How not to do press regulation

28 Sep 2011 | Uncategorized

​​​​Index on Censorship’s event with the Hacked Off campaign and English PEN at Labour party conference was a useful exercise in ruling out possibilities. The phone hacking scandal is just one in a series that has rocked Britons’ faith in their institutions: a theme picked up by Labour leader Ed Miliband in his speech yesterday. Yet some of the solutions proposed for rebuilding faith in the fourth estate would have a disproportionate effect on freedom of expression. That’s why these events across party conference season have proved useful. Whilst there is no clear consensus on what should be done, the debate is ruling out options that would clearly be unpalatable, and slowly a middle-ground is emerging.

At our events at both Labour and Liberal Democrat conference it was evident there is a strong anti-Murdoch feeling amongst delegates. But alongside this, the consensus is that a free press is essential in holding politicians to account.

As for ruling out the unpalatable, Ivan Lewis MP, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary in his keynote speech to the party’s conference argued:

 

We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.

 

The second idea provoked an immediate response. On this blog, Padraig Reidy described it as a “bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press. Roy Greenslade pointed out countries that licensed journalists included Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, King Khalifa’s Bahrain and President Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Labour MP Tom Harris also sounded caution tweeting: “If a journalist commits a serious misdemeanour, they can already be sacked.” Dan Hodges, an influential Labour activist went further: “On the day of the leader’s speech we announce the state banning of journalists. Labour is ceasing to exist as a serious political party.”

 

It is interesting that Lewis did not float this idea at our fringe event. Though Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust distanced his organisation from the idea, he did point out that professional registration bears a similarity to John Lloyd’s proposals for a “Journalism Society” outlined in the Financial Times in July.

However regulation moves forward, the PCC in its current form is no longer credible. One reccurring theme is that Northern & Shell (owner of the Daily Express amongst other titles) don’t even belong to this arbitrator.

At these events, English PEN and Index on Censorship have outlined how not to do press regulation. Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN, has warned against imposing regulations that could constrain investigative journalism, echoing John Kampfner’s warning that the real problem is that the press find out too little rather than too much.

Heawood told the Labour meeting:

 

“In my five-year-old son’s language, writers of conscience around the world are the “goodies” and the News of the World journalists hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemail are the “baddies”. The problem is: in the real world, a lot of great journalism happens in the grey area between good and bad. Anyone who thinks that we need tougher media laws in this country should realise how desperately constrained investigative journalists are already.”

Through the Libel Reform Campaign  alongside Sense About Science, we have campaigned effectively for a stronger public interest defence as the existing defence in libel has not been of practical use for authors, scientists, NGOs, and citizen journalists. It’s also been pointed out that internationally, states will be watching how Britain approaches press regulation. Any impediments to free expression imposed here will make it easier for despots abroad to justify their actions, as China did when David Cameron floated the idea of banning social media during disturbances.

Public confidence in the press has been shaken. It won’t be restored by ill-considered proposals from politicians. As the Leveson inquiry begins, the focus for reform must be clearer.

You can sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition here (http://libelreform.org/sign)

 

 

Ivan Lewis is wrong about journalism

27 Sep 2011 | Uncategorized

Shadow Culture Secratary Ivan Lewis MP has made waves with his suggestion that journalists guilty of “gross malpractice” should be “struck off” — a suggestion that has led to bafflement amongst journalists. Struck off from what, exactly? There is no register, no Law Society, no General Medical Council, no body of learned elders deciding who is and isn’t a reporter. Which is how it should be.

I’m all for journalistic standards. In fact, I’m all for journalism qualifications. I have an undergraduate degree in journalism, and I think it’s served me quite well. I will always fiercely defend the value of journalistic qualifications. (By the way, for an excellent summary of what a journalism qualification can and can’t do, read my City University journalism lecturer Paul Anderson’s thoughts on the Johann Hari scandal here)

But qualification and registration are very different things, and registration is what Lewis must be talking about (you have to be on a register before you can be struck off it).

A register would essentially involve licensing free expression — surely not something that a Labour party seeking to distance itself from the perceived authoritarianism of Gordon Brown and his big clunking fist. You are allowed to write — you are not.

That’s the moral dimension. On a practical level, what exactly does Lewis plan to do when reporters who have been struck off set up blogs and break stories, or amass thousands of followers on Twitter? Will he stop them? Will he have a Chinese-style 50 Cent party, paid to interlude on comment threads to remind readers that “THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE RELIABLE”?  Or will websites carry warnings that all content must be taken with pinch of salt?

And who decides what gross malpractice is? At a Reuters debate on the press post-Hackgate last week, the Guardian’s Nick Davies made the odd suggestion that some sort of council could decide what “public interest” is, on a story-by-story basis. Would this same council decide on “gross malpractice”? Who appoints them? What kind of bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press would that be?