Abstract
An online article on press regulation by BJR's editor sparked a lively debate at this journal. A board member recalls the spat, blow by blow
The Leveson Inquiry and the events that led up to it have split journalism in the UK in a way that three Royal commissions and Calcutt — one and two — arguably failed to do. One of the most significant causes of contention, if not the most significant, is that this time there appears to be a keener appetite between parliament and MPs for state regulation of the press than for 70 years or more. The divergence of views on what has happened and what should happen to the press is no less keen among the journalists, broadcasters and academics that make up the 23 members of the editorial board of the BJR than it is elsewhere in the industry. These debates are normally contained within BJR's quarterly board meetings, but evidence of their existence surfaced in a Guardian blog written by the BJR's editor, Bill Hagerty.
While discussing the appearances and differing viewpoints of Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and new Press Complaints Commission chairman Lord Hunt at the Leveson Inquiry, Hagerty suggested that his fellow board members who are academics largely held the view “that the press should be regulated by a state-appointed body with legal powers”. The reference brought a robust response from one academic and then a deeper debate among the wider board membership about the issues that may define the future of the press in the UK.
Professor Steve Barnett, of the University of Westminster, was the first to respond: “I have just read your Media Guardian piece. It includes the sentence: ‘Which brings me to the media academics — including several friends of mine—who practically collided in their rush to decry Dacre. Many of these sincerely believe that the press should be regulated by a state-appointed body with legal powers. Some of them are on the editorial advisory board of British Journalism Review, where the debate on what constitutes press freedom is fiercely fought.’
“… In my view this is a wholly unfounded misrepresentation of the arguments that I and other academics (whether on the BJR board or not) have consistently advanced.
“… Speaking entirely for myself, I'm not sure which is the more depressing: that you're still intent on reducing the arguments to a simplistic binary choice of free speech versus Stasi-like state control; or that you, along with many other ex-editors, still see some merit in a discredited system controlled by discredited editors who have presided over a corporate culture within several newspapers which is entirely at odds with the journalistic values that the BJR was set up to defend and promote. Incidentally, Dacre's idea of press cards authorised by the industry is intellectually incoherent and should be repugnant to anyone genuinely wedded to ‘free speech’ principles.”
All ideas should be thoughtfully examined
Bill Hagerty: “To begin with, in our editorial board's spirited and — certainly for me, enjoyable — debates, what certainly were interpreted by me as arguments for some sort of statutory regulation have been put forward by [fellow board member] Julian [Petley] and you: indeed, when we last met and were talking about this and I offered the view that there would be no statutory regulation post-Leveson, you disagreed with me and we discussed what sort of Ofcom-style regulation there could be… I had no such intention [to misrepresent or trivialise the academics' views], but having read much of the response following Dacre's evidence to the inquiry I wanted to put the case for all ideas being thoughtfully examined — and modified and perhaps even ditched in favour of better ones — to stimulate reform, rather than them being dismissed as — to quote your phrase—'intellectually incoherent'…
“… As for my still seeing some merit ‘in a discredited system controlled by discredited editors who have presided over a corporate culture within several newspapers which is entirely at odds with the journalistic values that the BJR [23/1] was set up to defend and promote’, I see no merit in retaining the PCC of the past and have said so in print and on radio, and in the new issue of the BJR. I broadly support what Lord Hunt is setting out to do.”
Barnett “…There are plenty of arguments around co-regulation and statutory underpinning, which many of us have proposed and which would, incidentally, be an essential requirement for most of the ideas proposed by Paul Dacre (such as an Ombudsman)… I assure you that they are categorically different from the press being regulated by “a state-appointed body with legal powers.”
