We can’t regulate for taste

By Emma Burnell / @scarletstand

The News International scandal rumbled on slowly for so long, that no one expected it to explode in the way that it has. That Ed has been sure footed in the face of a great deal of contrary advice from all comers is to his credit. He was right to press for a review of the BskyB decision, right to press for a judge-led inquiry, and right to press Cameron on Coulson. Ed has played this well and cemented his leadership in time for the summer. I’m sure we’ll get the odd voice calling for this to be a make or break conference, but we are far from where we were.

That Ed has ploughed on, judging rightly the mood of the nation and setting himself up for a strong and convincing win against a vastly weakened Cameron is great. That he has done so on an issue that has managed to unite the Labour Party and the country – giving them a space to look anew at us and Ed is fantastic.

There is going to be an inquiry, and it will be pretty wide ranging. There is also going to be a new independent scrutiny regime of the press. That too is good. Dealing with the press is essential. But we must be careful about what we push Ed to push for. We should be careful that a carefully managed campaign for a better press doesn’t descend into a foolish crusade for a press that is better for us.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I loathe the Daily Mail. I intensely dislike its politics and the misogyny that seeps from every page. But that is a political opinion not a legal one. I should never have the right to either close down the detestable rag nor to stop those who want to buy it from doing so. Equally, I will continue to consider myself free to take time to convince people not to buy it and not to advertise in it. That too is free speech, and if we are to live in a capitalist system, the least we can do is play it at its own game.

There are things that should be changed about the way newspapers are allowed to report some kinds of stories. Science based stories in particular are often twisted, misreported or plainly misunderstood. I hope that a look at the way in which science stories are covered and reported will be part of the inquiry. Not least so a scandal like the MMR vaccine hoax can ever be permitted to endanger the lives of the children of misled and misinformed parent again.

But political stories are different. There is rarely a right or wrong answer. There aren’t good political papers and bad ones, but ones that pander to our tastes. What we can’t do is judge those tastes or attempt to push them through legislation or regulation.

At the moment, we have the public on our side on this issue. The set pieces have now ended and focus will move on to other areas, the Eurozone crisis, famine in Africa and continuing economic flat lining at home. This is right. The public won’t forgive us for squeezing too much from this crisis politically and Ed will want to talk about other issues now he has earned a proper hearing. His focus on responsibility has deftly linked the anger people feel at elite journalists, bankers and politicians and is starting to gather shape as a strong alternative narrative to the paternalistic austerity of the coalition.

We mustn’t squander this chance to expand our conversation with the public naturally by contracting our vision to a politically more comfortable press. It will lose an audience we have worked hard to get, and – in the age of interactivity – won’t work anyway.