What now for the UK Press?

<p dir=ltr>Today we finally heard from Lord Justice Leveson and his conclusions from his eight-month inquiry about press standards and their relationship with politicians and police.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Predictably there has been generally more focus on press standards rather than the other terms of Leveson's remit. In recent days there has been a lot of hyperbole, most of it from sections of the press. Some of it has been disingenuous to the point of being deliberately false. One of the worst, or most vocal, has been Fraser Nelson of The Spectator. Nelson made headlines the day before the report was published by announcing that The Spectator would nit participate in any sort of statutory regulation, as if there were a choice.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Earlier today at 7.42pm Nelson tweeted this: "By my maths, the moment of maximum danger lasted 99 minutes: from Leveson proposing state licensing of press to Cameron rejecting it."</p>
<p dir=ltr>This statement is provably false on two counts. Firstly, Leveson never proposed state licencing of the press. On the contrary, he said that his proposal "could not be characterised as state regulation". Secondly the Prime Minister has not rejected Leveson's proposal. He has stated that much thought and caution should be entered into before going down that road. Either Nelson has been wilfully false or, giving the benefit of the doubt, he has simply seen what he expected to see whether it was there or not.</p>
<p dir=ltr>There has been a few instances where people who should know better have not been altogether forthcoming. For example, David Blunkett MP was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning discussing this issue. Unusually we had a Conservative MP, George Eustice, advocating regulation whilst Blunkett (a Labour former Home Secretary) wanted none of it. What the listener was never told is that Blunkett is paid over &#163;49000 per year by Murdoch-owned press companies. There are several members who are, either clearly or otherwise, with vested interests in the press retaining the current regime.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Another tactic which is being used, unwisely, is an attempt to draw this issue down party lines. Liam Fox MP, whose ministerial career was torpedoed by the press, being the most egregious. He tweeted earlier;</p>
<p dir=ltr>"PM's instincts correct. Freedom to the right, regulation to the left. "One Nation" Labour exposed for the statists they are. #Leveson"</p>
<p dir=ltr>This conveniently ignores that there are approximately 40 Tory MPs who support regulation as well as Labour MPs who oppose it. This was a lazy partisan statement when clearly cross-party cooperation is what is required. Fox should remember that even the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't support Cameron. It shows politicians to be self serving and childishly territorial.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Leveson was clear that at times the behaviour of the press was totally unacceptable. That was perhaps an understatement. The press drove the daughter of actor Denholm Elliot to suicide. It has hounded various celebrities over their weight and their personal lives. It has notoriously hacked the phones of many many people including politicians, celebrities, murder victims families, and other people such as the Hillsborough campaigners and, unbelievably, the lawyer of the phone hacking victims!</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press knew this activity was illegal at the time and certainly morally wrong. It has gone through people's bins and even tried to use the children of their quarries as a lever to get them to talk to them. They knew it was wrong and they knew it was happening. They knew it was not the actions of a single rogue reporter as they initially said.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press was aware of the laws of contempt of court and libel, yet this did not stop certain sections from announcing the guilt of Christopher Jeffries in the Jo Yeates murder case. Even if Jeffries had actually been guilty, their actions would have greatly reduced his chances of getting a fair trial. It could even had prevented a trial from taking place at all. Jeffries was hounded for weeks by reporters and forced into hiding.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, collectively, has not allowed the threat of regulation by its peers to dissuade it from not just printing stories that are intrusive, salacious and needless, it has employed unlawful and distasteful methods to collate the information in the first place. With this background, how can we trust the press to continue to arbitrate on its own conduct? This situation is untenable.</p>
<p dir=ltr>This is a situation entirely of their own making. If the press did not want to be treated like schoolchildren, then it shouldn't have acted like irresponsible adolescents.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, in attempting to justify itself, says that stories like the MP expenses scandal would not have been possible with state regulation. It's true that sometimes the press does print stories that are gained by clandestine measures that are unquestionably in the public interest. The expenses scandal is perhaps the best example of this. However I do not see why proper regulation could not have a true public interest test, either prior to or after publication.

I see no reason whatsoever why the print media cannot be regulated by OFCOM as broadcast media has been for a long time. The press might argue that broadcasters are required to be impartial. There is a good case that the same should be required from newspapers and, dare I say, The Spectator. However I see nothing wrong with opinion based news as long as its clear that there is an agenda.