Professor Julian Petley, of Brunei University:“… I do have to say that I don't believe in Ofcom-style regulation of the press, still less regulation of the press by Ofcom; what I do believe in, however, is regulation which is independent of both the press and of government, but which, in the last analysis (that is, if all else fails), can draw on statutory powers in order to enforce any sanctions which it decides to impose on a publication which refuses to abide by its judgments. I have to say that what I find most irritating about this whole debate … is the implicit assumption on the part of the defenders of the status quo that the press, along with the other media of course, is not already subject to considerable statutory regulation. As you [Hagerty] must know better than most, having edited a major newspaper, there are well over 60 laws, which in some way or other regulate press content, along with the contents of the other media. Some of these regulations are clearly necessary (for example, those which attempt to stop trial by media… which the current Attorney-General clearly takes far more seriously than his predecessors), while others are urgently in need of reform in the interests of the kind of media freedom appropriate to a modern democracy, such as the laws on libel and official secrecy. So this is another binary opposition that really needs firmly banging on the head…”
Chris Elliott, The Guardian: “For what it's worth I think the industry has been a bit willful about not examining what an enabling statute for some of these ideas may look like. I have never been much of a fan of four legs good and two legs bad.”
Professor James Curran, of Goldsmiths College, University of London: “What Steve Barnett objected to, I take it, was the endless caricaturing of the debate as one between freedom-loving journalists and academics wanting state control of the press, constructed around the axis of those who want state regulation and those who don't. This ignores the fact that we have state regulation of the press already: the laws of the land, press-specific privileges (including £594million subsidy in the form of VAT exemption), and press specific constraints (monopoly controls). The issue is whether regulation should be changed from the existing regime of regulation — and if so how. Are existing laws too restrictive? Monopoly controls too ineffectual or too constraining in the age of the internet? Co-regulation or self-regulation? A subsidy scheme for local print journalism, not just local TV? And so on. (This could of course include a discussion of whether we should have state regulation of the press similar to that in broadcasting, though I have yet to hear any one argue this position). I must confess that I share other academic members' regret that we should be singled out, and misrepresented…”
Barnett: “There is a willful attempt within some parts of the industry (and I am absolutely not including you in this, Bill) to blur the distinction between direct statutory control of the press via an Ofcom-type body and an enabling or underpinning statute which allows for the setting up of a wholly independent body that gives real power to, for example, an ombudsman or an industry-designed tribunal. Virtually all the ideas proposed by Dacre in his Leveson seminar would require an enabling statute. That is what I proposed in my evidence to Leveson, along with several others. Leveson himself clearly understands the distinction. I'm not sure if Dacre or Bob Satchwell [director, Society of Editors] or Trevor Kavanagh [associate editor, The Sun] do, or whether they are being disingenuous in trying to equate any statutory backing with an East European police state…”
BJR should be talking about journalism, not media
Brenda Maddox, author and journalist: “Please put me clearly on the side of no statute regulating the press. I thought that was Britain's proudest boast, like the American Constitution's ‘Congress shall make no law…’ (United States Constitution, First amendment).”
Tony Delano, journalist and Professor, London College of Communication: “May I now, as one with a toe in both camps (but a heart in the one with the better bar), suggest a bit of copy generation? Rather than ‘media’, BJR should be talking about journalism. Any kind of regulation or control will eventually work its way down to the people who gather, prepare and present content. Some form of professionalism/licensing/registration/accreditation/kite-marking, to which the Dacre proposal was the loosest of references, might offer a framework within which they could operate safely. Other occupations — health workers, lawyers, accountants, and architects — work to an ethical code their employers are obliged to recognise.
“If journalists had a code of enforceable or defensible status, employers or supervisors could not expect them to breach it. If they did the result would be contaminated. There need be no restriction on anyone wishing to write or publish. But at some level work would need to be accepted by a journalist of recognised standing. In any case … might the BJR now turn its efforts towards… What Leveson Should Say?”
Geoffrey Goodman, BJR Chairman Emeritus: “I have tried to restrain myself from involvement in this fascinating, highly relevant, sometimes a touch quibbling hubris. But in the light of Tony Delano's shrewdly phrased formula I cannot resist saying I agree with him.”
