consider that the statutory-voluntary approach to independent press regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK. However, we support the proposal for cheap, effective arbitration, which would help victims get swift redress to their complaints.

Index welcomed the response of the Prime Minister to the Inquiry’s findings. In a statement to parliament, David Cameron said that he had “serious concerns” about passing legislation in relation to the press, which he rightly said would be an “enormous” step.

Kirsty Hughes said: “We share David Cameron’s concerns that statutory underpinning would undermine free speech, and could be the start of a slippery slope of government interference in the media.”

Index’s response to Lord Justice Leveson’s main recommendations are:

Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ regulatory body: Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ and ‘voluntary’ regulator is a contradiction in terms. Any law which sets out the criteria that the press must meet, by definition introduces some government or political control of the media. Politicians of all hues have an interest in getting the most positive media coverage they can. Keeping print media independent of government so journalists can report on political debate and decision-making, robustly and without fear, is fundamental. Even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

Arbitration service:  Index welcomes Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal for cheap, effective arbitration.

The press and the police: Index is concerned that proposals to restrict contact between senior police officers and the press could deter legitimate journalism and whistleblowing.

Voluntary membership of regulator: Index suggests that the statutory-voluntary approach proposed by Lord Leveson contains a catch-22 and is set up to fail. While the paragraphs describing the regulator say membership is voluntary, paragraph 23 of the executive summary states that the ‘recognition body’ (suggested to be Ofcom) should only recognise and certify the regulator as ‘sufficiently effective’ if it covers ‘all signifcant news publishers’. This means the proposed system can only work – and be recognised in the way the statute would demand – if no-one exercises their right not to join. If they do exercise this right, then the regulator will fail to meet the required standards.

For further comment on Leveson’s proposals, please contact Pam Cowburn on 07749785932 or pam@indexoncensorship.org

Background

Index’s chief executive on why Leveson goes too far

&

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

The post Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This article was originally published in Press Gazette

As newspaper editors are put under pressure by David Cameron to conjure up rapidly a Leveson-like press regulator that doesn’t require legislation, there is still much confusion around what Lord Justice Leveson’s voluminous report actually means.

Does it cross the Rubicon of statutory involvement in the press? Or does it really set out the path to an independent, voluntary and self-regulatory approach?

While the power and behaviour of large media corporations have rightly been under an intense spotlight, little attention has been paid to questions of political power and the reasons why politicians around the world can so easily be tempted to pressurise or even control the press. Leveson’s report is also remarkably easygoing on the misjudgements of politicians and police in their relations with the media, allowing for good faith even where bad decisions have been taken, especially by the police.

Yet part of what Leveson — and others — exposed so effectively to the world was an extraordinary cronyism in some media-political-police networking. Coming so quickly after the expenses scandal, it is surprising that so many people — hacking victims, politicians, academics, celebrities — are ready to say the answer to the phone-hacking scandal is to let politicians vote on regulating newspapers.

Leveson’s so-called “statutory underpinning” of a press regulator would mean MPs voting on the characteristics such a regulator should have, set out in 24 paragraphs that Leveson says would form the core of the definition of an acceptable regulator. This breaches the vital principle for a free press and freedom of expression — that state, politicians, and government should not have any sway over newspapers beyond general laws that apply to all citizens and organisations.

It is hardly new to point out that politicians care about their media image and how the press report on them, and do what they can to spin good coverage. Good coverage can help to keep them in power, impacting on what voters think and how they vote. And so we need journalists and politicians to be independent of each other if we want our democracy to function as it should.

A vote by MPs to establish the characteristics of a press regulator means that body would not be independent. Nor, if it follows his principles for an “independent” board with no current editors, is it ‘self-regulation’ either. Is it at least voluntary, like the Irish model, which is set up by statute but voluntary to join? Here confusions reigns. Leveson says it is. But one characteristic he insists a press council must meet is that “all significant news publishers” join.

So if anyone exercises their voluntary right not to join, the press council fails.

