Lord Justice Leveson has just released his report on press standards in the United Kingdom, and the fourth estate collectively held its breath while he announced that he would recommend a new independent, self-regulating body, recognised by governmental legislation, to oversee the practices of the press in the future.
It falls short of the press’s worst nightmare scenario of total state regulation but if anyone believes this is going to be taken lightly by the press… well they don’t know the press.
He stated that he believes completely in the freedom of the media and that state regulation was not an attractive nor advisable route and praised the work of the media generally who have made it their life’s work to expose injustice, educate and inform the public and comment on matters of public interest.
He added that journalists are a vital defender of democracy in our society and that this position while privileged and powerful also demands a level of responsibility which has not been upheld by large sections of the media.
He stated that the press, while holding other sections of society to account, had largely failed to do so when it came to themselves. He thus panned the record of the Press Complaints Commission, the current, voluntary, self-regulatory system for the printed press.
He also stated that press behaviour had been “outrageous” and that while there was no evidence of a Cameron/Murdoch deal, politicians had become far to close to the press over the last 30 years and had ignored public concerns, damaging the perception of public affairs in this country.
In terms of the hacking scandal, Lord Justice Leveson said that the press had “wreaked havoc” with the lives of members of the public and celebrities.
Initial reactions to the report have been mixed to positive, if a little tentative. Shami Chakrabarti, of civil liberties group, Liberty, called the principle of the report “ingenious”, praising the fact it stops short of statutory regulation and allows the press to create a robust self-regulatory system and a robust club for its elite which was backed by legal incentives to secure against back-sliding and loophole jumping.
However, certain sections of the media have been more cautious particularly in relation to one of the more controversial suggestions of the report, suggesting Ofcom, which currently regulates television and radio broadcasts, should have a role in the regulation of the printed press.
Chris Blackhurst, the editor of The Independent told the BBC: “Quite a lot of newspapers haven’t done anything at all, mine being one of them, and we do feel very sore about that. It is only a few and because of the bad behaviour of the few the rest of us will have to suffer.”
Members of the public have also taken to twitter and e-mailed the BBC to express their views with many saying the report does not go far enough.
Sasha, Rainham, Kent, UK told the BBC: “Some people are saying a free press is a democratic right, and necessary to keep politicians in check. I’d beg to differ and say a free and responsible press is needed. There needs to be some consequence for the powerful media when they over-step their boundaries.”
So, as someone who counts himself as journalist, if a currently unemployed one, and someone who sees his future career in a post-Leveson media environment, what do I think of his findings?
Personally, and I only cautiously say this, I think Lord Justice Leveson has hit the right note. While criticising the actions of a section of the media that has brought the entire industry into disrepute, he has given a clear statement, if with some room for manoeuvring, of where he believes the line should be drawn between forcing the media to buck up its act and clamping down on press freedoms.
The PCC has long been a joke within the media, a dragon with no teeth as it were, and as such, certain sections within the media, not least the Murdoch press, have taken it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner not just in terms of the lives of celebrities but also with political scandals and crime stories.
This undermines what I believe should be the true calling of a journalist. To act as a regulator for the entire democratic and social process, to make the system transparent, to expose wrong doing and misinformation, and to educate, inform and entertain the public.
It is vitally important to have a free press which is confident that it can do its job without unfair retribution from the state or the public.
However, a media with no standards has no right to call itself a free press, it is a rogue press, and that should be a terrifying prospect to anyone in greater society, including journalists.
The actions of many within the British media, particularly within the tabloid press, have damaged the profession and the institution considerably and it is clear that while we may not have quite reached a state of “rogue press”, we have had a fourth estate which has at least partially lost touch with its founding principles, and as such has undermined its own legitimacy and ability to assert itself as a positive democratic force.Having a free press does not mean you allow journalists to say and do whatever they want.
The press has to be seen as a clean and incorruptible cog in the machinery of state, if it is not it begins to crumble and has the ability to bring down the legitimacy of the whole democratic process.
While I agree with many of the journalists, and commentators that there are holes in what Lord Justice Leveson has said, for example, in practice how much influence would the government really be able to wield over a body which is propped up by legislation passed by that government? I do think that what his reported makes sense, if only to attempt to restore some faith in the British media.
