Leveson Report Published, Central Recommendation Rejected

[Zaune]

The Guardian, who also have a sort of Cliff Notes summary of the report here.

David Cameron found himself accused of betrayal by the victims of phone hacking and isolated from his coalition partners when he took the gamble of opposing Lord Justice Leveson's proposal to underpin a new independent press regulator with legislation.

Unveiling his 2,000-page report, the judge insisted the move was an essential to end "a culture of reckless and outrageous journalism".

But after agonising for 24 hours since he received the report of the inquiry set up by him 16 months ago, Cameron said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" in principle to any statutory interference in the media. He warned: "It would mean for the first time we have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into law of the land."

Cameron argued: "We should think very very carefully before crossing this line," warning that parliament for centuries had seen its role as a bulwark of democracy. "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

But the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, took the opposite view, siding with Leveson in saying that a state-backed body was needed to have oversight of self-regulation by the press. Leveson said that proposals from the Press Complaints Commission for a revamped regulator, backed by some but by no means all newspapers, would still amount to the "industry marking its own homework".

Mark Lewis, the lawyer for the parents of Milly Dowler, accused Cameron of betrayal, reminding him he had promised his response would satisfy the victims of phone hacking and intrusion. Lewis said: "He called it the victim test; he called it the Dowler test. It looks like he failed his own test."

The culture secretary, Maria Miller, will meet with victims on Friday, and on Tuesday she will hold a round table with editors of national newspapers and some proprietors to press them to draw up a timetable for a tougher self-regulatory model than the one they had proposed to Leveson.

In a subtle proposal designed to win over those fearful of direct state interference in a free press, Leveson proposed that the broadcasting regulator Ofcom should take responsibility for monitoring a new independent voluntary press regulator, organised by the media and capable of imposing fines of up to £1m as well as demanding up-front apologies.

Leveson said it was necessary for a body like Ofcom to monitor a revamped PCC to "reassure the public of its independence". The purpose of legislation is "not to establish a body to regulate the press", he insisted. But he warned that if newspapers were not prepared to join a revamped regulator, despite financial incentives to do so, it would be necessary to force Ofcom to act as a "backstop regulator".

In an unflinching catalogue of both general and specific acts of press intrusion, Leveson said: "There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist.

"This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained."

In the run-up to publication, Cameron had repeatedly promised not to let down the victims of hacking and to implement Leveson so long as it did not propose "anything that is bonkers".

But since then Cameron has been under sustained pressure from the newspaper industry, and from cabinet colleagues, to oppose any state involvement in media regulation, unless the industry patently failed to embrace Leveson's call for robust, swift and effective self-regulation.

The film-maker Ed Blum, himself a victim of hacking, accused Cameron of abandoning those he had pledged to help. "He's ripped out the heart and soul of the Leveson report and at the same time, some papers tomorrow will call him courageous."

But Cameron is in danger of finding himself in a minority in the Commons as Clegg took the extraordinary step of making his own statement to MPs, contradicting the prime minister's central judgment, and broadly siding with the Labour leader, Ed Miliband.

To the fury of some Conservative MPs, Clegg said: "Changing the law is the only way to give us all the assurance that the new regulator isn't just independent for a few months or years, but is independent for good."

Clegg said he had heard nothing to suggest that a better solution can be found than the one proposed by Leveson, adding: "We need to get on with this without delay." He was supported by the Liberal Democrat president, Tim Farron, who said the law, far from representing a Rubicon was little more than a brook.

Privately Clegg believes Cameron can yet be persuaded of the need for state oversight of the regulatory power, but needs time to persuade his own backbenchers.

Cameron, Clegg and Miliband met to discuss a joint response to the report and, according to Labour, under pressure from Miliband Cameron had said he would allow the culture department to prepare a draft bill on state underpinning of a new regulatory body. But Cameron's spokesman said "drawing up a bill will only serve to demonstrate how complicated it would be to introduce press laws".

The spokesman added that preliminary work had already been undertaken showing this to be the case.

Miliband said he would be calling a vote in the Commons on implementing Leveson by the end of January at the latest, and with Cameron allowing MPs a free vote, the prime minister is currently at risk of losing.

Government sources claim that even if they lose a vote, they would need to bring forward a bill, a point contested by Labour and the Lib Dems.

The report appears to find unnamed executives of News International guilty of trying to hide the extent of phone hacking at the company. It finds: "Questions were there to be asked and simple denials should not have been considered sufficient. This suggests a cover-up by somebody and at more than one level."

Cameron took relief that Leveson issued little criticism of the relations between Cameron and News International, apart from to say that all politicians over the past 30 years had been close to newspaper magnates.

Criticism is expressed of the way in which the then culture secretary Jeremy Hunt had allowed perceptions to arise that he was too close to News International during its bid for BSkyB, but the report said he had not behaved improperly.

Cameron said Hunt had "endured a stream of allegations with great dignity. This report confirms something what we on this side of the house knew all along: we were right to stand by him".

Well, so much for that then.

[DaveJB]

Judging by Cameron's reaction, it appears that he set up the enquiry so that they could tell him that everything was hunky-dory with the British press, and that the only problem before was a couple of bad apples at the News of the World. Maybe he thinks a judicial enquiry in real-life works the same way as a leak enquiry in Yes Minister?

As expected, most of the papers are going apeshit over these suggestions. It appears that most of them believe that the press is only truly free if they're able to slander, smear and spy on people without having to worry about somehow being held accountable. Still, it's entertaining to play "spot the logical fallacy" while reading the editorials on the Leveson Report. So far I haven't found a single one which doesn't pull both the slippery slope fallacy (claiming that having papers accountable to an external body is inevitably going to end with total state control over the press) and the false cause fallacy (saying that a free press has done good things x, y and z, therefore a press accountable to an external body would for some unexplained reason not have done these things).

[Simon_Jester]

There is or should be a touchy relationship between the state or the media- it's not something I'm comfortable laughing off. The US suffers badly from how its media are too close to the powerful organizations of the state, trying so hard to get "access" to them that they stop bothering to deliver objective coverage.

That does not mean newspapers have a license to commit fraud or illegal eavesdropping, of course. So having a regulatory body to cover that makes sense, as long as someone's being careful that the regulators don't get power over media content.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don;t think it's fari to start screaming that Cameron has betrayed the victims, in his own words fromt he artcle:

"We should think very very carefully before crossing this line," and "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

I can't see anything in there saying he's outright rejected it, he is just being cautious and not wanting to rush into something.

[Irbis]

I can't see anything in there saying he's outright rejected it, he is just being cautious and not wanting to rush into something.

Let's be honest, it's guy who dined and wined with Murdoch's cronies. What do you think is his idea of fair solution? Something fair for said cronies?

We're talking about a guy who is trying to privatize police and social security, and that is in country where Thatcher's privatization reforms failure is patently obvious to everyone.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I can't see anything in there saying he's outright rejected it, he is just being cautious and not wanting to rush into something.

Let's be honest, it's guy who dined and wined with Murdoch's cronies. What do you think is his idea of fair solution? Something fair for said cronies?

We're talking about a guy who is trying to privatize police and social security, and that is in country where Thatcher's privatization reforms failure is patently obvious to everyone.

I cannot argue against anyof that (not possessing the necessary facts for one) but I still say that all he has done is be cautious about something that should be a really big deal. I think it is unfair to accuse him of "betrayal," certainly at this stage.

I wonder how people would react if Nick Clegg had urged caution instead of Cameron.

[Chirios]

Really disappointed. Not surprised, but still, I was hoping for better.

[Irbis]

I wonder how people would react if Nick Clegg had urged caution instead of Cameron.

I'd be casually optimistic, since he at least doesn't have a history of pandering to worst kinds of moneyed scum, but to be honest, UK political landscape really needs to have a few bombs dropped on it to mop the worst elements out.

[Zaune]

There is or should be a touchy relationship between the state or the media- it's not something I'm comfortable laughing off. The US suffers badly from how its media are too close to the powerful organizations of the state, trying so hard to get "access" to them that they stop bothering to deliver objective coverage.

That does not mean newspapers have a license to commit fraud or illegal eavesdropping, of course. So having a regulatory body to cover that makes sense, as long as someone's being careful that the regulators don't get power over media content.

Truth be told, I'd rather take my chances with falling down the slippery slope to government control of the media than keep a status quo that permits this sort of bullshit, let alone slipping backhanders to the police or interfering with evidence evidence in a murder inquiry.

[ryacko]

I'd like to note that the behavior by News of the World, to my knowledge, was illegal.

Bribing cops, phone hacking. Certainly some laws were violated.

Because of that, all media outlets are under suspicion of being criminals.

