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)
28 Sep 11 | Leveson Inquiry
Index attended this morning’s hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in which Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers expressed concern that the six-strong panel in the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking lacks tabloid or regional newspaper experience.
Associated legal team argued that the panel, members of which Lord Justice Leveson stressed were appointed due to their expertise in a specific field, may be partial and “filter” their prejudices into judgments made throughout the inquiry. Leveson responded that the panel’s role is merely an advisory one, and that any conclusion of the inquiry “will be mine and mine alone”.
With the backing of Trinity Mirror, the Newspaper Publishers’ Association and Guardian News & Media, the publisher also argued that the panel should have more members, noting that the inquiry would “benefit from experts across the industry” that would “fill the gap” left by the lack of representation of mid-market or tabloid papers. A solicitor representing Associated said the omission of such bodies would be “unfortunate in such a major inquiry”.
Leveson’s six advisers are Sir David Bell, former chairman of the Financial Times; Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty; Lord David Currie, former chairman of Ofcom; Elinor Goodman, former political editor of Channel 4 News; George Jones, former political editor of the Daily Telegraph; and Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former chief constable of West Midlands police.
Leveson argued that the essence of the panel, as well as upcoming seminars attended by core participants and non-core participants alike, was to encourage debate and provide a balance of views. He stressed,
“I am very conscious that I am stepping into a profession that is not the one that I spent 40 years of life in. It is critical that I obtain advice from those who have made their life in this area, not least because I would be keen to understand any flaws that I might have because of lack of experience.”
He concluded he would reserve a ruling on the application to invite further assessors and would provide a decision in due course.
Index will be tweeting from throughout the inquiry at @IndexLeveson
16 Sep 11 | Magazine, News and features
As steps are taken to examine standards in British journalism, Index on Censorship looks back over 20 years, when politicians and the public were making very similar demands. David McKie’s 1990 account of public revulsion and political outrage shows just how little things have changed
(more…)
09 Sep 11 | Uncategorized
As he took soundings from lawyers earlier this week, Lord Justice Leveson served notice that he would run his inquiry into the hackgate scandal and media ethics very much on his own terms. With the odd put-down to barristers for sloppy briefs, Leveson set out the running order of his investigation and priorities. He will be nobody’s patsy.
The key players have already been dubbed in the corridors of the court either the “perps” (the alleged perpetrators) or the “victims”. Most of the narrative so far in the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee proceedings and in the broader public domain has clearly been able to delineate between the two.
Yet, as events over the past few days show, the deeper the tentacles of the law intervene, the more confused some are becoming about rights and wrongs. The Metropolitan police’s questioning under caution of Guardian reporter Amelia Hill is the most serious known case so far of an embattled force struggling to understand the terrain. They probably did it in their state of confusion, without thinking through the ramifications. Instances such as this should not be repeated.
It is perfectly within the rights of any company or organisation to discipline an employee if they leak information without authorisation – although it is equally for courts or tribunals to determine whether that action was in the public interest.
There is absolutely no authority, however, to impinge upon a journalist’s legitimate work — the garnering of sources and subsequent protection of them. Hill is not accused of paying anyone for information or doing anything underhand or immoral. She has no case to answer and should never have been questioned. It is good that not only did the NUJ spring to her defence — as would be expected of it — but also the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. While not mentioning the case directly, he told MPs: “We must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society”.
One of the challenges for Leveson is to ensure that whatever measures are proposed to tighten procedures in the wake of the phone hacking scandal do not impinge on much-needed investigative journalism. A strong media is a bedrock to a healthy democracy and, as I never tire of saying: Look back over the past decades and ask yourself, have journalists found out too much about the activities of those with power or too little?
With that in mind, Leveson will need to help the forces of law and order to separate out the Amelia Hills from the spivs and crooks in league with bent coppers.
