Leveson's report: To introduce press law, or not?

view gallery VIEW GALLERY

Ahead of the appeal court judge's findings on Thursday, two eminent journalists turned academics argue the central controversy: are newspaper standards best protected by legislation to underpin a new regulator? Tim Luckhurst, ex-editor of 'The Scotsman', is opposed, while Brian Cathcart, former deputy editor of The Independent on Sunday and Hacked-Off co-founder, is a staunch supporter

Dear Brian

The history of journalism is not, as supporters of press regulation underpinned by statute pretend, a long march towards state involvement. Campaigners for a free press have fought for centuries against state interference. The phone-hacking scandal has exposed the depths some journalists plumbed in pursuit of sellable stories. But it has done nothing to undermine this truth: regulation underpinned by statute is anathema to liberal democracy. It would do nothing to protect the victims of phone hacking, but it would impose expensive new burdens on national, regional and local newspapers that have committed none of the criminal offences to which we both object. I worry that you want to offer the British people a version of journalism defined with too little reference to what the public is interested in.

Hacked Off feels like a sincere but clumsy attempt to impose on the majority the tastes of a narrow cultural and intellectual elite. A sanctimonious minority that trusts the state more than it respects individual liberty has sought the same outcome since 1949, and no democratically elected government has backed them.

Statutory underpinning would put this country at the top of a slippery slope. Press freedom is the democratic inheritance of all – not just victims of phone hacking – who value journalism's ability to hold power to account. Democracy needs an unlovable press; raucous, impertinent and entertaining enough to secure the loyalty of readers. That sort of press cannot thrive in a system of regulation underpinned by statute.

Tim Luckhurst, Professor of Journalism at Kent University

Dear Tim

I wish it were true that our press stood at the top of a slope, slippery or otherwise. In fact a major part of it is in a hole, and digging. The hacking of phones of victims of crime, police officers, cabinet ministers and people in witness protection, and the industrial-scale mining of personal data, the relentless intrusion, the wilful inaccuracy and the vicious libelling of innocent people – these are bad enough. But with these goes an abuse of power that takes the breath away. Most national newspapers, for example, joined in a cynical conspiracy to conceal the unfolding scandal of phone hacking from their readers, preferring to cover up the activities of the News of the World than to expose grave wrongdoing by a powerful corporation.

Editors long ago agreed a code of practice, including requirements for such things as fairness, accuracy and respect for grief. The novelty today is that they might be required to abide by it. The code is part of a 60-year history of self-regulation that would shame any industry, for while editors and proprietors boasted of how effective self-regulation was, they were free to ignore the code at will. How they can be removed from the position of judge and jury in their own courtroom is a matter for Leveson, but any suggestion that, if he recommends a regulator underpinned by statute, that will inevitably put the press under the control of politicians is nonsense. Broadcast journalism is regulated under statute in a manner more rigorous than anybody ever advocated at the Leveson inquiry. Would Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys accept that they are under the thumb of the politicians? On the contrary, I think they are precisely what you say free journalists must be: unlovable, raucous, impertinent and entertaining.

Brian Cathcart, Professor of Journalism at Kingston University, London

Dear Brian

Your case depends on attributing to all British newspapers responsibility for the conduct of the worst. The offences were committed by a few mass-circulation tabloid newspapers, one of which has already closed. None of the sins you list requires regulation to prevent it. All the offences in question are prohibited by existing law. The fact that the law was not enforced is a matter of deep regret. As for your desire to make newspapers balanced, I do not share it. A partisan, campaigning newspaper press is central to our democracy. I no more want The Guardian to place equal faith in Conservative opinions than I want the Daily Mail to embrace Trotskyism.

To quote Mark Thompson, until very recently the BBC's director general: "Plurality of regulation is itself an important safeguard of media freedom. It is not obvious to me that newspapers that people can choose to buy or ignore … should be held to the same level of continuous supervision and accountability as broadcasters who reach out into every household in the land." It is emphatically plain to me that they should not. Statutory underpinning is unconstitutional. No sincere liberal should support it.

In the words of Igor Judge, Lord Chief Justice: "It is the birthright of the citizen that the press be independent … And that is why, if you accept it as I do, the independence of the press is not only a constitutional necessity, it is a constitutional principle."

Tim

Dear Tim

Even if it were true (though unlikely) that hacking was limited to the News of the World, other abuses are not. Take libel. Ten newspapers libelled Robert Murat, eight libelled Christopher Jefferies and most national newspapers libelled the McCanns. Roy Greenslade has calculated that in one 34-month period Express Group papers settled or lost 23 libel cases. How about data mining? Fourteen papers employed the private investigator Steve Whittamore, who illegally accessed private information about thousands of people.

Most journalists do the job well and have not been part of the culture of unaccountable power. The same goes for banks, yet after 2008, the country – encouraged by a very vocal press – rightly demanded that heads roll, inquiries were held and lessons learned. But when things go wrong in newspapers there are often no consequences at all. No one wants the press regulated by the state, but there is abundant evidence that most people are fed up with a press regulated by Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre et al.