What was it, innocent until proven guilty?

[Zaune]

I'd like to note that the behavior by News of the World, to my knowledge, was illegal.

Bribing cops, phone hacking. Certainly some laws were violated.

Because of that, all media outlets are under suspicion of being criminals.

What was it, innocent until proven guilty?

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that. It's not so much that the papers have been routinely breaking the actual letter of the law, though I dare say cops have been making money on the side by selling Police National Computer checks to-order for decades. It's more that they've been doing a hell of a lot of things that are utterly immoral but not quite against the law, and have been insisting that they don't need these things to be against the law because they have a Code of Conduct and their own system of self-regulation through the Press Complaints Commission. I refer you to Tabloid Watch, or Five Chinese Crackers and his Tabloid Bullshit Of The Month Award, in order that you may judge for yourself how effective that has been to date. The revelations about that poor murdered girl's voicemail was just the final push that was needed for mainstream public opinion to turn against the tabloids.

[Keevan_Colton]

To be honest, it makes me wish for a solution put forward more than once before by the likes of the NUJ, a proper professional body for journalists. Make the title mean something, and bar those that fail to meet the standards from using it. Require accreditation with a professional body for standards as there is for doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers etc...

[Dartzap]

I'm still not sure why they arnt calling for an OFCOM equivalent for print media. Works well enough in TV land, after all.

[ryacko]

To be honest, it makes me wish for a solution put forward more than once before by the likes of the NUJ, a proper professional body for journalists. Make the title mean something, and bar those that fail to meet the standards from using it. Require accreditation with a professional body for standards as there is for doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers etc...

So create a monopoly that will bar bloggers and amateurs from being journalists?

[Questor]

To be honest, it makes me wish for a solution put forward more than once before by the likes of the NUJ, a proper professional body for journalists. Make the title mean something, and bar those that fail to meet the standards from using it. Require accreditation with a professional body for standards as there is for doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers etc...

So create a monopoly that will bar bloggers and amateurs from being journalists?

No, simply prevent those without accreditation from having the protections associated with being a journalist. I doubt that you could prevent them from posting drivel, and the ones that don't would most likely be able to get the accreditation.

If they want the accreditation, they are welcome to get it, but we know most won't.

[Sea Skimmer]

So basically you want a license on freedom of speech and freedom of the press? That's a total great plan.

[TC27]

I think Camerons got this exactly right and I think anyone who really believes in the freedom of the press would back him on this.

As usual many people are playing the man not the issue.

[Questor]

So basically you want a license on freedom of speech and freedom of the press? That's a total great plan.

Nope. I don't particularly think it is a great plan.

I do think it's a better plan than the current one that seems to be happening in the UK. (The US has already gotten to the point where we admit that the news outlets are actually entertainment and any factual content is coincidental, rendering any kind of regulation both unnecessary and silly at best.)

If you are attempting to claim that you deserve special recognition ("I am a journalist and my opinion on this subject matters because I have done enough research to make this article/story non-fiction.") then you should be willing to prove it.

If you are going to simply allow freedom of the press (which applies certain immunities in UK law, such as exemption from many aspects of the Data Protection Act <- note the above article's editorial content argues that the framework the report requests already exists, which it very well may) to merge with freedom of speech (which has different limits, but does have them, and is actually more restricted than freedom of the press), that's fine, but you need to be aware of exactly what you're doing.

In my opinion, having been the collective subject of a few newspaper articles, there needs to be a certain amount of regulation of news sources to prevent the so called journalism from being used to harass innocent people and create fear, but I will admit that I do appreciate it when the same license is used to expose corruption. So, I guess you could paint me as a supporter of the status quo - at least here in the US. But then again, in the US, the rules granting access to the information I think needs to be restricted do not just grant access to "journalists," but to everyone - making the argument moot.

What privileges would you think I am restricting, other than the right to call themselves a "Licensed Journalist" and (maybe) get paid by a newspaper/news organization as a journalist? Are there any rights that journalists get in the US? What about their social responsibilities to their sources?

[Keevan_Colton]

The notion of accreditation for journalists is precisely so you dont end up stopping people from blogging. An OFCOM like body would be terrible, it works for broadcast because the airwaves are all licensed and there are a limited number of people it needs to oversee. At what point would a print equivalent have its reach end?

