12 Jun 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman today called for cross-party consensus on the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations for future press regulation, suggesting also that the Inquiry examine media ownership.
Labour leader Miliband said he felt News International’s share of 34 per cent of the national newspaper market was “too much”, and suggested limiting media ownership to 20 to 30 per cent. “More than 30 per cent is worrying,” he said, adding that his aim was “plurality”.
Miliband said it was good for democracy to have plurality in the market, stressing that his intention was not “to stifle one organisation or another”, but instead that “one organisation does not exercise overweening power.”
Harman, Miliband’s deputy, stressed the “opportunity” presented by the Inquiry into press standards, which is due to report this autumn. “People want this sorted,” she said of the press malpractice that led to the Inquiry being launched last summer.
“They want a strong free press and want it to act fairly, not a dressed-up version of the status quo.”
She said a new system of redress that operated on a voluntary opt-in basis — similar to the Press Complaints Commission — would be “pointless”. Miliband suggested the need for a body independent of press and politicians and stressed he was “conscious of the limits of statutory recognition”, while still suggesting a kind of statutory support might be needed for a reformed PCC.
Both emphasised the need for cross-party support of Leveson’s recommendations, a topic Leveson himself alluded to yesterday in stressing his desire to avoid “inter-party politics and the politics of personality”.
“The default position for us as politicians must be to try our hardest to use the recommendations of the Inquiry to provide a framework for the future,” Miliband said.
Miliband gave an impassioned defence of press freedom, reminding the judge that his recommendations should protect it.
He highlighted what he saw as a “mutual culture of contempt” between the press and politicians, and that we were a “long way” from the ideal of a relationship of mutual respect between the two.
He told the Inquiry there had been a “failure of the establishment” not to have spoken out sooner on abuses by the press, noting that there had been a sense of fear, anxiety and unwillingness to do so.
He compared calling for a public inquiry into phone hacking in July 2011 to “crossing the Rubicon”, suggesting it would have been seen by News International as “an act of war”.
“In retrospect I wish I would have said it earlier,” Miliband said.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with evidence from deputy prime minister Nick Clegg and Scottish first minister Alex Salmond.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
28 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
Index on Censorship’s event with the Hacked Off campaign and English PEN at Labour party conference was a useful exercise in ruling out possibilities. The phone hacking scandal is just one in a series that has rocked Britons’ faith in their institutions: a theme picked up by Labour leader Ed Miliband in his speech yesterday. Yet some of the solutions proposed for rebuilding faith in the fourth estate would have a disproportionate effect on freedom of expression. That’s why these events across party conference season have proved useful. Whilst there is no clear consensus on what should be done, the debate is ruling out options that would clearly be unpalatable, and slowly a middle-ground is emerging.
At our events at both Labour and Liberal Democrat conference it was evident there is a strong anti-Murdoch feeling amongst delegates. But alongside this, the consensus is that a free press is essential in holding politicians to account.
As for ruling out the unpalatable, Ivan Lewis MP, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary in his keynote speech to the party’s conference argued:
We need a new system of independent regulation including proper like for like redress which means mistakes and falsehoods on the front page receive apologies and retraction on the front page. And as in other professions the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.
The second idea provoked an immediate response. On this blog, Padraig Reidy described it as a “bizarre distortion of the idea of a free press. Roy Greenslade pointed out countries that licensed journalists included Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, King Khalifa’s Bahrain and President Nazarbayev’s Kazakhstan. Labour MP Tom Harris also sounded caution tweeting: “If a journalist commits a serious misdemeanour, they can already be sacked.” Dan Hodges, an influential Labour activist went further: “On the day of the leader’s speech we announce the state banning of journalists. Labour is ceasing to exist as a serious political party.”
It is interesting that Lewis did not float this idea at our fringe event. Though Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust distanced his organisation from the idea, he did point out that professional registration bears a similarity to John Lloyd’s proposals for a “Journalism Society” outlined in the Financial Times in July.
However regulation moves forward, the PCC in its current form is no longer credible. One reccurring theme is that Northern & Shell (owner of the Daily Express amongst other titles) don’t even belong to this arbitrator.
At these events, English PEN and Index on Censorship have outlined how not to do press regulation. Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN, has warned against imposing regulations that could constrain investigative journalism, echoing John Kampfner’s warning that the real problem is that the press find out too little rather than too much.
Heawood told the Labour meeting:
“In my five-year-old son’s language, writers of conscience around the world are the “goodies” and the News of the World journalists hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemail are the “baddies”. The problem is: in the real world, a lot of great journalism happens in the grey area between good and bad. Anyone who thinks that we need tougher media laws in this country should realise how desperately constrained investigative journalists are already.”
Through the Libel Reform Campaign alongside Sense About Science, we have campaigned effectively for a stronger public interest defence as the existing defence in libel has not been of practical use for authors, scientists, NGOs, and citizen journalists. It’s also been pointed out that internationally, states will be watching how Britain approaches press regulation. Any impediments to free expression imposed here will make it easier for despots abroad to justify their actions, as China did when David Cameron floated the idea of banning social media during disturbances.
