After months of investigation, interviews with hundreds of witnesses, and a pretty thorough investigation into the practices of the press in this country, the Leveson report was predictably damning. Also predictable was much of the response to it, particularly from within Westminster. To, very, very briefly summarise the report's 2000 pages, the stuff which seems to have been picked up for highlight is:
A new regulatory body, entirely independent of the government, of serving newspaper editors and of business, should be established.
Some politicians have been much too close to the press.
Press behaviour has, at times been 'outrageous' (see below).
The report is critical of the relationship between John Yates (former Assistant Commissioner at the Met Police) and some elements of the press.
Interestingly, possibly anticipating much of the likely response to his report, he also suggested that legislation should enshrine in law the obligation on the government to protect the freedom of the press.
There are also, of course, ongoing criminal cases with regard to some of the practices that have been uncovered recently, which could add further context to anything Leveson says.
So, what we've got is a call for regulation to punish press excesses, but a recognition that the press freedom which is so long-standing and so valued in this country is to be protected. And a bit of a bollocking for their conduct, of course:
"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained. This is not just the famous but ordinary members of the public, caught up in events (many of them, truly tragic) far larger than they could cope with but made much, much worse by press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous."
I entirely agree that the freedom of the press, so easy to take for granted when it's such a fundamental part of our culture, must be protected. But it's possible to rein them in without damaging that freedom. It would not be difficult to frame some kind of legislation compelling retractions and apologies to be published on the same page, at the same size, as the original story if that story turns out to be false, for example. This would still leave papers free to publish the stuff in the first place, but would perhaps make them more careful to check their facts (a sadly forgotten old journalistic habit anyway) before they ran something. Or perhaps moderate their tone when they run something which basically calls an innocent man a murderer before any trial has been conducted, to cite just one of their recent shameful episodes.
Anyway, needless to say, the politicians have been prompt to respond. Cameron, in typical Tory fashion, has been chief among them in urging caution in implementing legislation. God forbid a Tory government ever had to actually be responsible for something. To be fair to him though, he's accepted most of the report's findings and called for prompt action, as have all the major parties. But he said in his Commons statement that statutory regulation would make the country 'less free'. A glib generalisation, for me, though it's very gratifying to hear politicians of all stripes arguing against regulation of the press - the debate in the Commons this afternoon was pretty intelligent and reasonable by their usual standards, which goes some way to showing how importantly this issue is viewed by all sides of the House.
Clegg, a Liberal in both senses of the word, felt sufficiently differently from the PM to make his own statement, rather than let Cameron speak for the coalition as a whole. He felt the proposals for legislation were workable, and that the press had gone too far to be trusted to act responsibly in future without them.
If I've understood the proposals correctly, it seems that any legislation would only underpin the authority of the new, independent regulatory body, it would not regulate the press itself. For me, the press have pissed away the rights and privileges of 300 years of complete freedom by using those freedoms as an excuse for some of the most outrageous, immoral and apparently illegal practices in the hunt for sensationalist bollocks. With digital media threatening the printed press much worse than any legal responsibilities ever would, that behaviour is not likely to change if it isn't forced to. It's time to do something - like Clegg says, the 'worst thing would be to do nothing'.
Leveson's lessons must be learned, for the good of our society as a whole. Let's hope they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment