Leveson: a new era for British newspapers?

The police investigation into phone-hacking by the now defunct News of the World newspaper is a story that just won’t go away. This week saw the first court appearance of its former editor Rebekah Brooks, one of 23 people currently being investigated by 45 police officers under the London Met’s Operation Weeting. With costs already exceeding £40 million and with an estimated 6,349 potential victims to investigate, it is likely that the legal settlements are likely to extend into the years ahead.

Yet to what extent is the British public aware of its repercussions? The Leveson Inquiry, set up by Prime Minister David Cameron to examine the culture, practices of the British press appeared to many as a forum for famous people to explain how the press had disrupted their lives. The testimonies of victims like Sienna Miller and Steve Coogan, to newspaper insiders like Piers Morgan and most notably Rupert Murdoch provided an interesting examination and on occasion devilish detail, but for the public as a whole, it did no more.

Yet, this November, Lord Justice Leveson will provide a report into his findings and more notably some policy suggestions into how the British press should be run.

Lord Justice Levson - will his findings bear fruit? (Telegraph)

Press freedom is perhaps not one of the most exhilarating of topics, but it does represent one of the fundamental principles of an open democracy. To the proprietors and editors, any statutory rule in place which governed how UK media is legislated would be deemed an infringement on the rights on the freedom of the press. Most people accept this argument; Britain would not want to be seen as the only country in Western Europe with restrictions on what the press can and cannot print.

However; it is frankly clear that the current parameters in place do not work. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), a self-governing body, has been hopelessly inadequate in addressing genuine complaints and policing predatory journalism. In fact, Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and The Daily Star, two newspapers with a combined daily circulation of around 1.3 million copies, never signed up to it. The newspaper industry may seethe at any possibility of government intervention but for too long it has been poor at doing the fundamentals itself.

Some commentators said that the finger cannot wholly be pointed at the newspaper industry. For some, the sensationalist agenda many newspapers took was subject to its audience. The British public for a long time found the trivialities of minor celebrities part of their daily discourse. The newspaper editors were more than happy to meet these demands. Yet if you take into consideration that newspaper circulation in the UK has been declining since the 1960s, then the argument becomes flawed.

As social and cultural habits evolved, more and more people got their news on television or radio. For newspaper editors, taking more risks and providing even juicier scandals was a way of negating this loss. Setting the agenda and driving comment was taken at any cost, even if it meant hacking into the phone of a missing-later-murdered schoolgirl. It should not detract from the quality of parts of the British newspaper industry, but the levels that many editors sunk to, revealed the nadir of quality journalism.

The cases of the past few weeks have highlighted these inadequacies. Firstly, the report into the Hillsborough disaster showed journalism at its worse and the poor habits that defamed the memories of 96 innocent fans over 23 years ago. Secondly, the printing of the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge. Although not printed in any UK publication, it shows the extent that people will go to make a story.

A landscape with a statutory framework would perhaps not be as draconian as it sounds, but would certainly intend journalists to remodel how they approach stories. For many, who for years were hounded by journalists looking for a simple story, it is a case of accountability rather than state intervention.

All newspapers and most politicians would not be in favour of statutory regulation, mainly because they do not believe it is in the State’s interest to be involved in policing such matters. The question left over is to what extent are the press capable at looking after themselves? Historical precedent suggests not, and reform of an internal system would simply delay further mischief in years to come.

It is unlikely to become a vote winning strategy, nor losing, but at the same time the public are fully aware of the unfairness that some news organisations have been involved in.

Newspapers are not the same types of institutions they were 10 or even 50 years ago. Not only must they face the challenges of the digital age, as well as the competition of the licence fee but they must learn to adapt to climate of new forms of journalism. Leveson’s suggestions may be overruled and the PCC ultimately strengthened, but it still does not deflect that newspapers must adapt both culturally and economically or its printing presses will be seriously overhauled or stopped.