01 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The chairman of the body that funds the Press Complaints Commission told the Leveson Inquiry today that the News of the World phone hacking scandal has convinced him of the regulator’s need to impose fines.
Lord Black, chairman of the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), revealed that he had been opposed to the imposition of fines, arguing that they would not have strengthened the PCC, but admitted the phone hacking scandal had made him change his mind.
“I certainly now believe that some form of fining system would be appropriate,” he said, citing the scandal that led to the closure of the News of the World as “the most obvious example of why urgent reform of the system is needed.”
Black said there was a “very real” appetite for change from the industry and argued that there needed to be “radical proposals” for changes to self-regulation in order to thwart a threat of statutory regulation.
Black’s testimony follows Lord Hunt’s call yesterday for a new regulator that had increased powers to investigate, as well as audit and enforce standards. Hunt told the Inquiry there was a “wide consensus for radical reform” in the industry.
Ofcom CEO Ed Richards and Chair Colette Bowe also gave evidence today. The pair defended the broadcast regulator, which is underpinned by statute and whose chief executive is chosen by the Culture Secretary, as being able to maintain its independence. Bowe emphasised the regulator is accountable to Parliament — not the government — and Richards stressed that independence was “probably the most prized characteristic of the entire organisation.”
Asked by counsel Carine Patry-Hoskins if Ofcom’s independence would be stronger were its board not selected by the government, Bowe said it would not in practical terms. She added that a better model had not been proposed, and that well-informed parliamentary committee served to hold Ofcom to account.
Richards described Ofcom as a “post-broadcast regulator” that does not attempt to intervene with broadcasts in advance of being aired. He said he pre-broadcast intervention was “very difficult territory, which takes you potentially takes you into the area of censorship and suppression.”
Richards also argued that there was “no reason” why financial penalties should have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, and that there were “plenty of examples” of broadcast journalism that have been controversial and produced within the Ofcom code.
Richards added that Ofcom’s own investigatory powers, namely the ability to require data from broadcasters, were a “key tool” and crucial to the regulator doing its job effectively. He cited the sanctions levied as a result of the 2007 phone-in scandal — during which Ofcom fined GMTV a record £2 million for having repeatedly allowed viewers to enter phone-in competitions after lines had closed — as an “effective deterrent”.
Richards admitted that digital innovations did present challenges for broadcasters, but said any attempt to regulate the internet was a “fool’s errand”.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
01 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The current chairman of the Press Complaints Commission gave an impassioned warning against statutory regulation of the press at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday.
“There is already statute,” said Lord Hunt. “What is missing is a statutory regulator, which is what I’d regard as infringement on freedom of press.”
Lord Hunt said Britain’s “much envied” press freedom was the country’s “greatest asset”.
“The road to parliamentary hell is paved with good intentions”, he added, telling the Inquiry that there were “very strong views” in parliament that there should be tougher limits on the power of the press.
He said the Inquiry was a “tremendous opportunity” for the press to come forward with the type of system that Sir David Calcutt proposed in the early 1990s. “But not by statute,” Hunt emphasised.
He also held the view that the PCC was not a regulator, arguing that it had been “unfairly criticised for failing to exercise powers it never had in the first place”.
He said there was an urgent need for a new body and that the Inquiry was a key factor in there being “wide consensus for radical reform”. He argued that a new regulator should have two arms — one for handling complaints and mediation, and the other for auditing and enforcing standards.
Hunt also revealed that Northern and Shell boss Richard Desmond, who withdrew from the PCC last year, has agreed to sign up to his newly proposed press regulator. Hunt repeated that there was a “real appetite” for change and proposed a five-year rolling contract for publishers to sign up to.
Earlier today, serving PCC commissioner Lord Grade said he did not believe that statutory regulation would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, which he said was “alive and well” in broadcasting despite being “heavily regulated”.
Yet he took issue with statutory regulation raising the prospect of judicial review and a slower complaints process, and had concerns over the powers of a statutory body to intervene with newspapers prior to publication.
Grade said a new, improved regulator should have “visible, painful, tangible powers of sanction”, and that statutory recognition of a body that is independent of politicians and proprietors seemed to be a “very important way forward”.
He added that current PCC staff were “underpaid, overworked, overstretched”, and that the body barely had enough resources to do more than be a “complaints resolution vehicle”.
The Inquiry continues today, with evidence from Ofcom, the Advertising Standards Agency and PressBoF.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
24 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.
Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.
Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”
The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.
Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.
Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.
The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.
On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.
Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.
But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.
Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”
Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”
Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards, and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012
23 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The editor of Channel 4 News and head of compliance at ITN both argued against statutory regulation of the press at the Leveson Inquiry this afternoon.
In a debate with Lord Justice Leveson, ITN’s John Battle expressed concerns over statutory regulation, noting that it was “quite a leap” from the current self-regulatory model, and suggesting a meeting point between the two.
Lord Justice Leveson argued that there were “all sorts of statutes that affect us, without affecting our independence”.
Chiming in with the evidence given by BBC Director General Mark Thompson and BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten earlier today, Battle argued that broadcasters were heavily regulated by the law, and that a state regulator of the press might “be left open to being viewed as not independent or not impartial”.
He called the current climate a “difficult and dark” period for the press, but reiterated the UK had a “strong tradition” of press freedom that needed to be maintained.
He added that he hoped there could be a regulatory system that could be viewed or considered by the press before being enacted.
Channel 4’s Jim Gray also said he was “anxious” about a heavy form of regulation for print media.
The Inquiry will continue tomorrow, with Index on Censorship CEO John Kampfner among those giving evidence.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
