10 Jul 12 | Leveson Inquiry, Media Freedom, United Kingdom
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.
25 Jun 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has stressed there is no “hidden agenda” to his Inquiry into press standards.
In opening remarks to this morning’s session — which were posted on the Inquiry website — Leveson said he understood “only too well” journalists’ anxieties over the “dangers of a knee-jerk response” to the phone-hacking scandal that erupted last summer, but added that “no recommendations have been formulated or written; no conclusions have yet been reached.”
Leveson was making his first public response to a Mail on Sunday story on 17 June that alleged the judge had threatened to quit over comments education secretary Michael Gove had made to Parliament in February, in which he suggested a “chilling effect” was emanating from the Inquiry.
Leveson said he did contact cabinet secretary Jeremy Heywood following Gove’s comments to clarify whether the government still supported the Inquiry.
“I wanted to find out whether Mr Gove was speaking for the government, whether it was thought that the very existence of the Inquiry was having a chilling effect on healthy, vibrant journalism and whether the government had effectively reached a settled view on any potential recommendations,” Leveson said. “Put shortly, I was concerned about the perception that the Inquiry was being undermined while it was taking place.”
The judge said it was “absolutely correct” for the press to hold the Inquiry and himself to account, but added it was “at least arguable that what has happened is an example of an approach which seeks to convert any attempt to question the conduct of the press as an attack on free speech.”
Simon Walters, the article’s co-author, appeared at the Inquiry this afternoon. He was not quizzed over the story, having been called to give evidence before it was printed.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
13 Jun 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has called for statutory backing of a reformed press regulator, while making the case for protecting press freedom.
Clegg told the Leveson Inquiry this morning that public confidence needed to be restored in the British press following the phone hacking scandal, but said a solution could “work in parallel”, noting that reforms to press regulation should be “balanced against those enshrining the freedom of the press and the ability of journalists to go after the truth without fear or impediment.”
“A little tweak here and there of a fundamentally flawed model is not going to solve this,” Clegg said, adding later that the recommendations Lord Justice Leveson is due to make in the autumn must lead to change that would celebrate and protect press freedom rather than denigrate it.
The Lib Dem leader said a statutory role should be in the “background” of any regulatory reforms, suggesting statute could play a part in incentivising or cajoling media groups to join into a reformed regulator.
Clegg said he had not yet seen a “convincing case for independent, voluntary regulation of the press” be made, referring to the Irish model as a “fascinating” example.
He made a strong case for supplementing regulatory reform with a stronger definition of the public interest to help guide and protect reporters. “If the press has confidence in a public interest that protects them,” Clegg said, it would “allow them to be a bit more comfortable with the unavoidable reforms of being held to account that they are anxious about.”
While he admitted that a “chilling effect” on press freedom would mean the country would be “losing something very precious”, he branded the claim — as alluded to by education secretary Michael Gove — that the Inquiry is chilling journalists as “preposterous”.
Despite asking his party to abstain on a vote in the Commons today over the future of Jeremy Hunt, Clegg defended the culture secretary’s handling of the £8bn BSkyB bid, arguing that Hunt had given the Inquiry a “full, good and convincing” account of how he handled the bid for the takeover of the satellite broadcaster.
Yet, reminiscent of business secretary Vince Cable’s claim that “veiled threats” had been made to the Lib Dems in connection with News Corp’s takeover bid, Clegg told the Inquiry that his colleague Norman Lamb had told him he had been warned that the party could expect “unfavourable treatment” from the Murdoch papers if they were not open to the bid.
“Norman was quite agitated about that”, Clegg said.
The Inquiry continues this afternoon with evidence from Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
12 Jun 12 | Uncategorized
Sir John Major has said Rupert Murdoch threatened him that he would no longer support him unless the former prime minister changed his European policy.
During a firm and composed morning of evidence at the Leveson Inquiry in which he criticised the media baron, Major recalled the February 1997 meeting with Murdoch as “not something I would easily forget”.
“He made it clear that he disliked my European policies which he wished me to change,” Major said. “If not, his papers could not and would not support the Conservative government.”
“There was no question of changing policies,” Major added.
Murdoch told the Inquiry in April he had “never asked for anything directly from a politician”.
“Certainly he never asked for anything directly from me but he was not averse to pressing for policy changes,” Major said of the proprietor.
“I haven’t talked about this conversation at any stage over the past 15 years but now I am under oath,” he added.
Major also denied Kelvin MacKenzie’s anecdote that the former Sun editor had threatened to pour a “large bucket of shit” over Major during a phone call in 1992 about how the paper would cover the Black Wednesday crisis. Major said the story had acquired a “mythical” status.
“I dare say it wasn’t an especially productive call,” he added.
Major said it came as “no surprise” to him when the Murdoch-owned Sun switched its allegiance to support the Labour party ahead of the 1997 general election. Given its criticism of his government from 1992 to 1997, it would have been “difficult”, Major said, for the paper to support the Conservative party.
The former Tory prime minister made a veiled warning against currying favour with Murdoch. While he said he recognised the media baron’s “enormous skill as businessman” in building up broadcaster Sky and boosting newspapers such as the Times and Sunday Times, he said the “sheer scale” of his supposed influence was a “an unattractive facet in British national life.”
He added that he believed parts of Murdoch’s media empire had “lowered the general quality” of the British media. “I think that is a loss,” Major said.
Major stressed more than once the need to raise the standards of the worst excesses of the British press to the standards operated by the good. “The bad is just a cancer in the journalistic body, not the journalistic body as a whole,” he said, attacking culprits of dealing in caricatures and taking “a particular point and stretch[ing] it beyond what is reasonable”.
He added that editors and proprietors should bear the responsibility for wrongdoing, arguing that the Inquiry was taking place because “those who could have ensured proper behaviour have not done so.” He said reporters operated “within a culture” and found it “difficult to believe” that editors and proprietors do not know how stories are obtained.
Major conceded he was at times “much too sensitive” about what was written about him in the press, but said he was not appearing at the Inquiry to complain. “I’ve long since moved on from that,” he said.
He added that he did not inherit the “natural affinity with the press” that his predecessor Baroness Thatcher had earned, noting that her right-wing views appealed to national newspaper editors and proprietors, and that she admired “buccaneering businessmen” who were prepared to take risks.
The Inquiry continues this afternoon with evidence from Labour leader Ed Miliband and deputy leader Harriet Harman.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
