Leveson inquiry into UK press: the experts respond
First posted on The Conversation By Sunanda Creagh
Lord Justice Leveson has released the recommendations of the Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, which was prompted by the Murdoch press phone hacking scandal that erupted last year.
Among the key points is a recommendation for an independent press regulatory that is backed by law.
That suggestion has already been rejected by British Prime Minister David Cameron, citing concern for press freedom but his coalition partner, Lib Dems leader Nick Clegg supports the idea.
British Labour leader Ed Miliband has backed most of the Leveson findings.
Here are some expert responses to the findings:
Andrea Carson, PhD researcher at the University of Melbourne and former journalist at The Age
I think it’s a pretty sound, detailed and clever report. It’s clever in recommending independent self-regulation of the British press but with statutory underpinning.
It’s a clever design in that it’s got powerful sticks and carrots as incentives to get the press to sign on.
In the words of Leveson himself, the press has been in charge of marking their own homework and that’s clearly failed.
Even though it may be regarded by some as a government statutory body, it is, in fact, not and is independent from government.
[The independent regulator] will require legislation but Leveson is at pains to say it will be appointed by an independent council. There will be mechanisms in place to ensure it is free of government and industry intervention. That’s the problem at the moment: that there’s too much industry intervention.
I am on the side of Ed Miliband. Leveson himself says it’s the first time ever in British law it will enshrine a legal duty on the government to protect freedom of the press.
I think David Cameron’s response has an element of hyperbole to it. He had said earlier on he would support Leveson unless it was absolutely bonkers. The very detailed report put forward now is not bonkers.
It doesn’t go as far as the Irish system goes.
Clearly, the system was broken in the UK and this is a strong, purposeful document to try and fix that.
There could be a weakness in one of the recommendations relating to data protection rules. It might, in practice, be too limiting in the way journalists source and use information for reporting in the public interest. But this is a recommendation and those things now need be discussed.
Rod Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney
It has been a very searching examination. The result is that a whole series of abuses that no one really knew the scale or nastiness of has been revealed. As he said, they made the lives of ordinary people misery for decades.
What they have got there is a pattern of criminality that is already illegal has been carried on because sections of the tabloid press in Britain have become a sort of law unto themselves.
Well, they didn’t clean up their act. They got worse and worse.
As far as I can see at first blush, it’s a good series of checks and balances that give a statutory backing to systems of redress and investigations of press abuses but doesn’t do so in away that should inhibit free speech or give the government of the day any greater power in affecting news coverage.
Cameron goes back on what he said he would do. When he set up the commission, he said it would follow the recommendations unless they were bonkers. Yet the day the report is released, within hours he is saying he won’t implement its most important recommendation.
I think the Lib Dems and Labour together may actually force this through parliament, which puts Cameron in a very difficult position.
The politics of it are still quite unpredictable. What is predictable, unfortunately, is that the Murdoch press and the Daily Mail are beating the drum of ‘press freedom’ in a mindless way — just as we saw in Australia after the Finkelstein report — without coming to grips with their own abuses of power or the competing principles to do with free speech at work here.
Bruce Arnold, Lecturer in Law at the University of Canberra
It’s a beautifully written report and has significant implications for Australia.
He is absolutely damning of the UK regime, UK politicians, UK media and governance within News Corporation.
There is a proven need for the media to get their house in order. We don’t want government regulations or a politicisation of regulation. However, we do need a system of regulation that’s independent on both government and the media and a system that has some teeth.
The application for Australia is that the problem we have here is the media self regulates and there’s a press council with no teeth. It has no power.
He is calling for a system where there is meaningful enforcement but it will be independent of the media groups.
More broadly, there needs to be real transparency in government decision-making about investment decisions, the Australian Convergence Review. Who gets to own broadcasting networks or take over the print groups like Fairfax?
I think they will kill it with kindness in the UK. The great and the good will get up and say, ‘We love the idea but there’s a few little issues with implementation’ and the traditional bureaucratic response will kill it off.
The UK regulator has to be backed by law otherwise it’s meaningless. All the Murdochs could disappear but the problems would still be there. We are talking about structural problems with an industry that self regulates.
The regulator must have teeth otherwise it’s like being smacked with a lettuce leaf.
- This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article here
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin