Leveson Inquiry throws media's future in the air – but where will it land?

3 Oct 2011 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized

This post was originally published in the MediaGuardian section of The Guardian on Monday 3 October.

The putdown was exquisite and, one assumes, designed to make a point. When the Metropolitan police’s barrister told Lord Justice Leveson he was representing acting commissioner “Mr Tim Goodwin”, the judge looked up and said, after a studied pause, “I think you’ll find the name of your client is Godwin.” The laconic wit contained a message: you might not be on top of your brief, but I am.

The early signs from the Leveson Inquiry are good. The first year of his deliberations will stretch far and wide, covering everything from the ethics to the economics of the media. Each hearing will be conducted in the open. Whatever his eventual judgments, he wants even his potential detractors to acknowledge that this was a job thoroughly done.

A number of the key issues are clear. These include: how can you separate “proper” investigative journalism from “prurience”? When are underhand methods – secret filming, recording, impersonation, and, yes, phone hacking – justified? What are the lines of accountability when such operations are carried out?

Much of the argument will involve the twin unresolved questions of privacy and public interest. In spite of the best efforts of judges to interpret article 8 of the Human Rights Act, defining the public interest defence in these cases remains problematic. Time needs to be spent on this. The issues are often, wrongly, reduced to the rights of celebrities.

Celebrity influence

At the Liberal Democrats’ conference, Hugh Grant argued that the famous had every right to determine when and how their private lives should remain private. In other words, it is private unless or until they sell their wedding photographs to Hello! magazine. To adapt that old adage: what is the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance? Having a good accountant. What is the difference between profiting from your private life and complaining about intrusion? Having a good agent.

Politicians who have dined with Grant, beguiled by his charm, accept his utterances about journalism unquestioningly. Many — including some who have argued for libel reform — appear now to accept a “control” agenda. This starts from some powerful assumptions: that Tony Blair’s description of the press as feral beasts is broadly correct; only statutory regulation, including fines and licensing, can tame these animals; and it is easy to differentiate between good journalism (broadsheet, usually liberal) and bad journalism (tabloid and mid-market, usually rabidly rightwing).

At the party conferences, delegates have queued up to denounce the media. The convoluted motion passed by the Liberal Democrats was regarded by Nick Clegg’s office as excessive, and that was after they had managed to tone it down. At Labour’s conference, Ed Miliband distanced himself from Ivan Lewis’s suggestion of a mechanism for “striking off” journalists. At the top of the parties there appears to be a greater understanding of the need for a proportionate response.

The motives among MPs appear mixed. For some, it is revenge for the expenses scandal. For those whose phones were hacked it is understandable fury. For others, notably on the left, it is pay-back time after years of Blair/Brown fawning at the feet of the Murdoch empire. For many it is none of the above, more of an inchoate sense that something must be done.

In broad terms there is, even at this early stage, consensus on the following: those involved in the industrial-scale hacking of not just celebrities but victims of crime should be prosecuted and feel the full weight of the law. Cross-media ownership laws should be tightened considerably to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of certain moguls. The Press Complaints Commission, which failed not just on phone hacking but on the media’s conduct towards the McCanns and other high-profile cases, needs radical reform.

Much of the work is likely to be focused on this area. The terms self-regulation, independent regulation and statutory have become highly charged. How, for example, do you license newspapers and not bloggers? Who is forced to abide by which rules? And how can the rules prevent governments from punishing coverage they dislike? This is much easier said than done. Remember Kate Adie’s reports on the US bombing of Libya in 1986 and Norman Tebbit’s response? Within a few months the BBC director general was gone. Remember Alastair’s Campbell’s assault on the BBC and the Hutton report? Within a few days of its publication, the director general was gone, the organisation became more pliant and relations “improved”. With the right levers in place, governments can effortlessly cow journalists and their managers.

As ever in British public life, international perspectives are rare. A few close to home might be helpful. France’s strict privacy laws not only protect the rich and famous from unfair intrusion; they have successfully been used on many occasions to prevent investigation into the public activities of politicians. Currently a French judge stands accused of hacking into the phones of reporters at Le Monde who were digging for information about the finances of a Nicolas Sarkozy ally. Do we want to emulate this?

