Sleepwalking into a Royal Charter
With hindsight, the battle for a new form of press regulation was always likely to turn into a mess – ever since Prime Minister David Cameron embarked on his ill-judged inquiry.
We now seem to be sleepwalking into a Royal Charter to set up a Recognition Panel for the new independent regulator. It can only be a matter of time before someone suggests that there should be an independent verification body for the work of the Recognition Panel.
Naturally a Royal Charter is unacceptable to Hacked Off, the campaigning group of those who like to call themselves “victims.” They want Leveson and nothing but Leveson.
Others who do not believe a Royal Charter goes far enough include former Times journalist and former chairman of the Birmingham Post and Mail, Lord Fowler.
Another supporter of Leveson and all his works, Lord Fowler believes that a Royal Charter would be the worst possible outcome.
Even more surprising are the words of welcome – albeit cautious words – from the Newspaper Implementation Group and even from Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail.
Has the newspaper industry got a little tired of it all and decided that this is the best they can get; the political compromise that after all avoids overt statutory involvement?
It would be understandable, and after all David Cameron has rather more important things to worry about than bickering over press regulation with a succession of interested parties – issues such as his own political survival.
Even now the rows could still continue in the search for cross-party agreement with both the Liberal Democrats and Labour hardly convinced about the Royal Charter route.
Against the background of such a melee, it seems almost curmudgeonly to point out a number of basic facts and stick to a few important principles.
A Royal Charter is not a mechanism divorced entirely from politics. It is subject to the Privy Council, a body made up of present and previous senior politicians.
The argument that the press has nothing to worry about, because after all the BBC exists and functions under a Royal Charter, has its problems. The BBC mainly functions rather well of course, but don’t forget that under such a system two director-generals – Alasdair Milne and Greg Dyke – were hounded out of their jobs under political pressure.
The Recognition Panel will have the power to withdraw recognition from a regulator where it is satisfied that the regulator “ceases to be entitled to recognition.”
A circular argument if there ever was one and what exactly will be the criteria for such a thing to happen?
The standards set out for the self-regulation body are, on the whole, reasonable in that the new code must take into account the importance of freedom of speech and defines the interests of the public more widely than just exposing crime or serious impropriety.
Apart from those directly affected, the board of the body should have the power, “but not necessarily the duty,” to hear complaints on issues when there is a substantial public interest or from third parties seeking correction of inaccuracies.
The regional press in particular has every right to be worried about the cost and impact of third party complaints by groups seeking financial compensation.
On the whole, the ability to take on a wider range of complaints, if not abused, is a positive development. It was the lack of such flexibility that helped to undermine the public’s perception of the work of the Press Complaints Commission.
The point remains that governance of the recognition body by Royal Charter remains statute by proxy however soft the velvet in which it is clothed. To say it is a compact with the Sovereign is a constitutional fiction. It is always the Prime Minister who decides.
The Charter can also be changed at a future date by politicians, although all three main party leaders would have to agree, as would two thirds of MPs taking part in a vote.
Where are we now? Probably stuck with a Royal Charter as the least of available evils but don’t forget the disadvantages as press, politicians and the public consider compromising on ancient freedoms.
Virgin deal will leave BT outside
Back in the real world the waves are still spreading outwards from John Malone’s Liberty Global surprise £14.7 billion agreed acquisition of Virgin Media.
It was a surprise in the sense that the UK media industry has been expecting the American to arrive and make major acquisitions in the UK for decades. Despite the obvious attractions of one of the largest and most competitive markets in Europe little has happened until now. Worries about regulation and the power of both the BBC and BSkyB in the market have acted as constraints.
The deal has been portrayed as being a battle between Malone and Rupert Murdoch – a pair who have certainly locked horns in the past. Indeed, Murdoch was so worried about the implications of Malone’s 19% stake in News Corp that he was prepared to cede his controlling stake in satellite operator DirecTV in return for getting Liberty Global out the door at News Corp.
That was then. Malone has bought Virgin Media because it boosts his European cable reach – taking it to a 25 million-subscriber business.
The Liberty Global chief is unlikely to confront Murdoch head-on over football rights, something that would simply drive the cost of rights sky high.
He is a lot smarter and more subtle than that and will compete with BSkyB for subscribers by relying on greater bandwidth and a better technological offering.
Virgin Media has upped its game in recent years and even gone out on a high, with the first operating profit achieved by a British cable company in 30 years of the modern industry.
It will, over time, provide more intense competition for BSkyB and that should be good for all involved, not least consumers.
The biggest loser will be BT. The media operations of the telecommunications company are likely to be pushed even further into the mire of third place with both John Malone and Rupert looking down on them.