For Press Freedom There Is Only One Tune

Michael Hedges March 21, 2013 - Follow on Twitter

As a legal concept press freedom is meant to enshrine a separation between those who deliver news to the public and those who might impose limits. The purpose is to mind the principle of an informed public enabling democracy. Though inscribed in the grand conventions on human rights, not everybody agrees on the purpose.

Leaders of the main UK political parties reached agreement this week on a means to follow a legislative course set by a judicial inquiry into the ethical behavior of newspaper companies after public furor over revelations of alleged illegal activities by reporters and editors. The Leveson Inquiry revealed, as much as anything, the precarious balance between the public good and private interests as well as the raucous nature of the UK newspaper industry. Such is democracy.

The political solution to place the news media – largely newspaper publishers – under the watchful eye of a regulator empowered to punish the errant appeased, generally, those aggrieved by snooping reporters and editors. A press regulator, unlike the exhausted self-regulatory Press Complaints Commission, is to be “underpinned” by royal charter rather than a specific law mentioning either the new regulator or, even, the press and be voluntary, thus avoiding the appearance of creating a state licensing agency. But the new regulator would have the power to investigate and, if necessary, punish with fines and, horror of horrors, “directing” apologies.  Newspaper editors would not serve on committees investigating or adjudicating complaints. Publishers would have no veto over board member selection, which would be carried out through a civil service appointments committee. While voluntary in theory, those publishers not signing up to the new regulator could be subject to “exemplary damages” in civil litigation.

British politicians, one and all, declared victory and moved on to other weighty issues. Newspaper, magazine and online news publishers huddled with lawyers. About half – conspicuously including those under various investigations – groused about terms of the political deal and made noises about forming a self-regulator more to their liking, including one for local newspapers and another just for Scotland. It is, of course, money that matters.

Most publishers like doing what they’ve always done and getting what they’ve always got. The Leveson Inquiry was painful; the whines of celebrities, near-celebrities and other members of the aggrieved public just excruciating, being questioned under oath unbearable. And it was all live on television; hence a recent YouGov poll for the Sunday Times (March 15) showed virtually no consensus on regulating the press through law and whether or not such law would undermine press freedom. Those surveyed did, however, more strongly favor fines for errant newspapers and requiring corrections printed.

“When three political parties get together and their final verdict is welcomed so enthusiastically by (phone hacking victims organization) Hacked Off, which is definitely seeking to shackle and gag the free press,” tabloid associate editor Trevor Kavanagh is troubled,” quoted by The Guardian (March 18). “We simply do not want politicians to have control whatsoever in what goes in or doesn't go into newspapers.”

Inconveniently, a Sun deputy editor was charged (March 20) with “conspiring to commit misconduct in public office,” to wit paying public officials for information. The Sun is owned by News International, part of News Corporation, which shuttered sister tabloid News Of The World when the suspected number of phone hacking victims moved into the mid-hundreds. Associated Newspapers, News International, the Telegraph Media Group groused about “several deeply contentious issues which have not yet been resolved with the industry,” in a joint statement.

“Legislation, even in a simple clause, sets a worrying precedent,” observed the Financial Times, which seemed to join the Independent and the Guardian in at least tacit support of the deal. “Some newspapers opposed in principle to any form of statutory underpinning might be tempted to go their own way. They will balk at not being able to veto appointments to the new regulator. But for the body to be credible, the press cannot choose who sits on the board. The new regime is far from perfect, but the onus is now on making it work.”

Among media watchers experienced in the most egregious assaults on press freedom, the proposed new regulation scheme drew doubts. Index on Censorship, based in London, called it “a sad day for press freedom in the UK.”

“I still believe that self-regulation is the best way to deal with ethical lapses and failures to comply with professional standards,” said OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) media representative Dunja Mijatovic in a statement (March 18). “The phone-hacking scandal was a criminal issue and the people involved are being prosecuted. This should not be used as an excuse to rein in all print media.”

See also in ftm Knowledge

Press/Media Freedom - Challenges and Concerns

Press and media freedom worldwide is facing challenges from many corners. As authoritarian leaders impose strict control over traditional and new media with impunity, media watchers have concerns for democracy. This ftm Knowledge file accounts the troubles of this difficult decade. 88 pages. PDF (December 2011)

Order here