Tête à Tête: The Leveson Report

[one_third]

The Case For – Will Tucker

Since Lord Justice Leveson unveiled the first part of his sprawling report into ‘the culture, practices and ethics of the press’ on Thursday 29 November, an intense debate has circulated about what should happen now that the ball is firmly back in the politicians’ court. Most of the argument concerns what Leveson calls ‘statutory underpinning’, in other words, enacting a law to create a new regulatory body, independent of the press, politicians and the state, and with more teeth than the hapless and discredited Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

Unsurprisingly, most, if not all newspapers have been opposed to the new proposals, claiming that a law establishing a regulatory body would be equivalent to state monitoring and regulation of the press, with all the implications of ‘regulation of content’ that implies.

There have been some curious responses from those opposed to the Leveson proposals. David Cameron promised prominent victims of press excess, most of them represented under the ‘Hacked Off’ banner, that he would fully implement the recommendations made by Brian Leveson unless they were ‘bonkers’. Considering that Leveson has not called for some sort of Orwellian government-led approval of content, for the Prime Minister to respond to the report in the House of Commons by backing away immediately from the crucial element of statutory underpinning seems very strange indeed.

So strange in fact, that the normally insipid Liberal Democrat leader (and deputy Prime Minister) Nick Clegg felt moved to make a separate statement in the Commons. Clegg used this most unusual breach of convention to put what he might call ‘clear yellow water’ between his party and the Conservatives, by fully supporting the report and thus allying himself with the Labour leader, Ed Miliband.

Miliband and Clegg’s argument is simple: the Leveson proposals pose no danger to freedom of speech and investigative journalism. Leveson states his belief that the _Telegraph_’s scoop on the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009 was ‘investigative journalism of the highest order’, and in fact the proposed ‘Leveson law’ would enshrine a protection for investigative journalism that was genuinely in the public interest.

Further, the Leveson proposals are not a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the normally spot on director of the Liberty pressure group, Shami Chakrabati, stated on Sunday (and then swiftly retracted). Many European countries that are compliant with the ECHR have better privacy laws than this one, such as France and Ireland. Being able to use the force of law to make tabloids publish clear, front-page apologies for libel and defamation, such as in the case of Chris Jefferies, the schoolteacher who was found guilty by the _Sun_ and the _Mirror_ of the murder of a woman, Joanna Yeates, before he had faced trial in a court of law (he was innocent) is the main thrust of Leveson’s recommendations and a reasonable, proportional response to press intrusion. To pretend otherwise is irresponsible.[/one_third]
[one_third_last]

The Case Against – Alex Dinsdale

The Leveson Report poses the biggest threat to our renowned free press that it has ever encountered, and while ‘bonkers’ might not be the right word to describe them, David Cameron is right to show concern over its findings. The victims must see justice, but we must remember that much of what this report condemns are things already criminal. We are in danger of misinterpreting already punishable crimes committed by a small section of the press as widespread misconduct throughout Britain’s media.

The main controversy of the report is Leveson’s call for an independent body to monitor the press, similar to the current Press Complaints Commission. However this new body will be supported by legislation, effectively bringing in state involvement to our free press. It is meant to be a safeguard to be used only if need be, however it gives the excuse of state meddling in the name of public protection. As Lord Black of Brentwood said during the inquiry, “I’ve never seen a model of statute proposed which would not in some way invite the state into the regulation of editorial content.” The report also encourages journalists to be transparent with their sources. This will seriously weaken investigative journalism which in many cases relies on anonymity of sources to construct any sort of story, particularly pursuing the scandals that occur within the higher power circles of society. If the government begins to gain control over what the media can and can’t print then all the positive influence a free press brings will disappear. Democracies depend on investigative journalism and no government should intervene. Would the MPs Expenses Scandal have been exposed if not for freedom of the press?

It has been difficult for Cameron to come out against the Report, as the complex nature of the Inquiry can often be overlooked and instead seen as a simple case of victims against hackers. Sadly , the affair has gained political capital and Labour have come out in favour of these dangerous plans to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, as have the Liberal Democrats in a desperate attempt for credibility. It is easy to blindly follow the public’s current anger towards its press in an attempt to win votes but the consequences for the press and the public would be far worse and Cameron should be praised for recognising this and choosing to oppose rather than implement everything he is advised to.

Has self-regulation failed? In some respects, but only failed in a tiny section of an enormous free press. In many other areas, it is still thriving. Notably, it was not the government but actually a rival newspaper, The _Guardian_, who shone a light on the awful conduct of those who chose to go outside of the law to defy a self-regulating system which works well within the constraints of the legal system we already have. The system isn’t perfect but the changes Leveson recommends would threaten our freedom of expression and so our democracy.[/one_third_last]