The heart of the matter
Forget all the dodgy opinion polls, petitions and the ceaseless whining of Hacked Off. We have now got to the heart of the matter and there is more than a decent chance that Leveson could, against all the odds, turn out well for both the press and the public, says Raymond Snoddy.
Former Times editor Simon Jenkins was, of course, right to remind us this week that it was truly bizarre that illegal behaviour led to a judicial inquiry into the ethics of the press – a totally different target. But at least we now know that Cameron is innocent of coming up with the idea of a judicial inquiry.
We all assumed that the inquiry was the cynical kneejerk reaction of a former PR man. Instead it was Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who came up with the idea and Cameron who had to be persuaded.
Something else to remember come election time.
Unfortunately, after giving Clegg his head, Cameron then screwed up even more spectacularly. It was folly beyond words to promise in advance to implement the Leveson Report unless it was “bonkers” or to suggest that any reform would have to pass “the victim test.”
The victims, many of whom have been mightily compensated financially for the disgraceful way they were treated, have, however, now entertained us quite long enough.
Hacked Off, for all its noise and clever organisation, should not be in a position to determine the course of fundamental legislation and end centuries of press freedom under the existing law.
We now have the final shoot out in The Last Chance Saloon with the Prime Minister and Culture Minister Maria Miller lined up against the editors.
Come up with an independent regulator closely following the Leveson recommendations within the next ten minutes or we will have to let the dogs loose. There is a House of Commons majority in favour of statutory underpinning after all.
Make your choice.
There is of course a large element of bluff involved. Cameron controls Parliamentary time and could block any anti-press legislation from now to the end of this Parliament.
But in the real world of politics why would Cameron, who has many other more important matters to trouble him, want endless running skirmishes with the press, an issue that splits the Coalition and that allows a witless Miliband to take populist advantage.
For the press it would be silly to see the matter unresolved, leaving open the possibility of legislation under a new Labour Government.
This time the political threat from the Prime Minister is credible enough to impress even newspaper editors and publishers. If they fail to reach agreement on strengthened independent regulation it will be very difficult to argue the case against legislation.
Moreover, press behaviour needs to improve. There has been far too much casual cruelty inflicted on powerless individuals and far too many breeches of the code that is supposed to govern journalistic behaviour.
There should be no disagreement about setting up a body independent of serving editors, financed well enough to carry out investigations and with the power to impose serious fines up to 1% of revenue or £1 million for blatant transgressions.
It might even be a good idea for the Lords Hunt and Black to stand aside for the moment to avoid the danger of entrenched positions.
The setting up of an arbitration mechanism, which could be established by changes to civil procedure rules without legislation, could even save newspapers enough money to fund the new press body.
The creativity goes on. There is a suggestion from Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin that newspapers could in effect accept, voluntarily, someone of “unimpeachable impartiality” to verify that the new self-regulatory body meets minimum requirements of the Leveson recommendations.
The name being put forward is that of the retiring Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge.
Judge Judge would be a wise choice. He is the sort of judge who has turned up at Society of Editors conferences to speak about the importance of a free press to society. He has a far better grasp of the concept than Lord Justice Leveson ever did.
Concentrating on the real threat to the press
There are still a couple of whinges from the press standpoint. The main one is the recommendation that groups of people – in effect class actions – could be able to complain to the new body. You can imagine the never-ending complaints that will come from the Friends of Israel/Palestine alleging press bias.
It all seems a small price to pay for a comprehensive agreement that should in time improve press behaviour while defending the vital principle that there should be no specific laws against the press however modest or apparently benign such legislation might appear at the outset.
The last such legislation ended in 1855 with the abolition of the Stamp Act – an abolition that led to an explosion of new titles.
It is now possible that at least the outlines of a deal between press and government can be hammered out before Christmas.
As a result no-one need throw themselves in front of racehorses and Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator who has vowed to ignore any Leveson-style legislation, will be spared the martyrdom of going to jail.
It would be extremely foolish to ignore the offer David Cameron has made. He behaved bravely in the Commons to stand up for an abstract principle in front of the braying hordes and that bravery should win an equal response from the press.
Then everyone can start concentrating on the real threat to the press – how to sustain a business for the future in the age of the internet. It was something that Lord Justice Leveson had very little to say about.
The newspaper industry might find out it is good business to place a greater emphasis on accuracy, fairness and reasonableness – to differentiate itself from the limitless streams of online bile, bombast and banality.