Commentary by Felix Denton
Lord Justice Leveson has released his long-awaited report on ‘the culture, practices and ethics of the press’. As anticipated, Leveson’s judgement is that regulation of the press must be underpinned by statute, in order for it to be effective. But he maintains that statutory underpinning is entirely separate from state control. Introducing his report on Friday 30th November, Lord Leveson was insistent on this point: ‘Despite what will be said about these recommendations by those who oppose them, this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press.’
Well, for a liberal lefty journalism student the following words are hard to say, but I agree with David Cameron when he advises caution on this point. Yes, what the News of the World did (and let’s face it, many other UK newspapers were doing much the same), was wrong and immoral; and you could well claim that this sort of journalism ‘wreaked havoc’ on people’s lives. But we do already have tough rules against it, in the form of the criminal law. Phone hacking is already illegal, so outlawing it under the terms of a new regulatory regime, would be superfluous. On the other hand, Cameron is right to say that any kind of statute for regulating the press, would amount to a Rubicon (he’s referring to the river which Julius Caesar crossed when he decided to take power in Rome); it would mark a decisive break in 300 years of journalism history. Moreover, ‘statutory underpinning’ could easily pave the way for further legislation, creating a slippery slope (excuse the mixed metaphors) in which one round of regulation only leads to more of the same. Can you think of any instances in which government legislation has not prompted further legislation in the same area? Once there is a statute underpinning the regulation of the press, chances are there would soon be further legislation to underpin the underpinning, with the distinction between ‘statutory underpinning’ and ‘state regulation’ swallowed up along the way.
But if there were statutory underpinning of journalism in the public interest, perhaps journalism would be better equipped to defend itself against the vagaries of English libel law? Currently, what’s known as the Reynolds Defence – that the story, even if flawed, is nonetheless in the public interest – is rarely upheld in the libel courts. In this context, there is an argument that statutory underpinning would put ‘public interest’ on a surer footing, because the same regulatory regime that outlaws journalism not in the public interest, would also serve to confirm ‘public interest’ as the definitive criterion of what constitutes legitimate journalism. Pardon me for sounding cynical (I am a student journalist, after all), but I ain’t buying. Since when did journalism ever gain protection from the law, or the politicians who make it? Far more likely, that, if Leveson’s recommendations are implemented, journalism will end up being squeezed from both sides – continuing pressure from libel lawyers, and a novel set of pinch points originating from the new regulatory regime.
Professional journalism is already in danger of being sidelined, now that more people are getting all the news that fits their personal interests from blogs and Twitter. The last thing we need is for it to be hobbled by the likes of Leveson. As a student journalist seeking to enter an already shrinking jobs market, I find his findings extremely worrying.