Public confidence in the press has been shaken. It won’t be restored by ill-considered proposals from politicians. As the Leveson inquiry begins, the focus for reform must be clearer.
You can sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition here (http://libelreform.org/sign)
21 Apr 11 | Uncategorized
This article first appeared in the Guardian
Two cheers for Ed Miliband. In calling for an independent review of the way newspapers behave he is taking a big political risk, opening the door to concerted hostility from media magnates. He also happens to be right on the principle that freedom of expression and holding truth to power are not synonymous with dodgy journalistic practice. He might deserve a third cheer if it were not for the brazen opportunism he and his party are showing by taking on Rupert Murdoch only now that the love is lost.
Before the caveats and the cavilling, credit should be given where it is due. Miliband is seeking to take on the good work carried out two years ago by the cross-party Commons select committee on culture, media and sport. When the MPs issued their report they correctly identified and separated out three related strands: the need for libel reform; issues of privacy; and press standards.
Their inquiry looked at the media in the round, but also at some egregious cases of abuse. This included the hounding of Gerry and Kate McCann, and the bugging of telephones of politicians and celebrities by the News of the World – which News Corporation is only now, drip by drip, beginning to admit.
The MPs made a point that should be blindingly obvious to the media profession – that legitimate investigation is vital to keeping checks on the powerful, but that intrusion into people’s lives, particularly through subterfuge, is not.
Seen from one level, the British media are forced to operate under considerable constraint. Until now England and Wales have been global pariahs, sporting some of the most restrictive libel laws in the developed world. It is a tribute to all political parties, but mostly the coalition, that the Libel Reform Campaign led by Index on Censorship and its partners has produced draft legislation that goes some way to removing the chill on free expression and investigative journalism. Sure, the bill is not perfect, but the great should not be the enemy of the good. After all, this is the first serious attempt in 70 years to tackle the problem.
Privacy is the thorniest problem. Hypocrisy should be exposed. What about the celebrity who parades their private life in choreographed photoshoots for glossy magazines but then wishes to hide from public view when things go awry? That is a moot point. Assuming you are a public figure but you make no pronouncements on lifestyles or ethics and you do not parade your life in the glare of the cameras, surely you are entitled to privacy? You are, thanks to the Human Rights Act. But as ever, our suspicious judges are interpreting the legislation in a manner hostile to a free media.
Ranged against the long lens is the epidemic of the super-injunction. The master of the rolls (the second most senior judge in England and Wales) is due to report on an issue that serves as a perfect example of rich man’s justice. The very idea that the media should be gagged and that the public is prevented from knowing that such an order exists is more in keeping with a dictatorship.
This brings us back to media standards. One of the biggest hindrances to strong investigation is cost. Editors and the bean counters who oversee them are reluctant to invest in long-term projects that might prove fruitless. The democratic deficit in the demise of investigative journalism is immense. But gossip, spleen and prurience are no substitute, and no remedy for budget cuts and falling sales.
As for dodgy practice, this is where taste meets the law meets expediency. Chequebook journalism? Secret recordings? Fine, one might think, if properly authorised and if in the public interest. Where should the line be drawn?
To take a few famous recent examples: the Telegraph’s use of young and attractive female reporters to trap Vince Cable into making indiscreet remarks about Murdoch and other public figures (dubious but compelling); the same publisher’s use of a stolen computer disc to reveal MPs’ expenses (now seen as triggering a clear-out of parliamentary sleaze); or the Guardian’s publication of unauthorised US state department data, otherwise known as the WikiLeaks affair or Cablegate. Everyone has their own view about the ethics behind these incidents and more.
The News of the World phone-hacking scandal is of a different order. Allegations of illegal practices are being investigated. Its pond might be considerably murkier, but nobody’s is entirely free of weed. Nobody has come out of the Screws affair well – least of all the police or the Press Complaints Commission. The commission has still to apologise for, or learn from, its supine approach to the affair. As the last hope for self-regulation, for keeping politicians and meddling judges away from the Fourth Estate, the PCC is under scrutiny as never before.
The commission gives frequent assurances that it really doesn’t work as a shop steward for the industry but as a protector of free speech and of fairness, accuracy and standards. Its appointment of three senior and respected figures to its board bodes well, but there is a long way to go.
Miliband, in his interview in the Guardian, said he had no grand plan for a review into print media – while making clear it should be fully independent of government “and from those involved in the day to day running of newspapers”. He added: “I think that would help the industry. There has to be a sense that the future is not going to be like that past. Wider lessons have to be learned.”
He is entirely correct but selective in drawing his conclusions. For more than a decade New Labour was slavish to the Murdoch empire, and initially too to the Daily Mail and Associated Newspapers. Tony Blair did everything – including flying around the world to an Australian island – to ingratiate himself with Rupert Murdoch. It was only after the empire had dumped Gordon Brown in favour of David Cameron that Labour ministers such as Peter Mandelson began to bleat about media cross-ownership and assorted injustices.
Would Miliband now be making these same noises if he had not been left out in the cold by the omnipotent Antipodean? Of course not, but that does not make him wrong. Free speech is not threatened by good practice. It is defended.
