Abstract
‘An independent press, or one or other of its constituents will also from time to time behave, if not criminally, with scandalous cruelty and unfairness, leaving victims stranded in a welter of public contempt and hatred or uncovenanted distress. But on the very same day one of the other constituent parts of the independent press may reveal a public scandal. The scandal of telephone hacking, which took the form of cruelty and insensitivity to one family and ultimately led to the setting up of the Leveson Inquiry, was uncovered and revealed by a different constituent part of the press. The first of these scandals – the cruelty and unfairness – should never happen. The second – the revelation of a public scandal – must be allowed to continue to happen. My own view is that the public value of the second is priceless. Whatever means of regulation are designed to reduce the occasions of unacceptable behaviour by elements of the press, they must not simultaneously, even if accidentally, diminish or dilute the ability and power of the press to reveal and highlight true public scandals or misconduct.’
— Lord Justice Judge
‘You can't “strike journalists off”, as if they were accountants or lawyers or gynaecologists. They aren't a profession: they are a great pulsating rabble of people who are distinguished only by our desire – I will not say our ability – to write any old thing for any kind of ephemeral publication. Anyone can be a journalist. You just have to start a blog, break a few stories, and bingo, you are a household name.’
— Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph
‘There is a strong public interest in the preservation of a raucous and independent media that can expose injustice and hold power to account. British newspapers have an honourable tradition of performing this role. This must not be dulled by regulation – however well-meaning.’
— leader, Financial Times