{"id":33002,"date":"2012-02-15T15:28:39","date_gmt":"2012-02-15T15:28:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=33002"},"modified":"2017-01-09T16:12:22","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T16:12:22","slug":"leveson-inquiry-module-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=33002","title":{"rendered":"Leveson Inquiry: The story so far"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Marta Cooper looks at what we’ve learned from the UK’s investigation into the press<\/strong>
\n
\nIt took 40 days, heard 184 witnesses, cost the cost the taxpayer \u00a3855,300<\/a> and, according to a survey published today<\/a>, has been tweeted about by UK journalists in the final quarter of 2011 more than the Eurozone crisis. It is, of course, the first module of Lord Justice Leveson\u2019s inquiry <\/a>into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the early 1990s. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger praised <\/a>the Inquiry for triggering a more nuanced look at regulation and statute. Others were less keen: Northern and Shell boss Richard Desmond called<\/a> it \u201cprobably the worst thing that\u2019s ever happened to newspapers in my lifetime\u201d.<\/p>\n

Leveson has learned a lot in the past few months. For one, the Inquiry has hammered the last nail into the Press Complaints Commission\u2019s coffin. Harry Potter author JK Rowling called <\/a>it a \u201cwrist-slapping exercise at best\u201d. In the same week, the \u00a0father of missing toddler Madeleine McCann suggested <\/a>\u201crepeat offenders\u201d of incorrect coverage should lose their privilege of practising journalism. The editor of the Daily Express, Hugh Whittow, went so far as to suggest<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Criticism<\/a>\u00a0also 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 \u201ctest the boundaries of its powers\u201d by choosing not to\u00a0question 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> that the body did not have investigatory powers to summon editors to give evidence under oath. She noted that broadcast regulator Ofcom cannot \u201cdeal with crime, nor should it\u201d, and that the rest of the world \u201cwould kill\u201d for the British press\u2019s system of self-regulation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is as if you say to the police \u2018you are useless because you can\u2019t stop crime\u2019,\u201d her predecessor, Sir Christopher Meyer said<\/a>. \u201cThese are ridiculous arguments.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fear of statutory regulation is also alive and well. Times editor James Harding expressed concerns<\/a> that a \u201cLeveson act\u201d would have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d on press freedom and make reporters submit to political influence. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop perhaps put it best when he said<\/a>, \u201cif the state regulates the press then the press no longer regulates the state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, current PCC chair Lord Hunt warned that \u201cthe road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions\u201d, adding that there were\u201cvery strong views\u201d 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”.<\/p>\n

It was left to Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, never one for timidity, to throw the debate wide open with his suggestion<\/a> of a press card system. He suggested transforming the country\u2019s \u201chaphazard\u201d system into an \u201cessential kitemark for ethical, proper journalism\u201d, with cards denoting “responsible” journalists. How this would translate in the online world of citizen media, however, was a question left unanswered.<\/p>\n

Though not directly in Leveson\u2019s 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<\/a> for the Libel Reform Campaign, arguing that it would be a \u201ctragedy\u201d if the Inquiry\u2019s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of\u00a0libel<\/a>\u00a0into the Queen\u2019s speech in May.\u00a0FT editor Lionel Barber also alluded<\/a> to the \u201cchilling effect\u201d mammoth libel costs have on pursuing a story, while alternative, cheaper means of resolution were proposed by several witnesses.<\/p>\n

The Inquiry has also unearthed some misdemeanours. James Harding was recalled <\/a>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. \u00a0The controversial printing of Kate McCann\u2019s diary without her permission was also referred to more than once. Former News of the World news editor Ian Edmonson was quizzed<\/a>\u00a0about 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\u2019 spokesman, Clarence Mitchell. Asked if he had led editor\u00a0Myler to believe he had \u201cmade it clear\u201d to Mitchell that the paper had the whole diary and planned to publish parts, Edmondson replied: \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n

Page 3, a mainstay at the Sun since the 1970s, has also proved contentious. Women’s groups said<\/a>\u00a0the feature existed \u201cfor the sole purpose\u201d of women being sex objects, while Sun editor Dominic Mohan claimed<\/a>\u00a0it was an\u00a0\u201cinnocuous British institution\u201d that celebrated natural beauty and represents youth and freshness.\u00a0He 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.<\/p>\n

The battleground of balancing privacy — \u201cfor paedos\u201d, according to<\/a> 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\u00a0there may be a public interest in exposing hypocritical behaviour of celebrities who are \u201crole models\u201d. \u00a0Former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck defended his splash on\u00a0David Beckham\u2019s affair with Rebecca Loos, noting that the footballer had cultivated and marketed an image of having a fairytale marriage.\u00a0Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and \u201creal intrusion”, citing JK Rowling\u2019s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter\u2019s schoolbag as \u201ctresspass\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Internet is also an issue keeping Leveson — and newspaper editors — up at night. Mohan called for<\/a> a level-playing field between print and online, claiming that the combination of an over-regulated press with an unregulated internet was a \u201cvery, very worrying thought\u201d. Mirror editor Richard Wallace suggested <\/a>\u00a0“legitimate\u201d online news providers — whoever these may be — would want to join a new regulatory body because \u201cit gives them a lot of cachet\u201d. Meanwhile, media lawyer and commentator David Allen Green urged<\/a> the Inquiry not to view bloggers and Twitter users as \u201crogues\u201d, adding that social media users often act responsibly and regulate themselves by being transparent.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0Leveson 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.<\/p>\n

Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index on Censorship and leads coverage of the Leveson Inquiry. She tweets at @martaruco<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Follow Index on Censorship\u2019s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter \u2013\u00a0@IndexLeveson<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Marta Cooper<\/strong> looks at what we’ve learned from the UK’s investigation into the press<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[3815,8996,581,21],"tags":[7427,165,4317,7358,1759,3895,2469],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33002"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/57"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=33002"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33002\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79134,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33002\/revisions\/79134"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=33002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=33002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=33002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}