Brian

Dear Brian

Your allegations against other titles simply prove my point: these are all criminal offences or actionable under civil law. As for the notion that "almost all national newspapers conspired to cover up the hacking scandal", it is foolish. There may have been an error of judgement, but there was no conspiracy.

Your splenetic language reveals your true purpose. You and your colleagues believe you know best. You dislike profitable, popular newspapers such as the Daily Mail because you disagree with them and they with you. I share your love of sophisticated liberal journalism, but I will never support the use of statute to impose it upon others who prefer their journalism entertaining, bold and occasionally scandalous.

As you acknowledge, well-intentioned but profoundly misguided campaigners of your ilk have sought to purge and purify popular journalism for decades. Phone hacking is just your latest pretext for a campaign that has waxed and waned since Clement Attlee was prime minister. Today, you have celebrities as front-men and high-profile victims to give your campaign a sympathetic face. Nothing else has changed.

Tim

Dear Tim

You say it was an "error of judgement" that most papers failed to report the hacking scandal accurately. Between 2006 and 2010 The Guardian carried 237 articles about hacking, many of them relating to newsworthy people such as royalty, actors, footballers and top politicians. In the same period the two Mail papers carried just 38 articles and Mirror papers only 11. Not only did they fail to report the public developments properly, but they also failed to mount a single investigation into the scandal. That's quite an error.

I think we have all paid the price for the Press Complaints Commission's failure over two decades. Instead of raising standards as it claimed to do, it turned a blind eye when things went wrong, inevitably encouraging further failure. But then it was designed in a way that was bound to fail the public, because the real objective was to ensure editors and proprietors were not accountable for what they did.

This brings us back to serial libels. Your suggestion that the civil law is adequate will probably surprise the next person to suffer the kind of monstering dished out to the McCanns, Christopher Jefferies, Robert Murat and others. Papers may pay damages in such cases but they don't learn lessons.

If the law or the PCC had been adequate, the press would not be in this mess. And if any other industry was in such a mess, the papers would be howling for real change and mocking the idea that industry leaders might get another round in the last-chance saloon.

Brian

Dear Brian

Most newspapers ignored the hacking story not because they were frantic to hide evidence, but because they thought it would bore their readers comatose. They were right. Even the poor old Guardian's circulation fell during the campaign it fought so bravely. Your conspiracy is a fantasy generated by zeal for a tightly regulated press. You would have newspapers compelled to pursue stories that would reduce their appeal to their readers. National newspapers serve distinct ideological communities, whereas broadcasters must produce news to appeal to a broader section of the population. The relationship between broadcasters and newspapers is at the heart of why the type of press regulation you seek is so dangerous.

It works like this: newspapers break important stories that broadcast regulation would not allow radio or television journalists to uncover. Broadcasters then report and analyse those stories for wider audiences. The public benefits. Examples are legion: the MPs' expenses scandal, the cod fax that helped The Guardian prove Jonathan Aitken had lied in court.

A statutory backstop to press regulation would fatally undermine that valuable relationship.

Tim

Dear Tim

You say I want a tightly regulated press. I don't. Personally, I would settle for a press in which the editors' code of practice – that is to say, the code written and approved by current editors – was consistently and effectively enforced. (The code could in my view be greatly improved in the interests of journalism, but, as I say, I could settle for it.) Alas, editors and proprietors have shown over 20 years that they don't want it enforced, and they have shown in their shabby proposals for a PCC Mark 2 that they remain determined to prevent it being enforced in future.

Nor do I have a "zeal" for independent regulation. I just think it is necessary to protect innocent people from abuses and to uphold standards in journalism, as the PCC claimed to do but didn't. Ideally press regulation wouldn't be necessary, but then ideally no regulation would ever be necessary. And why should journalists demand high standards from everybody else while insisting on being answerable to no one but themselves?

Brian

Dear Brian

Your notion that there is a halfway house between state regulation and independent regulation underpinned by statute is intellectual obfuscation. Hacked Off's proposed "independent regulator", which you support, would be underpinned by statute, ie, it is not independent of politicians. Your opinions are an astonishing inversion of liberalism, and your message ends with another absurdity: journalists answerable to no one but themselves? No, Brian, journalists and their editors are accountable to their readers and to the sanction of public opinion. These virtuous forces closed newspapers long before the internet made many of them unprofitable and returned British newspapers to honesty after their appalling failures during the era of appeasement.

Every time I'm told that statutory involvement in press regulation would be benign I remind myself that wartime politicians used statutory powers to ban newspapers that criticised them and to try to ban others. You imagine that statutory underpinning is preferable to an occasionally vicious and irresponsible press, but it would be taking a steam hammer to crack a nut. Better an untamed press, free from any risk of prior restraint, than the remotest risk of political involvement in freedom of expression. So, "Yes" to the editor's code and an emphatic "No" to anything more stringent.

