Leveson: Am I missing something?

Once again I feel proprietors and editors of ‘the papers’ are misleading and scaremongering. We don’t have a free press, we have a billionaires paradise that feels like a wild west.

Ofcom has proved to be a very capable and safe ‘pair of hands’. It’s decisions are clear, fair and well considered in respect to broadcast media. And no one says our broadcast media are state controlled. Compare Channel 4 News with BBC News with Sky News with any other news provider that broadcasts in the UK and you see amazing diversity in their voice, subject and approach.

But if there is a complaint, we know Ofcom will look at it and it won’t take a lawyer and a court of law to get it investigate. Leveson is fair and reasonable, and I desire it.

Another thing, surely its state control of a watchdog, not state control of the press?

The simple truth that good journalism does not involve hacking phones and taking long lens photos of members of the royal family just to sell a few more papers.

That might be the simple truth but the more complex ones are also worth considering.

Straight question: What do you think good journalism does involve?

Some people believe it’s about doing anything possible to get the story. I’m interested in your alternative opinion on the matter.

Although I wholly disagree with your above opinions the last thing I’d want is for them to have to be filtered through any regulation whatsoever.

I prefer the notion of retrospective punishment but only for malicious lies and/or personal threats. That should be about where it ends in my opinion. The latter would include serious breeches of personal privacy such as publishing people’s addresses etc.

I’m a big fan of the idea of free speech!

We do not have that in UK radio, or anywhere in our media so I think further censorship/regulation is a bad idea.

Furthermore, if we’re being honest here, a lot of the radio industry’s news comes directly from print journalism, doesn’t it? Why be happy to cover their stories and pass them off as our own yet choose to disbelieve them when they say they’re being threatened with draconian censorship? Perhaps when it comes to journalism they can teach us radio guys a thing or two?

Can you honestly say in your career you haven’t frequently used print journalism as a primary source? It seems a little unfair to now turn on them doesn’t it?

Then again, maybe I’m the one missing something here. Isn’t it the case that “horrendous things, like hacking the phone of a missing school girl” are and were already illegal?

Furthermore, and here’s where we fundementally differ I think, I’m not so sure the law should always be respected by journalists.

It can depend upon context:

If you are doing good journalism, then you should be confident in your story and your skills to get that story out without breaking the law, intruding people’s privacy or hounding them

Jimmy Savile’s privacy was ‘respected’ and it didn’t do his victims much good. I think he SHOULD have been hounded, personally.

Furthermore, reporting his alleged crimes would have been against our nation’s libel laws yet it might have encouraged more of his victims to come forward in his lifetime. Then he might not have gotten away with it.

In short I think it’s worth thinking about the other side of the debate and perhaps the answer to your overall headline question is from me a firm, yes.

Nick – you conflate a number of things in your comment.

First, you point out that radio takes quite a few stories from print journalism. This might be true (though BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, and File on Four, would probably gently disagree with you). But this has little to do with regulation, and more to do with the lack of serious journalism on radio. There are a number of stories broken by Panorama, Channel 4 News and Dispatches, too. This argument is irrelevant to regulation, and fatally flawed.

Leveson isn’t against free speech; and doesn’t, despite your scare tactics, want to ‘filter’ any stories ‘through’ regulation. It doesn’t happen in broadcast media now as Kate points out, and it wouldn’t happen to regulated press.

The rules around balance on broadcast media aren’t planned for the press (and I agree that these are out-dated for broadcast). And nor does Leveson change the libel laws: the Savile story is entirely irrelevant to a discussion on regulation. (It was broken by the press, as you have pointed out – but a story in The Oldie failed to get any traction. The newspapers failed to break it from the 1960s to the 2010s. A piece on Guido Fawkes’ blog – which would remain entirely unregulated – similarly failed. It was only when ITV broke it that people bothered looking. That’s the power of the media – and the regulated media at that.)

I cannot see anything in your response that explains why the newspapers should regulate themselves once more. They’ve failed to do so effectively in the past, and ruined many lives – driving some people to kill themselves; and ruining the reputation of many innocent people. It’s hard to justify why we should simply roll over and give these people another opportunity.

But, James, the argument is that once you have a law it is very difficult to get rid of it, and the danger is the law of unintended consequences, so to speak. The danger is not now, but in twenty, fifty, a hundred years’ time when the currently innocuous law could be amended, one small slice at a time in to something unrecognisable from its current form and potentially in to something much more scary.

It’s interesting you mention the BBC – a broadcaster that is, of course, effectively self-regulated (by the BBC Trust) rather than regulated by Ofcom (as I have heard incorrectly stated a number of times during this debate) in order to avoid accusations of political interference (whether or not you believe that to be the case of course is another debate entirely).

