THE press has lost the right to regulate itself, the Bishop of
Norwich, the Rt Revd Graham James, says.
Writing in the Church Times (Comment) in response to
the Leveson report, published on Thursday of last week, Bishop
James, who sits on the House of Lords Select Committee on
Communications, backs Lord Justice Leveson's calls for an
independent body to regulate the press. The regulation "must
protect citizens from unfair and damaging portrayal in the press,
and give them a proper chance of redress.
"It is the helplessness which members of the general public feel
when caught up in a major press story and are unfairly traduced,
which is not a necessary consequence of press freedom but an abuse
of it."
The Leveson report, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics
of the Press, is the result of a 16-month review. It was
set up after it was alleged that the mobile phone of Milly Dowler,
a murdered teenager, had been hacked by the News of the
World. It recommends the creation of a new regulatory body,
underpinned in statute, "which is truly independent of industry
leaders and of Government and politicians". This body would not
include any serving editor or politician.
Lord Justice Leveson said that he was not proposing statutory
regulation, but a "statutory process to support press freedom . . .
and guarantee for the public that this new body is independent and
effective". Bishop James described this as a "finely nuanced
recommendation", and said that "it takes a vivid imagination to
think it readily opens the door for state control of the print
media."
The Prime Minister, however, while welcoming the Leveson report,
has voiced "serious concerns and misgivings" about enshrining the
system in statute. "We would have crossed the Rubicon of writing
elements of press regulation into the law of the land," he said
after the report's publication. "We should be wary of any
legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a
free press."
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said that his party would
"unequivocally endorse both the principles set out, and his
[Leveson's] central recommendations". This included support for "a
truly independent regulation of the press, guaranteed by law". He
paid tribute to "people who . . . suffered deep loss and grief, and
then faced further trauma at the hands of sections of the
press".
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, defying his coalition
partner, also supported the system proposed in the report, which he
argued could be done "in a proportionate and workable way. . . A
free press does not mean a press that is free to bully innocent
people, or free to abuse grieving families."
Cross-party talks were begun on the day the report was
published, but some Conservative MPs remain critical of Mr
Cameron's stance. Gary Streeter, who chairs Christians in
Parliament, told The Sunday Telegraph that he was
"dismayed" by the PM's response, and would "certainly back a future
amendment for statutory underpinning of press regulation. I do not
think the press is capable of self-regulation."
On Tuesday of last week, the Prime Minister warned newspaper
editors that "the clock is ticking" after ordering them to produce
"rapidly" a "tough, independent regulatory system" which must
"absolutely" meet the requirements of the Leveson report, which
include million-pound fines, proper investigation of complaints,
and prominent apologies.
After the meeting, the editor of the Daily Mirror,
Lloyd Embley, tweeted: "There is a firm belief that papers can
deliver Leveson principles far more quickly without legislation -
better for public and free speech."
Victims of press intrusion who gave evidence to the inquiry have
criticised Mr Cameron's response. Last Friday, Gerry McCann
described the coverage of his daughter Madeleine's disappearance as
"unbelievably stressful", and suggested that politicians had "a bit
of a chance to redeem themselves" in implementing the report in
full.
The Leveson report describes the "gross libels" committed
against the McCanns, who became "almost a piece of public property,
where the public's right to know possessed few, if any,
boundaries". Lord Leveson denounced the evidence of the editor of
The Daily Express, Richard Desmond, to the inquiry, as
revealing a "disturbing philosophical approach to the concepts of
free speech and a free press. For him, at the end of the day, the
issue was all about free speech and the threat of excessive
regulation. On this approach, press standards and ethics were close
to being irrelevant."
In a debate on the Leveson report in the House of Lords, on
Thursday of last week, the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd James
Jones, referred to his experience of chairing the Hillsborough
independent panel (
News, 14 September).
"We became aware of the way that one news agency failed not just
one national newspaper, but several, which between them became
cumulatively responsible for misrepresenting the events of
Hillsborough for a generation," he said. "Will the Government
ensure that the regulatory body is sufficiently equipped to deal
with complaints against such complex and enormous
misrepresentation?"
Writing in The Sun on Sunday this week, the Archbishop
of York, Dr Sentamu, welcomed the idea of an "independent
self-regulatory body". Although his column had the title "I'm glad
UK Press won't be shackled", he appeared to back the idea of
statutory underpinning: "While the principles by which the body
works should be regulated by Parliament, its individual decisions
must be absolutely free from political interference."
He wrote in his column that his absence from it for the past
three months was a reaction to the newspaper's decision to publish
pictures of Prince Harry naked, and that he had spoken to the
editor, Dominic Mohan, about this.
The director of the Church and Media Network, Andrew Graystone,
said last Friday: "Without some statutory force nothing will
change, and there will be no reason for parts of the press to
change their behaviour. . . The only thing that is going to rescue
us is the character of journalists and the choices they make."
A poll of 1733 people last Friday, reported in The Sunday
Times, suggested that 58 per cent of the respondents would
support "laws to encourage newspapers to join a new form of
regulation", and that half believed that Mr Cameron was wrong to
oppose such law.
Leader
comment
Question of the Week: Is the Leveson report a threat to a
free press?