Hacked Off’s Brian Cathcart responds to long-standing critic Raymond Snoddy – and argues that many newspapers would rather carry on treating citizens as fodder in their games than enjoy the benefits to real journalism offered by the Royal Charter.
Newsline readers may have seen an article by Raymond Snoddy denouncing manifesto commitments by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties on press regulation and warning of a threat to freedom of expression.
Mr Snoddy attacks Hacked Off as ‘fundamentalist’, but he is the one whose views on this matter are extreme. And it is no surprise that to sustain such a partisan case he is obliged to present a selective if not misleading account of the facts.
In advocating implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry through Royal Charter, Hacked Off accepts the considered views of a senior judge who, sitting in a legally-constituted public inquiry with a broad range of advisers including journalists, examined the facts and heard the views of interested parties over a full year.
His recommendations – after being diluted in a vain effort to please newspaper companies – were endorsed by every party in the House of Commons, by a very large majority in the House of Lords and unanimously by the Scottish Parliament.
It is not freedom of expression newspaper companies care about, but the freedom of their newspapers to bully, lie and intrude.”
They have the overwhelming support of the public in every relevant opinion poll, as well as the support of all leading victims of press abuse who gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, of the National Union of Journalists and of hundreds of leading figures in the world of free expression.
The view of Hacked Off on this matter is therefore widely shared and enjoys democratic legitimacy. The view expressed by Mr Snoddy, on the other hand, is held by few outside the small group of newspaper corporations whose misconduct made the Leveson Inquiry necessary.
Arguing from a narrow base, Mr Snoddy asserts that the Leveson recommendations and the Royal Charter on self regulation pose a threat to freedom of expression. In fact they would make journalism freer.
Notably, investigative journalists stand to receive unprecedented protection from ‘chilling’ by wealthy individuals and institutions currently able to intimidate them with threats of expensive libel and privacy actions. And press self-regulation itself will be much safer from political interference under the Royal Charter – after many years in which, with the collusion of press proprietors, it was actually run by party politicians.
Furthermore, Leveson proposed an Act of Parliament to protect press freedom, along the lines of the U.S. First Amendment.
Why do the big press companies resist such things? Because it is not freedom of expression they care about, but the freedom of their newspapers to bully, lie and intrude.
Absent from Mr Snoddy’s argument was a proper consideration of the relentless cruelty dealt out to ordinary British citizens by newspapers who treat their industry Code of Practice as a joke.
As Sir Brian Leveson concluded, our national press is guilty of ‘wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people’. Thousands had personal data stolen. Thousands were hacked, by both Murdoch and Mirror papers. Most of the national press recklessly and wilfully libelled Robert Murat, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies.
And those are only the notorious cases. Think of all of those wronged by the Press Complaints Commission, which in its final year received some 13,500 complaints from the public about alleged breaches of that Code of Practice – and upheld precisely 15. A mountain of unethical conduct and unfair treatment was covered up.
The Leveson scheme will not go away, so Mr Snoddy is wrong to suggest that it was dead or being ‘resurrected’.”
The people who run News UK, Trinity Mirror and the Mail, Express and Telegraph papers would rather carry on treating ordinary citizens as fodder in their games of fabrication, distortion and harassment than enjoy the benefits to real journalism offered by the Royal Charter.
Sir Brian Leveson, whose terms of reference explicitly required him to find a means of addressing press abuses without inhibiting freedom of expression, proposed a careful and ingenious solution.
The press should regulate itself, he said, but its regulator should meet basic standards of independence and effectiveness, which he listed. Who should judge whether it meets those standards? Not the government, because there must be no political involvement in press regulation.
Instead he proposed creating a small body, the Press Recognition Panel, which would not be appointed by, or beholden to, any politician.
In this way, suggested Sir Brian, the press Code could be upheld and ordinary people protected from ill-treatment – without compromising our freedoms.
The newspaper corporations raised two fingers to this and gave their shamed PCC a cosmetic makeover, relaunching it as the ‘Independent Press Standards Organisation’. This does not come within a mile of the Leveson standards now incorporated in the Royal Charter. Instead it is another sham that will put the interests of newspapers before those of ordinary people.
But the Leveson scheme will not go away, so Mr Snoddy is wrong to suggest that it was dead or being ‘resurrected’.
The inquiry recommendations and the Royal Charter made clear that press companies cannot be allowed simply to walk away from decent self-regulation. That would condemn another generation to mistreatment and allow a cynical vested interest to defy legitimate, democratic processes.
So it was always part of the Charter settlement that if the big press companies fail to do what is asked of them there must be consequences, and the Labour and Liberal Democrat (and Green and SNP) manifestos simply remind voters of this.
What consequences? The matter ultimately goes back to Parliament, which can oblige the industry to bring its regulatory arrangements up to the standards which give the public adequate protection. If this happens, Sir Brian Leveson’s safeguards will continue to apply, the press will not be regulated by politicians and enhanced freedoms for journalists will come into operation.
The newspaper companies present this as a threat to free speech, but it is pitiful to see the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre dressing up as John Wilkes and Thomas Paine. These are not doughty outsiders, ready to make great sacrifices to defend principles of freedom. They are powerful, wealthy insiders whose companies have been caught mistreating the public.
The press today is experiencing a crisis of a kind others have known in recent years: railways, hospitals, police and, yes, politicians. Of all these others the press has made straightforward demands: there must be thorough, independent investigation; those at fault must be called to account; there must be substantive, transparent change, ensuring that faults are fixed and the public will not suffer again. And if there is resistance from vested interests, our democratic representatives have a duty to overcome it.
That is the medicine our newspapers insist must be doled out to others – and they are right. It is also the right medicine for our newspapers.
Brian Cathcart is the former deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday, co-founded the Hacked Off Campaign and is Professor of Journalism at Kingston University.