Hacking phones is illegal – as it was before. So is bribery. So are most of the things that have hit the headlines. Leveson doesn’t change that, and nor would a statute-backed regulator.

Ironically, of course, the only reason we’re discussing this now is because the Guardian broke the story. As a result of stories published in the press, the News of the World was shut down. Is that not, in a sense, self-regulation at work?

It’s interesting you mention the BBC – a broadcaster that is, of course, effectively self-regulated (by the BBC Trust) rather than regulated by Ofcom (as I have heard incorrectly stated a number of times during this debate)...

There are some areas where Ofcom does regulate the BBC:

BBC Editorial Guidelines – Section 19: Accountability Ofcom

19.3.1

Ofcom has certain powers to regulate the BBC’s licence fee funded television and radio services aimed at audiences in the UK, but not the World Service which is grant-in-aid funded. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code applies in the following areas:

Protection of under-18s
Harm and Offence
Avoidance of inciting crime or disorder
Responsible approach to religious content
Prohibition of use of images of very brief duration
Fairness
Privacy.

The Editorial Guidelines reflect the provisions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in these areas.

19.3.2

In addition, the BBC’s commercial services (whether broadcasting to the UK, or from the UK to our international audiences) must comply with the whole of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

19.3.3

Where Ofcom finds a breach of the privacy or fairness sections of its Code, it may require the BBC to broadcast a statement of its findings. Where Ofcom considers that the Code has been breached “seriously, deliberately, repeatedly, or recklessly”, it can impose sanctions, which range from a requirement to broadcast a correction or statement of finding to a fine of no more than £250,000.

It’s interesting you mention the BBC – a broadcaster that is, of course, effectively self-regulated (by the BBC Trust) rather than regulated by Ofcom (as I have heard incorrectly stated a number of times during this debate)

The BBC is regulated in part by Ofcom, and in part by the BBC Trust. (It was fined £400,000 by Ofcom in 2007).

The board of the BBC Trust – and the head of Ofcom – are all recruited by the government.

Hacking phones is illegal – as it was before. So is bribery. So are most of the things that have hit the headlines. Leveson doesn’t change that, and nor would a statute-backed regulator.

No, I agree with that.

Ironically, of course, the only reason we’re discussing this now is because the Guardian broke the story. As a result of stories published in the press

...wait, hold it. Did the broadcast media not cover that story too? Oh, yes, so they did. Again, an irrelevant point to one of regulation.

Hi James!

Nick – you conflate a number of things in your comment.

First, you point out that radio takes quite a few stories from print journalism. This might be true (though BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, and File on Four, would probably gently disagree with you).

Do you?

I doubt they’d be prepared to put together a show without access to the newspapers. It’s frequently the case that they lead with a story from the press. I’m curious as to why you think they’d “gently disagree” that they use the papers so much? There’s no shame in it. It’s about getting the story on air. Journalism is about the truth and distinct from intellectual property.

But this has little to do with regulation, and more to do with the lack of serious journalism on radio. There are a number of stories broken by Panorama, Channel 4 News and Dispatches, too. This argument is irrelevant to regulation, and fatally flawed.

It’s not, it’s key to understanding the debate in my opinion. The lack of serious journalism in commercial radio is about the huge risks and tiny returns. These risks are increased BY the additional regulation UK radio faces. The news gathering in TV you cite all occurs on public service platforms. The key point there being that it’s part of their licence to provide such output.

Leveson isn’t against free speech; and doesn’t, despite your scare tactics, want to ‘filter’ any stories ‘through’ regulation. It doesn’t happen in broadcast media now as Kate points out, and it wouldn’t happen to regulated press.

Well, I suspect an editor with additional regulation on top of our already draconian libel laws would act as a defacto censor. Self censorship has killed many a vital story in the history of UK journalism.

If you don’t accept this argument as regards the actual manner in news is in practice gathered in the UK I can see why the Savile story would appear irrelevant.

I cannot see anything in your response that explains why the newspapers should regulate themselves once more. They’ve failed to do so effectively in the past, and ruined many lives – driving some people to kill themselves; and ruining the reputation of many innocent people. It’s hard to justify why we should simply roll over and give these people another opportunity.

I think a previous poster has pointed out to you that the “outrages” the press were/are accused of already fall under the remit of the current law of the land. The onus is upon people who support new legislation to explain why it is needed, I think.

I’m genuinely interested in the answer to my initial question. What do people think “good” journalism does involve?

The simple truth that good journalism does not involve hacking phones and taking long lens photos of members of the royal family just to sell a few more papers.

PS – We both agree about speech radio. Write out a list of great talk presenters, your top five. As long as I’m not in there you’re likely to have five presenters who have all been “regulated”.