Skip to main content

A free, fair, independent regulation of press ethics.


It was obvious when the Leveson enquiry was set up that the recommendations would most likely include a statutory element.  Mr Cameron is therefore being disingenuous in now decrying that element in shock horror terms as a step too far.  He had, after all, indicated he would accept the Leveson proposals. Why set up an enquiry, looking in depth at what went wrong and why, only to distance the government from the conclusions? What is needed now is common sense, not hysterical outbursts about 'press freedom'; freedom has never meant the liberty to hurt others without good cause. It also misrepresents Leveson's proposals for statutory backing.

Leveson does not propose a process for state interference in the workings of the press. He simply suggests that to give teeth to an independent regulatory body it should have support in law. Charities, for example have statutory backing in law but whilst the Charity Commission monitors their activities to ensure ethics and legality it does not interfere with decision making. So what has Leveson proposed?

From an ethical perspective Leveson specifically rejects the idea that unethical press practice were the aberrations committed by rogue journalists. On the contrary, he finds that they were the result or part of a widespread culture. He also concludes that the Press Complaints Commission has signally failed to deal with this culture. The Press has signally failed to regulate itself. He goes further. The PCC he concludes has been part of the problem. It has 'proved itself to be aligned with the interests of the press.'.  There is, thus, a need for an independent body. What is needed he concludes is a "genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation". Independence here means independent from both the press itself and the state. But it is the press who must come sign up to a sustainable and workable ethical code of practice. The appointment of the Chair and members of the body must not be press placemen; they must be truly independent. The press cannot be their masters by appointing them. They should be appointed through a fair and open process.

You might say, well what then is the need for anything else. Leveson concludes that this regulatory body should be underpinned by legislation. This would not set up a body to 'regulate the press'. But it would make compliance with the ethical process a legal requirement. It would give no right to Parliament to interfere in the workings of the press. Indeed it would establish a clear separation of government and the press. If we had a written constitution as in the USA, for example, we no doubt would write into it such a statute to ensure freedom of the press. It would, however, give teeth to the independent regulatory body. This is essential for public confidence in the process and to prevent such a body becoming a poodle of powerful press interests.

To suggest this is a slippery slope to state interference and the erosion of press freedom is ridiculous. There is no doubt that a slipperier slope is a failed regulatory system. The press have created that slippery slope by their unethical culture. Calling a halt to this; having a free and fair, a truly independent regulatory process fostering and monitoring ethical principles in practice is the best way of ensuring we don't slide further down that slope.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As