-1.svg "Close Icon (3)-1")
.svg "Close Icon (3)")
- Share
-
As financial services communication specialists, we may seem a long way from the phone hacking and other scandals associated with the Leveson inquiry. We’ve nonetheless been keeping a weather eye on events in the UK as broadly symptomatic of the general environment of change, uncertainty and yes, mistrust, that’s currently affecting traditional media both here and abroad. As we’re increasingly understanding, in a global world, ‘everything is connected’. Here’s our fast take on the tabling of Lord Leveson’s much awaited report.
“The press is a critical witness to events, a guardian of the public interest and a standard bearer for those who have no one else to speak up for them. Nothing in the evidence has changed this view.”
These were the opening words of UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, when he addressed Parliament with a statement on the findings of the Leveson inquiry into the media.
On the other side of the world, Justice Finkelstein stated in his report to the Australian Government that “a free press plays an essential role in a democratic society, and no regulation should endanger that role”.
Needless to say, both also acknowledged that with power comes responsibility, with Justice Finkelstein saying that “a free press should be publicly accountable for its performance”.
Mr Cameron went on to say that despite “serious and uncorrected failures ranging from the criminal to the indefensibly unethical”, there was no reason to conclude that press freedom should be jeopardised. It should not.
He also said that he knows of no profession where the serious failings of a few were overlooked because of the good done by the many.
In other words, something has to be done about the ‘serious failings of the few’ without dismantling the whole system or hindering the ‘good of the many’.
It seems we all agree that a free press is essential to a vibrant and functioning democracy. The difficulty comes, as is so often the case, when we look at the power it wields. David Cameron described it perfectly when he said that in a free democracy, a crucial role of the press is to hold power to account, but in the UK, in all too many cases, the press has not performed that vital role in relation to its own power.
Of course, the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse, and it seems that it is the unchecked nature of the power of the press that has given rise to the now notorious abuses.
So the big question becomes how best to control the power, without curbing the freedom. As Justice Finkelstein so aptly put it, while there may be an overall consensus about the press being accountable, there is ‘less consensus about how this accountability should be enforced.”
It’s a tricky one.
In the end, both enquiries came up with a similar solution. An independent self-regulation body was the answer, although in the UK, Lord Leveson went one step further, recommending legislation to provide for an independent process and to recognise the self-regulatory body and its powers.
It was at this point that opinion became divided, with many of the victims calling for the legislation as recommended, but Mr Cameron, who had previously said that he would implement the Leveson recommendations unless they were ‘bonkers’, described the enshrining into law of the press regulation as ‘crossing the Rubicon’.
He was, however, quick to accept the principles of Lord Leveson’s recommendations, saying that the status quo was not an option and calling on the press to implement the changes recommended quickly.
What he didn’t like was the potential changes to the Data Protection Act to reduce the special treatment that the press currently enjoys, as he said these made him instinctively concerned about the effect on investigative journalism and the capacity of investigative journalists to do their important work.
With respect to enshrining press regulation in law, he expressed concerns on three levels :
- the principle (that writing into law press regulation had the capacity to muzzle free speech0,
- the necessity (that options other than legislation were possible and preferable) ; and
- the practicality (not only could what appears at first glance to be simple legislation end up more complex than expected, but the possibility of future politicians amending the legislation to further their own ends needed to be considered).
Comparisons may have been made, but the truth is that the questionable activities of the press in Australia have been far less dramatic, (and generally not criminal), in the way their UK counterpart has been.
Concerns from various quarters about the open push for regime change by News Limited publications notwithstanding, phone hacking and wreaking havoc on the lives of innocent people certainly hasn’t been seen to the same extent. So do we really need more regulation? What about the laws that already cover illegal acts, like phone hacking, regardless of who does it. Are these laws protection enough?
In the end, until all or some of the recommendations are implemented in both countries, it is difficult to know if they will change the status quo as significantly as is hoped, at least in the UK.
I guess we will all just have to wait and see.
