Leveson: Was It Worth It?

It may have been the most eagerly anticipated public inquiry report since Hutton beheaded the BBC, but in the end the publication of Lord Justice Leveson’s verdict on the state of the British press – and what to do about it – brought few surprises and little certainty about what happens next. But you wouldn’t have thought it, judging by the response from those in the crossfire.

Almost every major British newspaper today united in rejection, even condemnation, of Lord Leveson’s conviction that creating a structure that can be relied upon to deliver firm and fair regulation of the print media industry requires legislation that initiates and underpins it.

Only the Guardian – the paper that did most to expose the appalling culture and practices at the News of the World, revelations that marked the issue’s arrival on the front pages – broke ranks, declaring that “the press should treat [the report] with respect and… humility”.

This aside, the broad support of newspapers across the political and ownership spectrum will – worryingly – give the Prime Minister great confidence in adopting a position that is in fact verging on a betrayal of those whose side he appeared to be on when he commissioned the inquiry and pledged to honour its recommendations.

Leveson may – at David Cameron’s behest – have spent several months overseeing countless interviews with interested parties from all sides of the debate and writing a 2,000-page report, but it seems the Conservative leader had already made his own mind up about what was an acceptable course of action when it comes to keeping tabs on the press.

True, the judge’s vision of a regulatory body independent of Parliament yet established by it is somewhat confused, and he can have no-one to blame but himself for how little heed has been paid to his assertion that this “is not and cannot be characterised as” state regulation.

But the exaggerations and caricatures of where this supposed precedent could lead are frankly ridiculous, and advocated out of nothing more than self-interest and desperation among editors who fear the removal of more of the power and influence they wield, in addition to the dilution already being delivered by dwindling circulation.

The last several years has shown only too starkly the extent to which newspaper owners cannot be trusted to govern themselves in a meaningful, accountable way. Previous watchdogs have been consistently and systematically deconstructed and undermined to a point where the public can have no faith in the industry’s ability to retain its essential integrity.

Something has to change, and if it takes Parliament to lay down the law about how any such body should be structured, constituted and operated – as Leveson has argued – so be it.

Having said that, there is one major area that Leveson has utterly failed to address in his report, much to the disappointment of the Sage; it is the role of the unregulated internet, in particular social media.

Although he acknowledges that sites like Twitter may display “information that would not be able to be published by a newspaper in conformity with… self-regulation”, he utterly fails to address the extent to which this renders any constraints on print media futile; Lord McAlpine, among others, would testify to that.

In an historic moment yesterday, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister demonstrated, at the despatch box, their very different views on how Lord Justice Leveson’s findings should be followed up; it emerged last night that steps are being taken in Whitehall to draw up a draft bill, but this seems more likely to be an exercise in spitefulness – demonstrating the practical challenges in legislating for the ungovernable – than the dutiful following of one man’s orders.

Leveson has staked his position; the papers are ranged against him, and the politicians have each shown their hand. After all the fuss, the arguments will rage on and on.