Leveson suggests (as a view not a recommendation) that if it fails, Ofcom should act as a statutory backstop. Catch 22: the press council fails if anyone chooses voluntarily not to join; but if the body fails, compulsory backstop regulation steps in. Joseph Heller would be proud of him — but it’s no way to protect press freedom.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. She tweets at @Kirsty_Index

Background

Press Release: Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

Index Magazine: Leveson must protect press freedom

The post Why journalism and politics should remain independent appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kirsty Hughes outlines Index’s issues with the press inquiry’s recommendations

Lord Justice Leveson’s report could determine the path of the press in Britain for years to come.

There will be many more days of picking over the minutiae of the 2,000 page report, but some key elements are clear — and have already split the coalition and the House of Commons.

Statutory regulation threatens press freedom

Statutory regulation, or underpinning in the jargon, of an “independent” press regulator is Leveson’s core recommendation. If it happened, this would mean a specific law would set out aspects of control of the press for the first time in over 300 years. Index is strongly opposed to any such statutory involvement in press regulation.

In his brief remarks presenting the report today, Leveson attempted to pre-empt such criticism asserting: “This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press.” But the Prime Minister David Cameron disagreed in his statement to the House of Commons saying he had “serious concerns and misgivings” and that statutory underpinning of an “independent” regulator would be an “enormous” step.

Leveson’s report sets out in great detail the characteristics and criteria that the new regulator should meet. It also suggests that a “recognition body” would assess and “certify” that the regulator met these criteria — with Ofcom suggested as the best organisation to be this recognition body. MPs would vote into law these criteria, and would vote into law the process by which an “independent” appointments panel would select the chair and board of the regulator (which would exclude any current editor).

Politicians must not control the press

This politicisation of press control would be a major breach of the principles of freedom of expression and a free press. There are fundamental reasons why politicians and media should be distinct from and independent of each other. The cronyism between media, police and politicians, exposed in part in the Leveson Inquiry, is not a reason to establish a sort of “reverse cronyism” whereby media would risk being pressurised by government and other politicians.

The media has a vital role to play — as Leveson himself indicated — in monitoring and reporting the political scene, challenging and criticising and holding to account those in power; if journalists cannot do this robustly and without fear of interference or other political consequences, press freedom is constrained. Beyond this, even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

The fact that, in Leveson’s recommendations, it is left as “voluntary” for news publishers to decide to join, does not mitigate the fact that all those who do join are part of a statutorily-established process. And there is also a Catch-22 here since the Report states that the press regulator should only be recognised as effective if “all significant news publishers” join. So if one major news outfit doesn’t join, the regulator is deemed unacceptable. In that case, all “significant” news publishers would be part of the statutorily-established system.

The system Leveson proposes is very similar to that operating in Ireland since 2009. The Irish system does not however demand that all significant news outfits join. And, on the other hand, the Irish model is somewhat more intrusive in that the Justice Minister there essentially plays the role that Leveson suggests Ofcom would play in the UK system. While Ofcom is somewhat more arms-length than a UK minister acting as the “recognition body”, this does not solve the central problem of statute, which must be created by politicians.

Leveson goes to some lengths to set out criteria for an independent appointments panel to appoint the independent chair and board of the “independent” regulator. But if MPs first vote on the detailed statute that sets up the panel and the criteria for the regulator, then this proposal threatens press freedom in the UK and Cameron must remain resolute in his opposition to this.

Other key proposals

Leveson’s proposal for a cheap, effective arbitration service is one that Index welcomes — this can benefit both complainants and publishers in ensuring complaints can be dealt with swiftly, fairly, and without great costs. Swift, fair arbitration in this way can deal with those cases where the media is, or is felt to be, impervious to complaints. A much stronger standards arm, fines, and more independent figures on the regulator’s board can all act — as Leveson and the party leaders agree — to transform the behaviour of those parts of the press whose behaviour Leveson castigates in his report.

Leveson calls for much greater transparency in media relations with politicians and the police especially at senior level. Ending cronyism and inappropriate relationships between some journalists, some politicians and some police is important. But insisting all contact between senior police officers and journalists must be transparent risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater — deterring whistle-blowers and inhibiting legitimate journalism.

