The big story in Britian’s media this week has been the publication of the Leveson Report into the press. This comes from Lord Justice Leveson’s extensive inquiries into abuses perpetrated by Britain’s newspapers. The newspapers, of course, have been anxious to get their answer in, starting days before the report was actually published. But bloggers have been diving in as well. I have neither read the report, nor all this commentary in detail. But stepping back, I find something rather striking. Mostly the arguments are made on grounds of high principle. If only life were that easy.
Critics focus on the report’s recommendation that a new regulatory regime for the press should have “statutory underpinning”. This is taken to mean state regulation, and even state licensing of news publications. And this in turn runs against the sacred principle of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So supporters of the report’s recommendations are attacking a free press. This argument is pushed by the usual suspects in the press itself. But not just them. There is Lib Dem blogger Stephen Tall, for example, supported by the Facebook site Vote Clegg Get Clegg.
Most Lib Dems, though, support their leader Nick Clegg’s backing of the report. For them the sacred liberal principle is the protection of the weak against the unaccountable power of the press. Pres self-regulation has been tried so many times and found wanting that something stronger is required, they say. “Do it for Milly Dowler,” they say referring to one of the most egregious episodes of press abuse. They think the promise by newspapers that this time it will different is just a cynical ploy, so that they drift back to their old ways when the dust settles. They have form after all.
I was planning to take sides in this debate – and in support of the report’s full recommendations. Most of the arguments against are pretty specious. I don’t think freedom of the press is being attacked in any meaningful way. The accountability of the press to its readers, who may always refuse to buy newspapers, doesn’t work either. Unfortunately the readers are part of the problem. And the idea that we shouldn’t attempt to regulate the press because the scheme ignores the internet is a classic red herring. Behind this lies my intense dislike of the baleful influence of many newspaper publishers on political debate, to say nothing of the cynical disregard they have members for the public.
The fact is that running a liberal society is a balancing act, much though we like to think of it as being the upholding of high principle. Freedom leads to abuse: people will always try to use it for the purposes of harming others. There have to be laws and regulations to limit the damage – but it is rarely clear exactly where the line should be drawn. But it is clear that we all have to put up with a certain amount of abuse if the regulatory framework is to do more good than harm.
This is painful. I find this especially so in the case of politics. The British press consistently puts about lies and half-truths in order to further their sponsors’ own political agendas – or simply because it encourages people to buy papers. This overwhelmingly favours political conservatives. But there really isn’t much that can be done about this. Regulation of broadcast media is quite successful – but the press is quite a different matter. Regulation, if we have it, must focus on the rights and privacy of ordinary members of the public – and not politics.
It follows that any regulatory solution has to be a messy compromise, whose effectiveness turns on tiresome details. Trying to derive your views by basing them on high principles doesn’t work. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, opposes the “statutory underpinning”. This is no doubt a political calculation, as the Conservative Party depends heavily on the press to do a lot of its dirty work – the sort of negative campaigning that would be done by paid advertising in the US. But one point he made did strike a chord. He said that any law to implement the recommendations would be highly complicated, and probably not worth the trouble.
He may be right. The power of the press is fading. Newspaper circulations are falling. Old fashioned press barons are slowly being replaced by faceless, calculating corporate types. People rely on newspapers less and less. They are being replaced by a combination of broadcast media and internet outlets. That brings its own problems. No doubt the press’s behaviour has helped to hasten its demise. What is good for short term sales can damage long term results, like sliced bread or lager.
That’s probably for the best. But please, liberals, don’t pretend that this debate is all about sacred principles.
Interesting and informative as ever. Thanks!
“Freedom leads to abuse: people will always try to use it for the purposes of harming others.” – I can’t agree with this. Very few people are interested in harming others. Many people, on the other hand, are prepared to go over dead bodies to further their own interests. This may seem to be a moot point, but I believe the answer to the question of why the players do what they do is very important to the solution.
While a newspaper owner has a great deal to gain from putting forward a particular political message, then he will manage it, even if there is regulation in place to stop him.
To name a pie in the sky, I would like a ‘state’ newspaper (free access on internet?), where the editor is elected by the people. That makes more sense to me than electing police commissioners.