on media
Raymond Snoddy takes an independent view of what’s needed from Lord Leveson
Leveson won’t be just a footnote
T
he most important thing he has to remember is that the main part of his job is already done. The process has managed to expose unheralded levels of law-breaking by a minority of journalists. There has also been the disclosure of more police corruption than you could shake a truncheon at. And then there were the toe-curling, embarrassing emails between senior Murdoch executives, some of whom have now been charged, and Prime Minister David Cameron. The Leveson inquiry was born of political expediency for Cameron, who effectively said hang the danger of unintended consequences such as undermining press freedom. But in a laboured and ponderous way, and with the help of whinging actors and comedians, Leveson has justified his existence. Unacceptable practices, including casual cruelty inflicted on ordinary citizens, have been laid bare. In important ways newspapers have to change and many journalists will have to change too. Lord Justice Leveson made it clear he did not want to be a footnote in a media professor’s history of newspapers in the 21st century. That ambition has already been achieved. Will any journalist, editor or proprietor think it wise to turn a blind eye to phone-hacking in future or believe that bribing policemen is an acceptable way to land stories? We can also assume that the relationship between publishers and politicians is going to be much more at arms-length. It would have been nice to have had a balancing judicial inquiry into the culture and practices of the
8 30 | theJournalist
banking industry. And how about the pharmaceutical industry, following the $3 billion fine on GlaxoSmithKline for bribing doctors to prescribe unsuitable drugs in the US? It looks like the newspaper industry will have to face the judicial music alone. Lord Justice Leveson has to be reassured that his place in media history is already secure. Somehow he has to persuade himself – or be persuaded – that his remaining task now is quite limited.
A
“
Lord Justice Leveson has to be reassured that his place in media history is already secure
”
ll he has to come up with is a formula for a successor body to the Press Complaints Commission that will provide a more robust form of selfregulation – or independent regulation as his Lordship will insist on calling it. It will, however, be a simple political calculation for Lord Justice Leveson. If he waves the legislative stick too vigorously his recommendations will be disregarded. He could do much worse than accept the proposals of Lord Hunt of the PCC who is, after all, a legal specialist in regulation. Leveson could tie newspapers in to a strengthened code by commercial contracts that can attract serious fines if they are abused seriously; provide incentives to ensure all publishers take part and have a whistle-blowing line for journalists who are put under unacceptable pressure to behave unethically. Lord Justice Leveson has a stubborn and petulant streak and will be unlikely to nod through Lord Hunt’s proposals. He is more likely to back the Irish model where the regulator is recognised in statute and every publisher is required to take part. On principle it would be a small step in the wrong direction but perhaps not too high a price to pay for an industry that acquiesced in some of its more unscrupulous brethren running out of control.
raymond.snoddy@gmail.com
For the latest updates from Raymond Snoddy on Twitter go to @raymondsnoddy