{"id":93605,"date":"2012-05-22T15:25:03","date_gmt":"2012-05-22T15:25:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=8599"},"modified":"2019-09-16T13:27:12","modified_gmt":"2019-09-16T12:27:12","slug":"leveson-inquiry-lord-smith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=93605","title":{"rendered":"Inquiry should not be a &quot;footnote in history&quot; says Leveson"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lord Justice Leveson has repeated his wish for his Inquiry into press ethics not to be a &#8220;footnote in history&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I can live with something short of perfect,&#8221; Leveson said while discussing press regulation with former culture secretary Lord Smith this afternoon. &#8220;But I would find it difficult to live with improving things for two years,&#8221; he added, noting that public money and effort would have been put into &#8220;not very much&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Two years for me would represent a real failure,&#8221; he said.<\/p>\n<p>Smith and Leveson spent most of the afternoon debating how to improve press standards. Smith, who was culture secretary from 1997-2001, described the Advertising Standards Authority&#8217;s regulatory system, but stressed it would be difficult to translate it to the press.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The most obvious one [sanction] would be a requirement for equal prominence,&#8221; Smith said. &#8220;A system of fines of some kind has been mooted many times,&#8221; he added, noting it would be &#8220;hard to put in place but should be considered as a way of toughening the ability&#8221; of the Press Complaints Commission&#8217;s successor to make a newspaper recognise any mistakes it had made.<\/p>\n<p>He added that there had been &#8220;palpable&#8221; improvements in press standards &#8212; notably in techniques used by paparazzi &#8212; following the death of Princess Diana in 1997. Smith said he received 1,200 letters of complaint deploring press intrusion.<\/p>\n<p>However, Leveson suggested the changes were not enduring, referring to the &#8220;calamity of press behaviour&#8221; in the princess&#8217;s death followed by the use of private investigators revealed by Operation Motorman and the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed News International.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;How many more times can we do this?&#8221; he asked.<\/p>\n<p>The judge\u00a0said he did not accept that &#8220;there would\u00a0be any curtailment on freedom of press to hold all those in office to account (&#8230;) or to indulge in investigative journalism is imperiled by a system that prevents type of behaviour I&#8217;ve heard so much about in last few months.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Smith, meanwhile, warned strongly against state involvement in regulating the British press. &#8220;Decisions about applying public interest, plurality tests shouldn&#8217;t rest with a secretary of state,&#8221; he said.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;These decisions shouldn&#8217;t rest with a political figure, however honourable they may be.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Smith said he recognised the scope for a &#8220;statutory backstop&#8221; to assist with enforcing decisions, but emphasised that the decisions themselves\u00a0made by a body that is voluntarily put together by the press, rather than imposed upon them.<\/p>\n<p>The Inquiry continues tomorrow.<\/p>\n<p><em>Follow Index on Censorship\u2019s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter \u2013\u00a0<a title=\"Twitter - IndexLeveson\" href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/IndexLeveson\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">@IndexLeveson<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Marta Cooper<\/strong>: Inquiry should not be a &#8220;footnote in history&#8221; says Leveson<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[3815],"tags":[14594,7427,14595,7358,1759,14596,2469],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93605"}],"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=93605"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93605\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109189,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93605\/revisions\/109189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=93605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=93605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=93605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}