Professor Brian Winston, of Lincoln University: “Well I am sorry (especially to take issue with Tony and Geoffrey) but there's one thing which surely can't be seriously on the table—registering journalists? People who can only work if licensed can easily be stopped from working by taking the licence away. I know I am isolated in my hostility to specific laws for the press. I know that citing John Locke and all those other ghosts is seen as quaint. But really, a reichskammer for hacks?”
Joy Johnson, journalist and political commentator: “I agree licensing journalists is completely unacceptable and in any event, with today's technology, impractical.”
Professor Roy Greenslade, of City University: “I nailed my colours to the mast on this subject on February 2 with this posting on my blog: ‘How to reform press regulation—with backing from the state’ (Guardian). Previous to that, I spoke strongly against state involvement of any kind. But the logic of the situation in which we find ourselves with self-regulation not having worked (because it wasn't regulation, because it was possible to withdraw from it unilaterally and because its sanctions were perceived as ineffective) brought me to the conclusion that compulsion was necessary. And the only way to enforce compulsion is through some kind of framework at arm's length from, but nevertheless involving, the state.
“Despite that, and despite Lord Justice Leveson's wishes to come up with something that lasts the test of time, I still see this as an interim measure because free digital media will sweep away all such rules anyway. In the era of non-print, the only restraint on what should and should not be published will be the law of the land. The question then, of course, will be: which land? Finally, I see merit in Tony's suggestion.”
Delano: “It would be helpful if all those knees would stop jerking. I haven't suggested licensing journalists — not even hacks. Nor would I accept any but the few inescapable controls on publication. I'm a First Amendment purist, too. Wish we had one. What needs to be considered is the protection, even the empowerment… of journalists — including hacks. A level of professionalism might mean, at least, that even the hackiest could not be asked to breach a code, and that tainted copy should not be published. Says who? Hard-nosed ethical committees composed of journalists? Naming/shaming requirement?”
Winston: “What — registering journalists? … the problem is that history reveals… that the state has very, very short arms and a propensity to hug journalists it touches to death. Or so I read the struggle for press freedom. Even if one is less cynical than I am, what would this regulatory agency look like? A quango is a quango however much it shouts about its independence. And wouldn't this one (Ofpress?) need some sort of code? I assume that it wouldn't have an Ofcom curtain-twitching ‘balance’ and ‘fairness’, ‘taste and decency’ set of ‘guidance’ rules — or would it? Conversely, if it didn't, why would it be effective—because it could fine? On what basis? Surely we are back to a code. I think it is time to come clean with the details of what this might look like. Otherwise isn't it a pig-in-a-poke?
The answer is the law of the land
“Of course, though, the state should have an allocative function. That is quite different from a content regulation function (aka censorship — and never mind the fact that currently our chaps eschew formal prior constraint. It's still censorship in its chilling effect.) The state already does proper infrastructural allocation re telecoms. And it should vis-à-vis the media industries more generally. This current scandal is surely in good measure a direct consequence of neo-liberal relaxations of rules which were entirely justified in the name of diversity of opinion and the communication needs of a democratic society. The levels of surveillance the new technologies permit are a censor's wet-dream come true, easily balancing the illusory freedoms they seem to offer. Current freedoms could well be more to do with the slow process whereby new communications technologies have their radical potential suppressed than anything intrinsic to the technology itself. Suppression has always happened in the past and I see no evidence that it isn't happening now. Despite the hyperbole and the real decline of print (happening long before the net, of course) the new platforms say nothing to the essential problems of free expression.
“So I agree… the answer is the law of the land. As John Locke said, special rules for the press are ‘very needless’. This is not to say rules in general are. So we should be cutting to the chase and focusing on sorting out the 60-plus statutes and common law offences which impinge on freedom of expression. And we should do so in the expectation that the authorities will forgo the bungs and apply the (reformed) law…”