Tim

Dear Tim

Self-regulation will never deliver consistent application of any code. We need a new regulator with clout that is properly independent of both the industry and the politicians.

Brian

Start your day with The Independent, sign up for daily news emails
PROMOTED VIDEO
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
ebooks
ebooksA special investigation by Andy McSmith
News
Starting the day with a three-egg omelette could make people more charitable, according to new research
science
News
Top Gun actor Val Kilmer lost his small claims court battle in Van Nuys with the landlord of his Malibu mansion to get back his deposit after wallpapering over the kitchen cabinets
people
News
Comedian Ted Robbins collapsed on stage during a performance of Phoenix Nights Live at Manchester Arena (Rex)
people
News
The actress Geraldine McEwan was perhaps best known for playing Agatha Christie's detective, Miss Marple (Rex)
peopleShe won a Bafta in 1991 for her role in Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit
News
newsPatrick Cockburn was able to update his agenda-setting 'The Rise of Islamic State' while under attack in Baghdad
News
Robert Fraser, aka Groovy Bob
peopleA new show honours Robert Fraser, one of the era's forgotten players
Life and Style
Torsten Sherwood's Noook is a simple construction toy for creating mini-architecture
tech
Sport
David Silva celebrates with Sergio Aguero after equalising against Chelsea
footballChelsea 1 Manchester City 1
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating
and  

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs Media

Recruitment Genius: Online Media Sales Trainee

£15000 - £30000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Now our rapidly expanding and A...

Ashdown Group: Lead Web Developer (ASP.NET, C#) - City of London

£45000 - £50000 per annum + Excellent benefits: Ashdown Group: Lead Web Develo...

Recruitment Genius: External Relations Executive

£33000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An External Relations Executive is requi...

Recruitment Genius: Senior Digital Project Manager

Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: This established Digital Agency based in East ...

Day In a Page

As in 1942, Germany must show restraint over Greece

As in 1942, Germany must show restraint over Greece

Mussolini tried to warn his ally of the danger of bringing the country to its knees. So should we, says Patrick Cockburn
Britain's widening poverty gap should be causing outrage at the start of the election campaign

The short stroll that should be our walk of shame

Courting the global elite has failed to benefit Britain, as the vast disparity in wealth on display in the capital shows
Homeless Veterans appeal: The rise of the working poor: when having a job cannot prevent poverty

Homeless Veterans appeal

The rise of the working poor: when having a job cannot prevent poverty
Prince Charles the saviour of the nation? A new book highlights concerns about how political he will be when he eventually becomes king

Prince Charles the saviour of the nation?

A new book highlights concerns about how political he will be when he eventually becomes king
How books can defeat Isis: Patrick Cockburn was able to update his agenda-setting 'The Rise of Islamic State' while under attack in Baghdad

How books can defeat Isis

Patrick Cockburn was able to update his agenda-setting 'The Rise of Islamic State' while under attack in Baghdad
Judith Hackitt: The myths of elf 'n' safety

Judith Hackitt: The myths of elf 'n' safety

She may be in charge of minimising our risks of injury, but the chair of the Health and Safety Executive still wants children to be able to hurt themselves
The open loathing between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu just got worse

The open loathing between Obama and Netanyahu just got worse

The Israeli PM's relationship with the Obama has always been chilly, but going over the President's head on Iran will do him no favours, says Rupert Cornwell
French chefs get 'le huff' as nation slips down global cuisine rankings

French chefs get 'le huff' as nation slips down global cuisine rankings

Fury at British best restaurants survey sees French magazine produce a rival list
Star choreographer Matthew Bourne gives young carers a chance to perform at Sadler's Wells

Young carers to make dance debut

What happened when superstar choreographer Matthew Bourne encouraged 27 teenage carers to think about themselves for once?
Design Council's 70th anniversary: Four of the most intriguing prototypes from Ones to Watch

Design Council's 70th anniversary

Four of the most intriguing prototypes from Ones to Watch
Dame Harriet Walter: The actress on learning what it is to age, plastic surgery, and her unease at being honoured by the establishment

Dame Harriet Walter interview

The actress on learning what it is to age, plastic surgery, and her unease at being honoured by the establishment
Art should not be a slave to the ideas driving it

Art should not be a slave to the ideas driving it

Critics of Tom Stoppard's new play seem to agree that cerebral can never trump character, says DJ Taylor
Bill Granger recipes: Our chef's winter salads will make you feel energised through February

Bill Granger's winter salads

Salads aren't just a bit on the side, says our chef - their crunch, colour and natural goodness are perfect for a midwinter pick-me-up
England vs Wales: Cool head George Ford ready to put out dragon fire

George Ford: Cool head ready to put out dragon fire

No 10’s calmness under pressure will be key for England in Cardiff
Michael Calvin: Time for Old Firm to put aside bigotry and forge new links

Michael Calvin's Last Word

Time for Old Firm to put aside bigotry and forge new links