So, the Leveson Report is out, and very helpfully, is available on line, free. I've read the fifty page summary, and that is probably enough for me. It quite clearly states that Lord Leveson is recommending 'a genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation' for our press. You would think, to hear some of the editorial squealing that has been going on, that he wants to introduce a secret police force to lock up and torture all journalists who disagree with the government.
Many journalists are very exercised about press freedom. Their concern is that press regulation might damage newspapers' remit to be a 'voice for the voiceless' and they maintain that legislating against journalists is what weak, corrupt states do.
Yes, it is very important that the media in general is able to report, without fear or favour, on any newsworthy topic. I think of John McCarthy, held hostage in the Lebanon for more than five years, and Veronica Guerin, the Irish journalist murdered by the drug gang she was working to expose. The reporters who unveiled the MPs' expenses scandal and the phone hacking practices themselves were doing society a huge favour. That is one end of journalism. At its best it is selfless, heroic, incisive, single-minded, and honest.
But that end of the reporting spectrum is not the problem here. What has been going on in the tabloid press is a sickening and persistent destruction of people's lives and reputations. The press has an Editors' Code of Practice which is short, simple and clear, and is violated on a daily basis. For example, under clause 3 iii) it is 'unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent' which law is flouted by long-lens paparazzi the world over, not least in the case of the Duchess of Cambridge's topless sunbathing photos. According to clause 6 v), 'Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.' If you have seen the wonderful lecture by Martin Robbins called 'Why The Daily Mail Is Evil' you will know that Tom Cruise's daughter, Suri, who is six and a half years old, has been the subject of no fewer than 824 'stories' in the Daily Mail during her short lifetime to date. There have probably been a few dozen more since the talk was recorded. I would be interested to know if her parents consented to the endless photos and commentary about her. To publish a story about her two or three times a week, the Mail must be employing a dedicated (and I use the word loosely here) photographer. And yet, despite the prohibitions in the Editors' Code, there seems to be nobody requesting or requiring the Daily Mail to desist from this intrusive practice.
According to the Editors' Code, the only time the Press can deviate, and use somewhat underhand practices, like paying criminals, for example, is in cases of 'Public Interest'. The Code is very clear what 'Public Interest' means. It generally comprises these issues:
i)Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii)Protecting public health and safety.
iii)Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
It has been pointed out many times that 'public interest' is a very different matter from 'what interests the public'. In the reportage of children like Suri Cruise, in the use of 'upskirt' and 'nip slip' photos of female celebrities, in most of the armpit sweat, messy hair, no-make up photos of almost-famous women in those detestable 'celebrity' magazines, there can be no possible public interest defence.
The Press Complaints Commission is the regulatory body which has been overseeing the slide of our national press into squalor. The PCC itself admits that it has not been fit for purpose. Leveson recommends that the majority of the members of the new regulatory board be independent of the Press; that it should deal with complaints, warn newspapers about bad behaviour, and where necessary, refer criminal matters to the appropriate authorities. Leveson also calls for Press legislation, not least because our current laws do not enshrine any legal duty on behalf of Government to protect the freedom of the Press.
Our broadcast media is regulated by Ofcom, which deals with issues of both standards and fairness, including taste and decency, privacy breaches and intrusion, under its Broadcasting Code. Ofcom is accountable to Parliament, and publishes an annual report. It can impose sizeable financial penalties on companies which break the rules. Its 'Content Board' is 'charged with understanding, analysing and championing the voices and interest of the viewer, the listener and citizen'. It seems to work reasonably well. It issues licences to broadcasters, which it can revoke; no doubt the Press would not respond well to that idea. But, in general, can't the print media be regulated in a similar way? If it's good enough for Auntie, shouldn't it work for Fleet Street?