|
|
Issue 284, Friday 28 December 2012 - 14 Safar 1434 Press can no longer be a law to itself No profession likes outside intervention, especially from government. The press is no exception with other professions fighting governmental intervention including bankers, doctors, teachers and other institutions, including the police and judiciary. Even politicians themselves are opposed to any form of external regulation and at times, seem to be above the law. The Leveson Inquiry was set up by Prime Minister, David Cameron, to examine the culture, practice and ethics of the press in the wake of the hacking scandal. It also looked at what many see as the unhealthly relationships between the press and the police and the press and politicians. The primary aims of the Commission, therefore, unfortunately seem to have been overshadowed by one of Leveson’s recommendations: to have a genuinely independent and effective system of self regulation of print media. The press is particularly important as it is one of the pillars of a thriving democracy. What is at issue, however, is how the press is regulated, by whom and in which way this can its independence from Government be ensured. This problem is far from new. It is the seventh time in 70 years that various governments have commissioned reform. In 1991, former Culture Secretary, David Mellor, warned the press was “drinking in the last-chance saloon.” The then current system under the Press Council was deemed to be manifestly failing and was replaced by the Press Complaints Commission, which everyone recognises as equally toothless. Despite the warning more than 20 years ago, divisions remain. In one corner is Cameron siding with the press, and in the other corner are Labour, the Liberal Democrats and indeed some Conservative MPs supporting Leveson on the need for an independent self-regulatory body underpinned by legislation. The argument proposed once more is that putting laws on the statutory books could be a slippery slope that will affect press freedom and may lead to the Government controlling the industry like in many other developing countries, hindering efforts to encourage press freedom around the world. The proposed legislation by the Leveson Inquiry would for the first time make it a legal duty for the Government to protect freedom of the press, provide an independent process to recognise the new self regulatory body, reassure the public that basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were being met by Ofcom, which he proposed, to oversee it and validate its standards code and arbitration system. As an alternative, the Prime Minister has been finalising a plan drawn up by Cabinet Office Minister, Oliver Letwin, for a new press regulator, enshrined in a Royal Charter that will see a group of heavyweight public figures – such as eminent academics – with no links to newspaper publishers given the job of overseeing the new regulatory body. It is a strange compromise to resort to an archaic mechanism dating back to before the constitutional monarchy and regular sittings of parliament, similar to systems of regulation set up for the BBC and Bank of England. It seems to risk more not less political interference and has coincided with the untimely resignation of the Times Editor, James Harding, who led press talks with Cameron. However, the Leveson Inquiry fails in some respects. For example, apart from whitewashing relations with police and politicians, Leveson fails to deal properly with the ownership of the press and the need for plurality. If there is no influence on Government policies, as he claims, what about the concurrence of the Murdoch groups of newspapers supporting the change of Government in 1997 and again in 2010 as well as giving resounding backing for the Iraq war. Despite all the fine language in the Report about the need for future transparency, it appears editors are seeking another backroom deal similar to Margaret Thatcher’s participation in breaking competition rules in 1981 that gave News International such sway over British public life. Leveson is commendable in its appraisal of the press’s reporting on minorities, refugees and asylum seekers. “The press can have significant influence over community relations and the way in which parts of society perceive other parts. While newspapers are entitled to express strong views on minority issues, immigration and asylum, it is important that stories on those issues are accurate, and are not calculated to exacerbate community divisions or increase resentment. Although the majority of the press appear to discharge this responsibility with care, there are enough examples of careless or reckless reporting to conclude that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities, immigrants and/or asylum seekers is a feature of journalistic practice in parts of the press, rather than an aberration,” the report said. However, there was no diversity when Cameron summoned only the mainstream newspapers for talks with the press and proposals put forward by the editors of all major newspapers are inadequate and dismiss key areas of concern to the Muslim community. At their meeting, editors also remained opposed to third party complaints that will affect Muslims the most, as well as amendments to the Code of Practice, which would equip that the regulator with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting, and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation. The press only wants third party complaints to be allowed at discretion of Complaints Committee and where there is “substantial public interest”. This is in the face of Leveson calling for the new regulator to “address these issues as a matter of priority, the first steps being to amend practice and the Code to permit third party complaints.” One of the inadequacies of the PCC Editors’ Code of Practice is in dealing with complaints surrounding inflammatory, discriminatory and inaccurate reporting on Islam and Muslims. The inclusion of a ‘third party’ discrimination clause to correct this failing would be a significant step in providing an avenue for the redress of grievances created by irresponsible reporting which impact on the Muslim community as a whole. However, the editors meeting to draft the new Code of Practice have refused to include this once again. As in the past, the press has only itself to blame for its serial misconduct and reckless crimes of phone hacking, computer intrusion, harassment, spying and bullying, that is chilling to read. If a new regulator is to command public confidence it is imperative that it is truly independent - even if this requires some form of statutory underpinning. Like politicians and the police, newspapers must be seen not to be above the law but the system needs to be inclusive and transparent. And they have to ensure the inclusion of a ‘third party’ discrimination clause. The time has passed that it can put its own house in order or hide behind another fudge. |