For those following the machinations on regulating the UK
media, the story has moved beyond what we could have once called a saga. Almost
three months since Lord Justice Brian Leveson delivered his report into the
culture, practices and ethics of the press, the Conservative Party (note, not
the Coalition Government), led by Culture Secretary Maria Miller, announced in
Parliament its intended reforms of the industry.
Leveson’s report, backed by both the Labour and the Liberal
Democrats, as well as the campaign group Hacked Off, called for a statutory
body, regulated by Ofcom, to oversee the running of the UK newspaper industry.
For them, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the existing self-regulating
body has only demonstrated that it does not have the capability to govern Britain’s
fourth estate. Not only did several notable titles including the Daily Express
and Daily Star opt-out, but it oversaw some examples of extreme impunity and criminality
by some of Britain’s leading tabloids, most notably the phone-hacking of the
murdered teenager Milly Dowler.
The Conservatives however; felt that a regulatory body was a
step too far. In the Commons debate that ensued after Leveson’s deliverance,
David Cameron echoed many of the feelings within the press industry that a regulated
press in the UK, despite the instances of gross misconduct, is a step in the
wrong direction. Their announcement this week proposing a Royal Charter, that
would back a regulator; thus not directly affected by government policy was viewed
differently from both sides. National editors such of Lionel Barber of the
Financial Times argued against this legislation believing that organisations governed by Royal Charters, such as the BBC
are affected by party politics, whilst the Labour Party says it does not go far
enough. To all extensive purposes, the Tories proposal could be defined as
Leveson-lite, it adopts most of what the report put forward, minus a body that
is underpinned by Parliament.
![]() |
Maria Miller |
Whilst 75% of the public may agree that the press needs to
be shackled, there are two things that I feel completely contravene the current
debate. Firstly; that Leveson could be brought on to the statute via the
backdoor through the defamation bill. Rather than a separate bill and debate
going through Parliament, the reality is that Leveson’s idea of a media
arbitration tribunal, underpinned by the statute, could simply added onto the defamation
law. Whilst many in the press have argued about the encroaching privacy laws
from Europe over the past decade, this decision would really undermine what the
whole argument has been about.
Secondly, and what I feel to be more important is what the whole
purpose of the legislation is there to demonstrate. Only this week, the London
Evening Standard and Independent newspaper announced they would be merging
sport and business desks in an attempt to save money. The Independent also
announced that it would be become a seven-day operation. To some extent, this
is not surprising; moving back of house operations together makes sense in this
climate. It is already done by the Telegraph, both The Sun and The Mirror have
become seven-day operations in recent years. Whilst continuing to be
editorially independent both in content and style, newspapers are adapting to
the financial climates of the digital world. Yet the argument is thus; why is
the Government looking to regulate an industry that is dying?
The Independent has made £80m of losses over the past four
years. The Times is reported to make a loss of £40m a year, whilst the Guardian
and Observer were around £44 million in the red last year. By 2020, it is
conceivable in the current market that the Independent, Express, Mirror,
Guardian, Financial Times and even The Sun may no longer exist. The UK has such
a flourishing and even despite the recent political hostilities, a wide-ranging
press and newspaper industry. Yes, something needs to be addressed, but
regulation of this kind, is simply going to kill it.
![]() |
The Daily Sketch closed in 1971, when will the next follow? |
No comments:
Post a Comment