Take Hungary, another EU member. Its new media law, passed in 2010, attacks a free press by imposing state control over public service broadcasters and the right to levy fines on publishers. Hungary is perhaps the most dangerous example, but there are others too. In Italy, editors are regularly dismissed for getting on the wrong side of Silvio Berlusconi.

The challenge for Leveson is to tighten procedures that help prevent wrongdoing without killing an already sickly patient. To say so is not to defend an industry or a vested interest, but to protect one of the few checks and balances against untrammelled authority.

Investigative decline

Look back over the past decade — to the road to war in Iraq, to the behaviour of bankers and more — and ask yourself, have journalists found out too much about the activities of those with power or too little? Open any newspaper and search hard for unvarnished and unspun insights. During a decade in the Westminster lobby I saw more stenography than journalism.

Hacks do the bidding of politicians, business leaders and football managers in order to preserve good access. Next time you see the word “scoop”, perhaps it might be better to substitute the word “plant”.

Leveson has made clear that among the many subjects he wants to look into is the economics of journalism. It is important he does. Investigative teams are expensive and in decline. Reporters rewrite press releases partly out of laziness, mainly because they have to fill papers. In short, journalism – for all the outrageous behaviour unearthed in Hackgate and other scandals – is too weak, not too strong.

The English libel laws, which Index on Censorship has been at the heart of reforming, have stopped many important investigations over the years. They are so draconian that the US Congress passed legislation protecting its citizens from our courts. It is important the UK government does not dilute its commitment to introduce the full defamation bill in 2012.

The Leveson Inquiry is timely. British journalism must improve. But it is important to remember that a perfect press does not exist anywhere. One that is raucous and troublesome is better than the malleable alternative. Be careful what you wish for.

Blogger passes 40th day of hunger strike

3 Oct 2011 | Egypt, Middle East and North Africa

It’s Maikel Nabil Sanad’s 26th birthday but he is in no celebratory mood. When I arrive at El Marg prison north of Cairo during visiting hours on Saturday 1 October, I can barely hide my shock at seeing his bony physique. Maikel is wearing a wrinkled blue track suit and on his head is a baseball cap worn backwards in a sign of rebellion. It is clear that Maikel is in extremely frail health. He attempts to stand up to greet me but almost immediately falls back into his chair in sheer exhaustion. That’s because today, Maikel tells me, is also the 40 day of his hunger strike — one that he had hoped would draw public attention to his plight and force the ruling military council to reconsider what he describes as the military’s “discriminatory “policies.

“I have been tried in a military court and sentenced to three years in prison on charges of spreading rumours about the armed forces and criticising the ruling military council, SCAF in my blogpost. Other high profile figures have simply been summoned by the military prosecutor for questioning for similar charges. They have had their sentences revoked,” he explains. His voice is weak and I have to lean over to hear him clearly.

Maikel, who now weighs 48kgs after shedding 12kgs  as a result of his food abstinence — has languished behind bars since the 28 March 2011 when he was detained for accusing the military of having conducted virginity tests on female protesters earlier that month — a charge that a senior military general later admitted was true. He had also written on his blog that “The army and the people are not one” — a view that ran counter to the one expressed by tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists in Tahrir Square during the mass uprisings earlier this year. Chants of “The army and people are one” had echoed through Tahrir Square after it became clear that the military had chosen to side with the opposition activists –possibly even defying orders to shoot them.

Maikel is post-revolutionary Egypt’s first prisoner of conscience. He was handed the harsh jail sentence after being tried in a martial court where, according to his younger brother Mark, “eyewitnesses were barred from testifying in the case.”

After spending a fortnight in the notorious state security prison at the Hikestep, Maikel was moved to the civilian prison at el Marg where he has since languished in near solitary confinement.

“Other prisoners have been warned against talking to me. The prison guards have also been spreading rumours to turn fellow prisoners against me. They tell them I have called on Israel to prolong its occupation of Palestinian land or that I support gay rights,” he says, his voice now a soft whisper.