Tags: BBC,
British,
Celebrities,
Chris Blackhurst,
Comment,
culture,
Democratic,
hacking scandal,
inquiry,
Journalism,
Justice Lord,
Leveson,
Liberty,
media standards,
Milly Dowler,
Murdoch Empire,
News Associates,
Ofcom,
Owen Jack Williams,
PCC,
Political Scandal,
Press Complaints Commission,
reaction,
report,
review,
Sasha Rainham,
self-regulation,
Shami Chakrabarti,
the fourth estate,
The Independent,
the press
Owen Jack Williams 
The Leveson Report: The Views of an Unemployed Journalist
Lord Justice Leveson has just released his report on press standards in the United Kingdom, and the fourth estate collectively held its breath while he announced that he would recommend a new independent, self-regulating body, recognised by governmental legislation, to oversee the practices of the press in the future.
It falls short of the press’s worst nightmare scenario of total state regulation but if anyone believes this is going to be taken lightly by the press… well they don’t know the press.
He stated that he believes completely in the freedom of the media and that state regulation was not an attractive nor advisable route and praised the work of the media generally who have made it their life’s work to expose injustice, educate and inform the public and comment on matters of public interest.
He added that journalists are a vital defender of democracy in our society and that this position while privileged and powerful also demands a level of responsibility which has not been upheld by large sections of the media.
He stated that the press, while holding other sections of society to account, had largely failed to do so when it came to themselves. He thus panned the record of the Press Complaints Commission, the current, voluntary, self-regulatory system for the printed press.
He also stated that press behaviour had been “outrageous” and that while there was no evidence of a Cameron/Murdoch deal, politicians had become far to close to the press over the last 30 years and had ignored public concerns, damaging the perception of public affairs in this country.
In terms of the hacking scandal, Lord Justice Leveson said that the press had “wreaked havoc” with the lives of members of the public and celebrities.
Initial reactions to the report have been mixed to positive, if a little tentative. Shami Chakrabarti, of civil liberties group, Liberty, called the principle of the report “ingenious”, praising the fact it stops short of statutory regulation and allows the press to create a robust self-regulatory system and a robust club for its elite which was backed by legal incentives to secure against back-sliding and loophole jumping.
However, certain sections of the media have been more cautious particularly in relation to one of the more controversial suggestions of the report, suggesting Ofcom, which currently regulates television and radio broadcasts, should have a role in the regulation of the printed press.
Chris Blackhurst, the editor of The Independent told the BBC: “Quite a lot of newspapers haven’t done anything at all, mine being one of them, and we do feel very sore about that. It is only a few and because of the bad behaviour of the few the rest of us will have to suffer.”
Members of the public have also taken to twitter and e-mailed the BBC to express their views with many saying the report does not go far enough.
Sasha, Rainham, Kent, UK told the BBC: “Some people are saying a free press is a democratic right, and necessary to keep politicians in check. I’d beg to differ and say a free and responsible press is needed. There needs to be some consequence for the powerful media when they over-step their boundaries.”
So, as someone who counts himself as journalist, if a currently unemployed one, and someone who sees his future career in a post-Leveson media environment, what do I think of his findings?
Personally, and I only cautiously say this, I think Lord Justice Leveson has hit the right note. While criticising the actions of a section of the media that has brought the entire industry into disrepute, he has given a clear statement, if with some room for manoeuvring, of where he believes the line should be drawn between forcing the media to buck up its act and clamping down on press freedoms.
The PCC has long been a joke within the media, a dragon with no teeth as it were, and as such, certain sections within the media, not least the Murdoch press, have taken it upon themselves to act as judge, jury and executioner not just in terms of the lives of celebrities but also with political scandals and crime stories.
This undermines what I believe should be the true calling of a journalist. To act as a regulator for the entire democratic and social process, to make the system transparent, to expose wrong doing and misinformation, and to educate, inform and entertain the public.
It is vitally important to have a free press which is confident that it can do its job without unfair retribution from the state or the public.
However, a media with no standards has no right to call itself a free press, it is a rogue press, and that should be a terrifying prospect to anyone in greater society, including journalists.
The actions of many within the British media, particularly within the tabloid press, have damaged the profession and the institution considerably and it is clear that while we may not have quite reached a state of “rogue press”, we have had a fourth estate which has at least partially lost touch with its founding principles, and as such has undermined its own legitimacy and ability to assert itself as a positive democratic force.Having a free press does not mean you allow journalists to say and do whatever they want.
The press has to be seen as a clean and incorruptible cog in the machinery of state, if it is not it begins to crumble and has the ability to bring down the legitimacy of the whole democratic process.
While I agree with many of the journalists, and commentators that there are holes in what Lord Justice Leveson has said, for example, in practice how much influence would the government really be able to wield over a body which is propped up by legislation passed by that government? I do think that what his reported makes sense, if only to attempt to restore some faith in the British media.
Share this:
Related