24 Jan 2012 | 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 2012 | 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
23 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
Politicians would make better decisions if they were not so influenced by the front pages, BBC Trust chairman Lord Patten told the Leveson Inquiry today.
Patten said that politicians have allowed themselves to be “kidded” by editors and proprietors that newspapers have more power and sway with the public than they in fact do.
“The question is how seemly it is for politicians to behave in a certain way or appear to be manipulated by papers,” Patten said.
He accused major political parties and their leaders of having “demeaned themselves” by courting the press over the last 25 years, adding that he was not a fan of “grovelling” to the press.
He said he would need a “lot of persuading to organise sleepovers for newspaper proprietors”.
Taking a mischievous dig at Rupert Murdoch, Patten said: “I’d have expected to meet the prime minister and other party leaders more times if I was a News International executive.” He told the Inquiry he had seen culture secretary Jeremy Hunt two or three times, and met David Cameron once.
When asked about his relationship with the media mogul, Patten told the Inquiry he sued publisher HarperCollins after Murdoch — its owner — tried to block the publication of a book Patten had written that was critical of his dealings with the Chinese authorities. Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, said Murdoch had intervened to “curry favour with the Chinese leadership”, fearful that the book would “harm” his prospects in China.
But Patten went on to say he did not have a vendetta against the News International chief, adding that ” it is probably the case that certain papers exist in this country because of him.” He also described Sky News as a “terrific success”.
He also reiterated his view made last November at the Society of Editors that broadcasting regulation could not be applied to the press.
“It would be preferable not to have any statutory backup because we should be able to exercise self-discipline in our plural society,” he said, “which doesn’t involve politicians getting involved in determining matters of free speech.”
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
23 Jan 2012 | Leveson Inquiry
The director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has said it is “unreasonable” to suggest other media organisations in the UK “can or could operate in the way the BBC does”.
Testifying at the Leveson Inquiry this morning, Thompson said it was “important for the plurality of media in this country that the press is not constrained” in the same way as the BBC is, with with its public service requirements and statutory backing.
“I think this country has benefited from having a range of media that are funded differently, constituted differently, have different objectives,” he said.
He noted that the British public had “uniquely high” expectations of the broadcaster’s standards, and that the BBC was “committed to being most trustworthy source of news in the world”.
He added that statutory regulation of the press may risk newspapers’ independence from the government.
During his marathon 2 hour and 45 minute session, Thompson said the public service broadcaster used private investigators for surveillance and security purposes, rather than “primary journalistic inquiry”. In his witness statement, Thompson wrote that PIs were used on 232 occasions by the BBC from January 2005 to July 2011, with one being hired in 2001 to track down “a known paedophile”. Thompson said there was a “strong public interest defence justification” for doing so.
Thompson stressed that subterfuge, notably secret filming, would also on used by the BBC in the case of “very serious” public interest stories, adding that there would need to be “clear prima facie evidence” of any wrongdoing, as well as no other journalistic way of recording it.
He cited the abuse at a care home exposed by investigation programme Panorama last year as an example.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
