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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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