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.

Printing the presses

The week’s dominating story surrounding the phone hacking allegations made by News of the World (NOTW) journalists is becoming an ever increasing business and publicity nightmare for News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. This afternoon’s announcement that Britain’s biggest selling newspaper will stop printing after 168 years is a serious blow to the revenue stream of the world’s most famous media mogul. With probable criminal investigations and multiple public inquires into the scandal much scrutiny is being placed on News International’s Chief Executive Rebekah Wade (former editor of the NOTW) and her successor Andy Coulson (and deputy at the time) who later went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary. Yet how much scrutiny should also be focussed on the Prime Minister? Many commentators believe politicians kowtow to easily the media, especially the printing presses, but is Mr Cameron’s slow response subject to what some may say is an unhealthy relationship.

According to sales figures from March the newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and NOTW) from News Corp sell well over 23 million copies each week. Even in a medium where circulation is dropping year on year) the power of newspapers to drive opinion is still an extremely important vehicle for politicians to maintain. Under Mrs Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch enjoyed an extremely healthy relationship and used his friendship to acquire the Times, without it being referred to the Monopoly Commission. He in turn used his power to back Maggie in her fights against the Miners and in Brussels. Later on, during the New Labour years, armed with two fierce media men, former political editor of the Daily Mirror Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair was able to contrive most editors into plugging his vision of a new Britain. It became extremely insidious and some of the press had sympathies with the government after the Iraq War and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

So is Cameron really at fault? Is it not part of the political game? He courted the Murdoch press during his time in opposition and they forcibly backed him against the dithering Gordon Brown in the 2010 election. Does he not owe them a favour in return? There are plenty of examples from overseas, particularly America, that show what problems Presidents can face when they get on to the wrong side of the press. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of Richard Nixon and many saw the end of Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency down to the press coverage of the Vietnam War. The CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously reported that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” to which LBJ was reported to have said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Since these times politicians have seen it as a duty to court the press. As Enoch Powell said “Politicians criticising journalists is like sailors criticising the weather”. They are in affect part of the game.

Cameron is known to dine regularly with the likes of Matthew Freud, a PR man who is married to one Elisabeth Murdoch and he also attended the wedding of Brookes two years ago. So far, the Murdoch press has been very loyal to the coalition Government, yet the resignation of Andy Coulson was when many questioned started to question Mr Cameron’s own integrity.

This is particularly why the Prime Minister needs to be careful, people will think the delay and dithering of his response come down to the fact that he does not want to decapitate a Government-endorsing newspaper. When questions are now being raised that the PM knew that Coulson was complicit in signing off cheques to bribe policemen then the pernicious details do not look favourably on Mr Cameron or the Murdochs. The reputation of the British press is notoriously sensationalist and scandal based, but the public fury and ethical questions being asked are not good all round, Mr Cameron should be aware of this and know when issues are in the interest of the people rather than himself.

Hackgate: Give me a story now!

The political story dominating the media this week is the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World (NOTW). The story first came out several months ago but has re-emerged after the republication in The New York Times. The main protagonist in this story is the former editor Andy Coulson, who now happens to be David Cameron's communication chief. However, also part of the unfolding drama includes the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of the NOTW.

The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.

If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.

There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.