In a conservative predominantly Muslim society, Maikel’s unconventional religious and political views have at best, raised eyebrows or been dismissed as the hallucinations of a madman. At worst, they have earned him the ire — even hatred — of some of his fellow countrymen and provoked the wrath of the ruling military council, for Maikel is a self proclaimed atheist and liberal who supports normalisation of relations with Israel and who has called for military service to be non-compulsory.

“Many intellectuals whom I have associated with share my views but do not dare voice them publicly,” he says, shaking his head.” I do not like hypocrisy so I have openly shared my views knowing they may ruffle some feathers.”

But that is an understatement. Maikel’s refusal to go along with the flow has come at a terribly high price: not only is he serving prison time and losing his health and vitality, but he also risks death, according to a warning from doctors who believe few can survive more than forty days without food. “I’d rather die than live as a slave without dignity under an oppressive regime,” is Maikel’s explanation for refusing to end his hunger strike. He has survived on nothing more than water and a few sips of fruit juice since starting his food abstinence.

I offer Maikel a can of orange juice and urge him to take a sip. He reluctantly accepts it and I notice that his hands are as cold as ice as his fingers accidentally brush my hand. Four of his friends have joined me on the visit to lend their support and try and coax Maikell into ending his hunger strike. Like him, they are all ardent activists and revolutionaries.

” You have already made a statement. Enough Maikel. We need people like you to continue to push for change,” argues Sahar Maher, a mass communication student.

“If I die, scores of Maikels will emerge after me,” is Maikel’s stubborn response.” I have already succeeded in winning many converts. Many of my friends, my brother and my father have all become politicised.”

But his father is quick to point out that while he shares many of Maikel’s political stances, he vehemently rejects Maikel’s religious views. “We are a pious Coptic family. Maikel became an atheist when he started associating with the wrong crowd at university and this is where it has led him.”

While his religious views are not the cause of his imprisonment, they are partly responsible for the little sympathy afforded Maikel by fellow Egyptians — which is not surprising in a society where religion plays a significant role in shaping people’s lives. Maikel is disappointed by the almost complete lack of local media support which he also blames on what many in Egypt perceive as his pro-Israeli stances. He has expressed his admiration for “Israel’s democratic values and freedom of expression” — an opinion that has shocked the Egyptian public angered by Israel’s aggressive policies towards the Palestinians and the recent killing of a number of Egyptian security guards by Israeli forces near the border with Israel. In recent weeks, anti Israeli protesters have called for the dismissal of the Israeli ambassador from Egypt and an annulment of the Camp David peace accords with Israel.

Lack of local support for Maikel in his native Egypt is however compensated for by the strong show of solidarity for him by the international community. A “free Maikel Nabil page” on FaceBook currently has more than 61,400 fans from around the world and the number is steadily on the increase.

As his friends sing Happy birthday and Maikel blows out the candle on the small cake they’ve brought with them, he says that his birthday wish is for more Egyptians to read his blogs. He also yearns for his freedom “so that I can receive medical care in a proper hospital,” he says.

Maikel cites a long list of ailments including a tooth infection, scabies , low blood pressure and low sugar level. He says he is being denied the blood tests and treatment he badly needs to recover. The on-duty prison inspector Sameh Labib denies this. He insists that Maikel, like all other prisoners is getting the attention he requires at the prison hospital.

But whether or not Maikel will be released soon will be decided on the 4th of October when his appeal is scheduled. That day will also mark Maikel’s 43rd day of hunger strike. As we head out of the prison compound, Mark says “We can only hope for the best. There cannot be another Khaled Saeed. Our revolution was sparked by Saeed’s brutal killing by police officers. There cannot be others losing their lives in similar fashion in post revolutionary Egypt.”

Maikel’s lawyer Negad el Borei says he does not have high expectations from the appeal. He adds that Maikell’s imprisonment is “another black spot for the image of the SCAF.” EL Borei also regrets the lack of media attention to Maikel’s case adding that this is because of new restrictions imposed on the media by the ruling military government which are greater today than those imposed by the former regime. “The media in post revolutionary Egypt has gone as far as condoning torture which never happened under Mubarak,” he laments.

Journalist and television anchor Shahira Amin resigned her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV on February. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK