We have the finest press in the world – but this week they haven’t shown it

November 29, 2012 12:30 pm

For the last few days the media has been engaged in one of its most cherished pastimes – talking about, and to, itself.

Undoubtedly freedom of the press is one of society’s most cherished principles (despite the decline in readership of the mainstream press) and should be defended by all those who believe in exposing the misdeeds of the powerful and the corrupt. Yet the argument over press regulation has become a repetitive media circle jerk.

Essentially, the problem is that a press regulator that isn’t statutory would risk being toothless (like the PCC), as organisations could simply opt out and print what they like. (Statutory regulation does not necessarily imply “state controlled media” – but many columnists and commentators have made a successful stab at claiming them as synonymous).

And yet such regulation is essentially pointless in the era of the Internet, as it would leave papers and magazines held to far higher standards than online publishers, a pressure which could exacerbate the speed of growth for online news and the decline of the print press.

Essentially, you can’t regulate the Internet. You can try, but you’d fail.

But that doesn’t mean that efforts to bring about a better – more responsible – print press should be abandoned. Whilst we’ve heard plenty about untrammelled press freedom (which we don’t have – libel anyone?), we should remember that there are two different and distinct types of liberty. There must also be freedom from malicious and inaccurate reporting, and freedom from having your privacy invaded, as well as freedom to publish the truth. The Leveson report deals with the often dull but entirely necessary task of balancing these two competing notions of freedom. Because the rights and freedoms of both the Dowlers and the Murdochs are important.

Yet all of this to-ing and fro-ing over press regulation (and the lack of necessary nuance) is showing the press in a dreadful, self regarding light. Because with a few honourable exceptions, the focus of the media – and therefore public conversation – has been on just one aspect (regulation) of Leveson. Yet his remit was far wider, and touches on issues that are at least as important as how/if papers are regulated in a free society.

On the day that Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are making their latest court appearance, why is there so little discussion of Leveson’s remit to investigate the relationship between the police and the press?

Why, when political leaders of all stripes are bracing themselves for the backlash of an angry press against changing their cosy consensus, are we not talking about Leveson’s remit to investigate the relationship between the press and politicians?

And why, when we talk about press freedom, don’t we ask what impact the ownership of a huge proportion of our media by a few wealthy individuals is having on press freedom?

A modest kitchen table would be large enough to host a meeting at which Britain’s press barons could co-ordinate the majority of Britain’s press against the government, or Labour, or both – such is the small number of people involved. Indeed as Political Scrapbook suggested yesterday, those conversations already appear to be underway.

It is often said that the phone hacking scandal showed the best of British journalism (investigative journalism) as well as the worst (illegality). Whilst that may be true, the one dimensional and self-obsessed reaction of the media to the very idea of stricter regulation has shown them in a very dim light indeed.

Which is a great shame, as we have the finest press in the world. This week would have been a great time to show that.

  • Chrisso

    Excellent article!

  • Dave Postles

    ‘Which is a great shame, as we have the finest press in the world.’
    I don’t know what your comparators are.

  • Dave Postles

    What we have is a fine system of Select Committees, thanks to Tony Wright and others. We should pay tribute to the efforts of the members of these committees and their chairs, of all parties. Well done.

  • Democritus

    We have the worst press in the world.

Latest

  • Featured Latest Ashcroft poll shows Labour making ground in England – but facing wipeout in Scotland

    Latest Ashcroft poll shows Labour making ground in England – but facing wipeout in Scotland

    After the Ashcroft constituency poll of Scottish seats exactly a month ago I said that Scottish Labour is going down in flames, and taking Miliband’s chances of a majority with it. Today’s latest Ashcroft poll has done nothing to put out those flames, or suggest Scottish Labour is performing anything other than a catastrophic nosedive. Except now it almost feels like everyone has adjusted to the “new normal” whereby a Labour heartland is now a Labour wasteland. We’ll get back […]

    Read more →
  • News Video Broadcasters to Cameron: Tell us a date you can do for head-to-head debate

    Broadcasters to Cameron: Tell us a date you can do for head-to-head debate

    Broadcasters appear to be losing their patience with David Cameron’s attempts to get out of appearing the pre-election TV debates. It is widely understood that Cameron has been advised by strategist Lynton Crosby not to take part in the leaders’ debates and has been dragging his feet during negotiations, making more debates each time broadcasters make new proposals. Following the initial invitation of UKIP to appear, Cameron claimed that the Green Party should also take part. Now the Greens, SNP […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Tactical voting: unless we are an open tribe, we will die

    Tactical voting: unless we are an open tribe, we will die

    So Compass holds a debate about the relevance, or not, of tactical voting in the run up May and straight away John Spellar MP and then Luke Akehurst are on to us. John accused us of calling on people ‘not to vote Labour”, Luke says we are ‘naïve’. Well first lets be clear: we have set up the space on our website for a debate; we have one article for tactical voting and one against. We wanted to see what […]

    Read more →
  • News Cooper says “slippery” Farage’s immigration speech will increase division

    Cooper says “slippery” Farage’s immigration speech will increase division

    Yvette Cooper has accused Nigel Farage of attempting to exploit concerns about immigration rather than attempting to come up with practical policies. The Shadow Home Secretary also derided UKIP for getting themselves in a “ridiculous tangle” on the issue – last week a spokesperson for the party said they would introduce a net migration target of 50,000, while Farage today claims that it is not party policy. This follows Ed Miliband attacking David Cameron for missing his 2010 immigration promises […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured PMQs Verdict: Nevermind what Cameron said – it’s what he wouldn’t say that matters

    PMQs Verdict: Nevermind what Cameron said – it’s what he wouldn’t say that matters

    There are only three PMQs left until the election. Three more of these turgid, unattractive, unedifying and borderline pointless sessions to sit through before May. If this is the highlight of the Parliamentary week then Parliament can’t prorogue quick enough, frankly. Evidently many MPs feel the same, judging by the wide open spaces on the green benches this lunchtime. After a few minutes MPs had all spaced themselves out a little bit to make the place look a bit less […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit