The inquiry into UK press standards does not seem to understand how to deal with the web, says
Marta Cooper
Twenty-first century politicians have been “obsessed” with newspapers, the Leveson Inquiry heard this afternoon.
“Politics is now a mass media-dominated activity”, justice secretary Ken Clarke said, arguing that the press was now far more powerful than parliament and that many were put off by politics due to the level of exposure.
Clarke singled out former prime minister Gordon Brown as having been “utterly obsessed” by his relations with the media, adding that it “didn’t do him any good at all”. He said Margaret Thatcher “never read a newspaper from one week to the next” and implored his colleagues to pay no attention to the papers if they were upset by their content.
During his calm and measured session at the Inquiry, Clarke said newspaper editors and proprietors “can drive a weak government like a flock of sheep before them” when lobbying on certain topics, and he slammed the idea of currying favour with the press as a “waste of time”.
The politics of the last 15 years had been “dominated” by competition for support from the Sun newspaper, he added. “I don’t think the Sun ever had a significant effect on any election in my lifetime, though it was obviously thought by some to be important.”
He said he held the “more jaundiced view” that the paper and its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, were “good at changing sides when it’s obvious the horse they’re riding is about to collapse”.
He described New Labour as having introduced a level of “control-freakery”, adding that he knew of one journalist who was barred from the Treasury and told she would not be let in again because of stories she had written.
On the topic of criminal justice legislation, Clarke pointed the finger at the popular press, emphasising that newspaper campaigns were often based on partial accounts of high-profile cases. “If the tone of newspapers had been different in the last 20 years, we’d have 30,000 fewer prisoners,” he said, though he stressed this was not a “scientific” estimation.
He and Lord Justice Leveson discussed at length the future of press regulation, with Clarke admitting he was “deeply suspicious” of government control in a new system. Yet he added he did not have confidence in letting the press regulate itself, stressing that a regulator should be independent of both the industry and the government.
“I always thought PCC was a joke,” Clarke quipped. “I had some friends on it who tried to convince me otherwise. Completely useless.”
“I do think 99 per cent of people in this country genuinely believe in a free press,” he added, suggesting journalists were becoming “almost as sensitive as politicians” who thought no-one loved them anymore.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Education secretary Michael Gove gave a staunch defence of press freedom at the Leveson Inquiry today.
“By definition, free speech doesn’t mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time,” Gove said, saying he was “unashamedly” allied with “those who say we should think very carefully about regulation.”
“The case for regulation needs to be made strongly before we curtail liberty,” Gove said, adding that he felt the existing laws of the land were sufficient to deal with miscreant reporters.
“The experience we have of regulation is that sometimes good intentions result in the curtailment of individual freedom and an unrealistic expectation of how individuals behave,” he said, noting that on occasion regulation had been sought to “deal with failures of character or morality”.
In a tense exchange with Lord Justice Leveson, Gove attacked what he saw as a “tendency to meet a particular crisis, scandal or horror with an inquiry”, and expressed his “fear for liberty” if principles of free speech were to be eroded with tougher regulation.
Leveson went head-to-head with Gove, a former Times leader writer, responding: “Mr Gove, I don’t need to be told about the importance of free speech. I really don’t.”
Gove has previously spoken of his fear that the Inquiry, launched last summer to examine press standards in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, had created a “chilling atmosphere towards freedom of expression”.
However he did not deny the judge’s suggestion of substantial public concern over questionable press behaviour, arguing that it had “pre-dated the last 50 years”.
Elsewhere in his evidence, which he peppered with references to the Roman republic and quotations in Latin, Gove was unapologetic about his contacts with other media figures, stressing he tried to exercise “appropriate judgment on all occasions”. He referred to Rupert Murdoch as “one of the most impressive and significant figures” of the last half-century, and said it was “fascinating” to meet media proprietors Viscount Rothermere and Richard Desmond.
Discussing a 19 May 2010 dinner with Murdoch, ex-News International CEO Rebekah Brooks and others at Murdoch’s flat shortly after the formation of the coalition government, Gove said the group discussed education. He added that he had no recollection of discussing Murdoch-owned News Corp’s bid for full control of satellite broadcaster BSkyB at a June 2010 lunch with NI executives, adding that no-one had told him of the bid before its launch later that month.
Asked by counsel Robert Jay QC why the public held politicians and journalists in low esteem, Gove chirped: “‘Twas ever thus.”
Also speaking today was home secretary Theresa May MP, who discussed interim guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on media-police relations, which were based on “a shift to a blanket non-acceptability” of anything other than “light refreshments and trivial and inexpensive gifts”.
May said the guidance, which ACPO says aim to provide “common sense” principles for officers to follow, would provide greater clarity and consistency about press-police relations, rather than having a “chilling effect”.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from justice secretary Ken Clarke and business secretary Vince Cable.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Broadcaster Andrew Marr today told the Leveson Inquiry it needs to address the “gap” between “state control of press on the one hand and a free-for-all on the other”.
“It’s a difficult gap,” Marr said, adding it was a “new place to build something.”
Marr, who for years maintained a superinjunction barring the press from reporting allegations he had fathered a child during an extra-marital affair also brought the judge back to the unclear terrain of regulating the online world, noting that many of the most influential political commentators today were bloggers.
“The old distinction between a political player and a would-be professional journalist is breaking down,” Marr said.
“At one point does andrewmarr.com become big enough to become part of a regulatory system?” he asked.
Marr also cautioned against recording all contact between members of the press and politicians, noting there was an “absolute distinction” between proprietors and editors meeting politicians and the “day-to-day job of story-getting political journalists” having contact with them.
Earlier in the day, a former secretary for national heritage has challenged Lord Justice Leveson’s suggestion of press regulation with a statutory backstop this morning, arguing that existing legislation needed to be better enforced.
“If we already have a set of legal standards that aren’t being met, we should ask ourselves why that is,” Conservative MP Stephen Dorrell, who oversaw the Major government’s response to the second Calcutt report in 1993, told the Inquiry this morning.
“The reason we’re sat here is that the existing laws that nobody disputes haven’t been observed and enforced,” Dorrell said.
Dorrell, who was secretary of state for national heritage during the Major government from 1994-5 — a position that subsequently became the culture secretary post — also stressed there was an issue of management culture that had largely been lost in the ongoing debate into press standards.
“The breaking of the law is the symptom of what’s wrong in the culture of an organisation that tolerates criminality,” he added. “No regulation will deliver an outcome if the core problem remains [of tolerating criminality].”
He stressed a need to “address the cause of the problem rather than the symptoms”.
Dorrell also emphasised his view that the responsibilities of a reformed Press Complaints Commission should not be decided by an external force. “The PCC is an organisation with the responsibility to promote and define standards within the press,” he said, adding later: “The issues around standards need to be internalised within the press, not taken away from them.”
Yet he said he was not appearing at the Inquiry to “defend the record” of the PCC, stressing the need for the press to hold itself to account. “The PCC cannot be a champion of every individual organ of the press,” he said. “It can be a champion of press freedom but it has to be willing to be critical of its own when the standards it espouses aren’t met.”
He added later: “The question is what happens in circumstances like [Chris] Jefferies where a judgment is made and a major injustice is done. In those circumstances, you either give people a right to remedy or recovery in civil law or you throw it back to the editor and proprietor and require them to think about what the consequences are that should flow in those circumstances.”
“It’s a completely fair question to put to the press industry: What should have happened?”
Leveson took the opportunity to flirt further with his notion of press regulation with statutory backing of some kind. “There is something systemic here. I struggle to see how it could be done by getting editors and proprietors together,” he said.
“The trick is to get a mechanism that works for everyone, that represents a free press and free expression but does cope not merely with the very rich who can indulge in proceedings but everyone.”
“I struggle to see how that’s possible on a model that doesn’t have something, somewhere.”
He was quick to add, however, that he was “simply talking about structures”.
“I am not suggesting the state should have any view at all about content,” Leveson said.
The Inquiry continues this afternoon.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson