It was a packed house last night for our event at the Frontline Club debating life after the Leveson Inquiry, which is set to make recommendations for regulation of the British press this autumn.
Panellists Brian Cathcart (Kingston University and Hacked Off), David Aaronovitch (Times), Helen Lewis (New Statesman) and Angela Phillips (Goldsmiths and the Coordinating Committee for Media Reform) — chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby — discussed what they both believed and hoped Leveson would hold for the future.
Phillips argued that the level of collusion between the press, politicians and police was the “shocking” factor, adding that Leveson must examine media ownership to prevent future abuses. The issue — which has been raised of late as hearings come to a close — is outside the judge’s broad terms of reference, with Aaronovitch questioning how diversity would be ensured were caps to be brought in.
On public interest, Cathcart repeated his call for a strong public interest defence to protect responsible journalism, with Phillips matching it with a statutory right of reply. As for ethics, Aaronovitch toyed with the idea of a “bulked-up” self-regulatory system with ethical underpinning, suggesting a modified version of the BBC’s guidelines and penalties model.
Lewis, meanwhile, implored Leveson address the reality that the British press is now competing in a global market of news websites and papers alike. “What the internet has done is terrifying because you can see how well each piece of content has done,” Lewis said, adding that we needed to “get over the idea that blogs and Twitter are the Wild West”.
This has not been the first time Leveson has been nudged to examine the pressures brought on by the web, with MailOnline editor Martin Clarke telling him in May that the Inquiry was obsessing with the “last war” of print in trying to solve the press puzzle. It was left to Aaronovitch last night to muse: “we are locking the stable door after horse has died.”
Indeed, as several audience members noted, there was perhaps more confusion after than before the debate. Such is the array of issues Leveson himself has to tackle this summer as he sits down to pen his report.
Can’t say I envy him the task.
The debate was streamed live, and you can watch it in full below:
Index is one of four public benefit organisations which have today made an urgent application to the Leveson Inquiry regarding Government ministers’ new status as ‘core participants’ in the Inquiry (more…)
Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.
Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.
Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”
The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.
Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.
Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.
The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.
On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.
Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.
But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.
Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”
Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”
Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards, and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012