Leveson insisted today that it was wrong to say that the phone-hacking scandal and other examples of damaging and inappropriate press behaviour and intrusion into individuals’ privacy were due to failure to apply the law. But the criminal law does apply to the media, as to other organisations and individuals. And a combination of effective application of existing laws with a stronger independent regulator – set up without any statute or parliamentary vote — can provide the framework for genuine press freedom to be upheld in the UK and to ensure there are higher media standards, better governance, and greater protection for individuals’ from criminal, in appropriate and unjustified media behaviour. A statutory route will undermine the free press that Leveson — and Clegg and Miliband — claim they want to keep.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. She tweets at @Kirsty_Index

Background

Press Release: Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

 

The post Index: Leveson goes too far 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.

The joint statement was delivered yesterday to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and marks the second International Day to End Impunity on November 23. The issue will be discussed at the 2nd UN Inter Agency meeting on Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, to take place 22-23 November in Vienna.

THE LONDON STATEMENT by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012

We, members of the global media community meeting in London on 18 October 2012:

Condemn all cases of killings and other physical attacks, intimidation, harassment, abduction and wrongful imprisonment as well as other forms of oppression of journalists and other media workers;

Express our dismay at the failure of many governments to end impunity for the killers of journalists;

Register our disappointment and concern at the lack of effectiveness of previous United Nations interventions including UNSC Resolution 1738 on the safety of journalists in conflict and an end to impunity;

Affirm that the right of journalists and media workers to work free from harm, harassment and abuse is fundamental to freedom of expression and therefore a matter of urgent and legitimate concern for governments and societies around the world as well as the news media themselves;

Welcome the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity and declare that this historic commitment should fulfil the high expectations to which it gives rise;

Express our strong concern that in carrying forward the Plan of Action, the UN system, as well as other relevant national and international bodies, should operate effectively and in accountable ways to persuade Member States to create safe environments for working journalists;

Encourage all news media to monitor regularly the actions of their governments, judicial authorities and other institutions in implementing the Plan and ending impunity;

Propose that the acute concerns of the news media for meaningful and practical actions are fully and seriously taken into account at the UN Inter-Agency Meeting being held in Vienna in November and thereafter in the effective implementation of the UN Plan.

Annex

The following were also proposed from the floor and supported by a number of participants at the Symposium on “Media Responses to Matters of Life and Death” hosted in London by the Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield, and BBC College of Journalism:-

1  The killing of a journalist in the course of their duty should be regarded as a crime against humanity (Bob Tyrer, The Sunday Times)
2   UNESCO should require Member States to provide yearly reports on the progress of investigations into journalist killings (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan)
3   Media houses are encouraged to provide proper safety training and insurance to all staff, stringers and associated personnel (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspapers, Pakistan)

Signatories of the London Statement by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012:-

African Editors Forum
Al Jazeera
Article 19
Association of Commercial Television in Europe
BBC Global News
Blue Dot Safety Training
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI)
Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield
City University, London
CNN
Colombo Telegraph, Sri Lanka
Commonwealth Journalists Association
Commonwealth Media Group
Commonwealth Press Union Trust
Daily Telegraph, UK
Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan
European Broadcasting Union
Federation of African Journalists
Frontline Club, London
Global Rolling News Live
Globo, Brazil
The Guardian, UK
Hurriyet Newspaper, Turkey
Index on Censorship
International News Safety Institute
International Press Institute
L Siglo de Torreon, Mexico
La Stampa Newspaper, Italy
Media Legal Defence Initiative
Philippines National Union of Journalists
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Rory Peck Trust
Sky News
Society of Editors, UK
Somali National Union of Journalists
Thomson Reuters
UNESCO IPDC Council – UK Representative Ivor Gaber
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Editors Forum

Signed in a personal capacity:

Dawood Azami, journalist and University of Westminster
Anabel Hernandez, Mexican journalist
Emin Milli, Azerbaijan writer
Hamid Mir, Geo TV presenter, Pakistan
Lorna Woods, Centre for Law Justice and Journalism, City University

The post Global media community condemns response to killing of journalists appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Chinese television stations to limit English usage appeared first on Index on Censorship.