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
03 Apr 12 | Uncategorized
News that the UK government is planning to grant the state new powers to monitor people’s communications has been met with a mixture of anger and confusion.
The story broke at the end of a bizarre few weeks for the ruling coalition, which managed to score a brace of spectacular own goals in reducing tax rates for the rich while increasing tax on hot food. Meanwhile, one government minister was actually encouraging people to panic buy petrol and store large quantities of it at home ahead of a potential, but by no means certain fuel lorry drivers strike.
The uncertainty over the new surveillance powers can, I think, be seen as part of this pattern. No one is quite sure why the government is doing this — or even what exactly it is they want to do. Roughly speaking, it seems to be about obliging companies to hold information on personal communications and allow government agents (from spies right down to local council workers) access at any time without a warrant.
You would think that such a controversial policy would emerge well thought out and with damned good reason. But Home Secretary Theresa May has absolutely failed to make the case, beyond muttering the usual nothing-to-fear-if-nothing-to-hide line (in itself an odd defence of increased official power from a government which has set out its stall as small-statist, even libertarian), and the utterly confusing position that previous crimes had been solved using these powers, (er, we thought they were new powers).
Writing in today’s Times, Heather Brooke points out the ease with which it is now possible to run a surveillance state through technology. Even if the UK government is sincere in its insistence that these powers will only be used to hunt criminals and terrorists, it severely undermines its power to criticise states that would use the same legislation to watch activists and dissidents. Have no doubt, this is a bad idea and Index will campaign against it should it go any further.
As so often happens with proposed web policy, there’s an element here of the technology leading the argument: it is possible to build surveillance back doors, ergo it is desirable to do so. This is not an attitude that should have any purchase with the supposed civil libertarians and conservatives that make up the government parties (indeed, the coalition agreement included a commitment to the “ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason”). But somehow here we are.
28 Sep 11 | 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)
16 Sep 11 | Events
The Hacked Off campaign, in association with the Liberal Democrats’ Social
Liberal Forum, and with the support of Index on Censorship and English PEN,
will be holding a fringe meeting with Hugh Grant at the Liberal Democrat
Conference 2011 in Birmingham.
“Phone Hacking, Privacy and Libel — The Future of the Press”,
will take place in the International Conference Centre (ICC) on Sunday
18 September at 1pm, in Hall 8b.
John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, will join actor Hugh Grant, Liberal Democrats media spokesman Don
Foster MP, lawyer Charlotte Harris, and the Guardian’s head of media and
technology Dan Sabbagh. The fringe meeting will be chaired by former Lib Dem MP and member of the
Hacked Off advisory committee Dr Evan Harris.
The panel will discuss topics such as the current status of the Leveson and select committee
inquiries into phone hacking; police
investigations, such as Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden; the libel bill and Communications Review bill.
Panellists will also talk about the future of press self-regulation; the need for privacy reform, and the potential impact of changes to the UK’s libel laws.
John Kampfner will discuss press freedom in the light of phone hacking, privacy, super injunctions and Index’s ongoing Libel Reform campaign. While there has been concern about media standards in the UK, Index on Censorship strongly resists anything that will curb the freedom of the media. Maintaining media freedom in the UK is vitally important in a country condemned by the UN for its libel laws.
“Phone Hacking, Privacy and Libel – The Future of the Press” will take place
in the International Conference Centre (ICC) on Sunday, September 18, at
1pm, in Hall 8b.
The centre is inside the conference’s secure zone, so a conference pass is
needed to attend.
The ICC is on Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2EA. Hall 8b is located on Level
5.
