PRIME MINISTER David Cameron faced accusations of betrayal yesterday after he rejected Lord Justice Leveson's call to set up a press regulation body underpinned by law.
Lord Leveson wrote in his report that the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades. He also described some of the behaviour of the Fourth Estate as "outrageous".
"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist," the judge added.
However, Mr Cameron, speaking in the Commons shortly after the 2400-page document was published, said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" over bringing in laws to underpin any new body.
The Conservative leader added: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."
Unsurprisingly, that has not gone down too well with Hacked Off, the campaign which represents all victims of press intrusion, both the rich and famous as well as ordinary members of the public.
Actor Steve Coogan was one of the first to speak out. "By rejecting Leveson's call for statutory regulation, [Mr] Cameron has hung the victims of crime out to dry," he said.
"He has passed on the opportunity to make history. He has revealed there isn't an ounce of substance in his body, that he has one eye on courting the press for elections in years to come, and doesn't know the meaning of conviction."
Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine, and Christopher Jefferies - who was subjected to all sorts of lurid and untrue allegations about the murder of his tenant Jo Yeates - have refused in protest to meet with Culture Secretary Maria Miller.
And the stand-off leaves the ball, as Lord Leveson himself, said in the Prime Minister's court. The only problem is that Mr Cameron does not seem keen to play.
That position very much put him at odds with his coalition partner. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg revealed himself to be perhaps the least liberal Liberal leader in history by fully backing the recommendations.
Meanwhile, Labour leader Ed Miliband eyed the latest bandwagon to jump on by taking the same stance.
For, while it is ultimately difficult to tell Mr Cameron's exact motives, and it could all be to do with elections, Mr Coogan and the others might just be wrong on this one.
After all, the Prime Minister is hardly making a populist move, on the face of it.
Yougov polling for the Media Standards Trust shows that 79% of the public agree with the statement: "There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct."
However, the situation is not quite as clear as that. Another poll by the firm for The Sun newspaper found that only 24% of people agreed that there should be "a regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs".
Against that, 42% think that the body should be "set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners".
Peter Kellner, head of Yougov, explained this apparent contradiction by the framing of the two questions: "In short, we don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom of speech. But neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of regulation."
Kellner added: "Ideally, we would like a new law to force the media to behave better – but don’t want MPs making that law.
"The trouble with that, of course, is that law-making is the central function of MPs. More than anything else, that is what we elect them to do."
Meanwhile, even Lord Leveson has said that “press freedom in Britain, hard won over 300 years ago” should not be jeopardised, and that all of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time".
But, quite how the judge squares those sentiments with the need for new legislation remains unclear.
The simple fact is that existing laws dealing with phone-hacking, libel, harassment, and invasion of privacy were not enforced.
Of course, in many cases, completely appropriate existing law has been implemented. Just this week, former News International boss Rebekah Brooks and ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson appeared in court accused of making payments to public officials for information.
They, and others formerly in News International, have also been charged with phone hacking.
Additionally, Mr Coogan, Mr Jefferies, the McCanns and many others have all been successful in libel suits against the press.
Understandably, victory in the courts rarely fully compensates the initial feeling of mistreatment by the press. It does, however, show that there is already a procedure in place to keep the press in check.
Even the broadcast media, which is independently regulated by Ofcom and the BBC Trust, slips up from time to time, as recent events have shown.
The fact remains that there will always be some downright nasty people, and therefore some downright nasty journalists, willing to push the boundaries too far.
It is a shame that the industry seems to attract more than a proportional share of those sorts but the vast majority are good eggs including almost all of them in the local press which is seldom in trouble.
Moreover, it must be pointed out that not all the figures in the media opposing statutory regulation are exactly Mr Cameron fans.
Private Eye editor Ian Hislop spends most of his lifetime mocking the Prime Minister but wonders, like myself, why we cannot just enforce the laws we "already have against phone hacking, harassment, libel, bribery etc".
Of course, ultimately, it may be the case that MPs from Labour, the Lib Dems, the Scottish Nationalists, and some Tories, will begin the legislative process by winning a vote, expected to be held at the end of January.
Even if the vote were non-binding, Mr Cameron would then be under extreme pressure not to set the wheels in motion for the introduction of statutory regulation.
Now, another law on the statute book would be a blow for the free press of this country and investigative journalism, in particular.
Nevertheless, the effect has already been exaggerated in some quarters - after all, we would hardly be living in North Korea.
Frankly, though, it is hard to see the new law being anything other than a law which asks for other existing laws already to be enforced.
In other words - just like the 16-month-long, £5m Leveson Inquiry, it will probably be a bit of a waste of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment