but I still believe Press freedom is vital for democracy
As Lord Justice Leveson reports this Thursday the findings of his exhaustive inquiry, it may be thought that given my own experiences, I would be in favour of draconian statutory Press regulation.
After all, eight years ago my family and I not only experienced illegal hacking but constant intrusion and surveillance. Only through tenacity and the use of the law was I able to put the record straight.
But despite my own harrowing experience, I cannot join the chorus of outrage demanding tougher state controls, for we should be extremely cautious [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] about any extension of political power over the Press.
Eight years ago, David Blunkett’s family experienced illegal hacking and constant intrusion and surveillance yet he still believed in freedom of the Press
Of course the newspapers can sometimes get it wrong or indulge [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] in nasty, even criminal, practices, but we have to recognise that freedom of the Press is one of the true bulwarks of democracy. It is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes always seek to curb the influence of the Press once they gain power. And there is no doubt that we in Britain are lucky to have some of the most noisy, rumbustious and irreverent national newspapers in the world, ensuring that neither politicians nor business tycoons, and nor for that matter, celebrities, can ever become complacent.
This is not to say that the Press should not clean up its act. It is clear that the current system of self regulation, led by the Press Complaints Commission, is perceived by many to be toothless, not least because some newspaper groups refuse to come under the jurisdiction of the PCC, while the Commission itself lacks independence. When my ordeal was at its worst in 2024, I found the organisation totally inadequate, even though individual staff were always thoughtful and helpful.
The PCC’s flaws were demonstrated most graphically by its failure to deal with the most recent scandals of hacking and corruption, and it was only public fury that compelled Rupert Murdoch to take the drastic step of closing down the News of the World.
It was this tidal wave of public anger which forced the Government in July 2024 to establish the inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson into the ethical standards and culture of the Press. But over the lengthy proceedings and interminable parade of celebrity witnesses, I have developed serious concerns about the nature of the inquiry. For a start, it seems to me that a lot of attention has been given to matters that are already the subject of criminal proceedings, which shows we already have laws in place that can challenge extreme abuses by journalists. Indeed, I myself am due to be called as a witness in the forthcoming News of the World criminal trial.
I further gained the impression that much of the ground covered by Leveson related to the past and was already known to the public. There was endless, often repetitive raking over of history, with some participants all too obviously eager to settle old scores. Just as worryingly, there was little [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] sense of how journalism operates in a ferociously competitive environment of tight deadlines and 24 hour news.
An undue emphasis was given to questioning about procedures, management hierarchies, and reporting lines. Even their fiercest critics have to recognise that newspapers are not like other corporate organisations.
But perhaps the greatest weakness of the inquiry was that it focused on the wrong target. All its deliberations were concentrated on newspapers, and it almost completely ignored what is euphemistically called ‘the new media’, made up of blogging, Twitter, the internet, Facebook and ****ing.
The Leveson Inquiry failed [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] to address the vital point that those who operate in this unregulated world can display a reckless, occasionally sadistic, indifference to the damage that might be done to people and their families.
Yet, as demonstrated by the recent scandal of the wholly ***** paedophile allegations made against Lord McAlpine [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] whose name was openly circulated on the internet this is where some of the worst harassment is now taking place.
In the anarchic online world, reputations can be trashed, individual rights ignored and users systematically bullied. It is a verbal Wild West with no editorial [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] standards at all, no oversight, no accountability, no moderation. And those who operate in this unregulated world can display a reckless, occasionally sadistic, indifference to the damage that might be done to people and their families.
Yet in my view, the Leveson Inquiry failed to address this vital point. As a result, my profound worry is that the unregulated world of the internet will be allowed to carry on regardless, while the printed media has to endure an increasingly tight straitjacket of regulation.
That would be a disastrous outcome, since newspapers are already under severe pressure thanks to the technological revolution. With so much news and comment available online, papers are finding it ever harder to compete.
Circulation of most national papers is falling, while numerous regional and provincial titles have disappeared altogether in recent years.
So any improvements to the system of self regulation should not be heavy handed. What is needed is proper redress when things go wrong and standards that can be enforced, setting the kind of benchmark which would restore confidence in the media.
It would be a disaster for printed newspapers if they had to endure a straitjacket of regulation.
This would entail taking up and strengthening the proposals currently on the table from Lord Hunt, who wants to replace the PCC with an entirely new, tough and independent ****.
He suggests a contract signed by all publishers to behave properly and provide effective remedies for legitimate complainants and tough sanctions for the editors responsible. In cases where there is found to have been systematic abuse of standards these sanctions could include fining of the publication in question.
It is important that the new committee regulating those proposals is independent.
Some will say that we already have powerful libel laws in Britain to deal with such problems, but it can be daunting and expensive to take the risk of mounting legal actions against the media. There needs to be another avenue of recompense for ordinary people and the new regulator could in time also offer a quicker and cheaper means of settling libel actions.
Above all, I hope that it will be possible to reach a deal in Parliament on improving self regulation without resorting to oppressive legislation. It will not be easy since there are many MPs on both sides of the Commons who are genuinely angry about the way they have been treated by papers in the past. But we need to set aside any instinct to score political points and instead address the future.
Fifty years on from the Shawcross Royal Commission into the Press, it is time to reach a genuine consensus. The great French statesman Georges Clemenceau once famously said that ‘war is too important to be left to the generals’. Well, freedom of the press is far too precious to be subject to the machinations of a political squabble.
[عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا] [عزيزي الزائر يتوجب عليك التسجيل لمشاهدة الرابط للتسجيل اضغط هنا]