The idea is to improve journalism by making the term journalist really mean something. It would not be a bar to free speech except insofar as you would not be able to call yourself a journalist without showing you know what your doing and adhering to an agreed code of ethics and conduct. You can still write whatever you want, but styling yourself as a journalist (for example when you contact someone) would be barred, you'd have to explain who you are and what you do...

Does accreditation for engineers prevent people from doing DIY?

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually yes, it does. Lots and lots of things cannot be done without the signature of an accredited engineer at least in the US, and I am sure in the UK too. If I want to publish a newspaper and call it one I should not need government approval the way I would to design and build my own house or do so for another person, or building a car I drive on public roads. But we accept that because a clear and present danger exists in unsupervised engineering projects. You cannot rationally claim the same thing from tabloid journalism. It isn't for nothing that in the US the supreme court has placed the limit on reporting at the exact same bar, the government must show specifically a clear and present mortal danger to human life, before anything, even stolen classified information, can be blocked from publishing. The difference is the burden is entirely on the government in each situation, since the default would be that no such risk exists because its just words.

Any mandatory system of accreditation for journalists is defacto censorship and government control of the press. If newspapers ect... want to mandate themselves people they employ get some kind of accreditation, nothing is wrong with that, nor the government providing a body to oversea such a voluntary system, nor would anything be wrong with publicizing those that do not if you want the public to know who is staffed by idiots. All this phone tapping bullshit was already illegal in the first place anyway.

[Questor]

If newspapers ect... want to mandate themselves people they employ get some kind of accreditation, nothing is wrong with that, nor the government providing a body to oversea such a voluntary system, nor would anything be wrong with publicizing those that do not if you want the public to know who is staffed by idiots. All this phone tapping bullshit was already illegal in the first place anyway.

This is actually closer to what I at least envisioned that some mandatory "publish anything and get thrown in jail" regime.

My points are that:
1) If the government is going to allow someone calling themselves a journalist to have special powers, I have no problem with them saying that those people need to be credentialed in some way.
2) This in no way restricts freedom of speech.
3) Any sort of mandatory credentialing program would not in any way suppress blogging, and might actually help legitimate news bloggers separate themselves from the chaff.

Additional items brought up by me are:
1) In the US, this argument is pointless, as no special powers are granted to the press legally, rather than by custom.
2) A licensure regime and governing body might make people more willing to talk to the press, as they would provide a disincentive for dishonest/shady reporting, and provide a way for someone to know if the reporter they are talking to will actually keep their confidentiality, or will violate it at the first sign of government or management interference. This is actually a disincentive for the licensing board to be government controlled.

[Irbis]

I think Camerons got this exactly right and I think anyone who really believes in the freedom of the press would back him on this.

As usual many people are playing the man not the issue.

Would you back someone who openly mingles with armed robbers in local tavern buy and install your new front door locks to make you "safer", just after said robbers raided house next to yours? Oh, and he "lost" spare keys while he was is, surely honest mistake?

Gee, I really can't see why people might not trust corrupt politician openly assisted by Murdoch's rags, who had been dining with and bending to corporate cronies at every occasion for over a decade, someone who did his best to sweep the case under the carpet. It's just playing the man!

[Chirios]

Actually yes, it does. Lots and lots of things cannot be done without the signature of an accredited engineer at least in the US, and I am sure in the UK too. If I want to publish a newspaper and call it one I should not need government approval the way I would to design and build my own house or do so for another person, or building a car I drive on public roads. But we accept that because a clear and present danger exists in unsupervised engineering projects. You cannot rationally claim the same thing from tabloid journalism.

Yes you can. Easily. Have you not been following the Leveson Inquiry?

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes you can. Easily. Have you not been following the Leveson Inquiry?

Yeah actually I have, apparently vastly better then you since nothing in that inquiry involves journalists killing people through negligence or in any other manner.

[Chirios]

Yes you can. Easily. Have you not been following the Leveson Inquiry?

Yeah actually I have, apparently vastly better then you since nothing in that inquiry involves journalists killing people through negligence or in any other manner.

There's more to danger than killing people, not to mention that people have died as a result of tabloid harrassment. Diana for one. And people have been seriously injured; like that doctor who was misidentified as a paedophile. People have had their lives ruined, their families shattered, lost their jobs, been pushed into committing suicide and had their privacy invaded by a bunch of self-righteous untalented hacks; tabloids, reports, journalists have power and that power when misused is dangerous. The fact that the misuse of that power caused harm was the entire reason why the enquiry was asked for in the first place.