Keeping phone hacking on the agenda

By Ryan Thomas

With the recent and slow-motion collapse of the Gaddafi regime in Libya dominating media coverage of late, it is perhaps easy to forget about one of the other major stories of the past few months, the phone hacking scandal. However, the news that the Electoral Commission is being asked to investigate whether Andy Coulson was on the News International payroll after he began work as the Conservative Party’s spokesman is a timely reminder of the story and its importance.

As facts continue to emerge, we begin to comprehend the totality of the situation and its fundamental causes: a cut-throat competitive environment, the desperate need to shift copies rather than serve a broader social responsibility, and a deeply imbalanced relationship between the press, the politicians, and the public. The egregious practices revealed speak to a news culture that has placed the bottom line over the public interest.

Where do we go from here? The Leveson Inquiry is tasked with investigating the ethics, practices, and culture of the British press. Preliminary hearings begin in September. It is important that those concerned about the health of the British press (and, by implication, British democracy) are proactive in pushing for media reform to not only ensure that we do not see the kind of practices we have learned about through this scandal but to reorient the press back toward its historic role as a protector of the people.

Leveson’s commitment to transparency and to placing thoroughness over expedition is to be welcomed, as is the news that the inquiry will have the power to compel witnesses. Thankfully, Leveson has also already indicated that he will not accept a “bad apples” narrative that situates individual journalists, editors, or organisations as culpable:

“It may be tempting for a number of people to close ranks and suggest that the problem is or was local to a group of journalists then operating at the News of the World, [but] I would encourage all to take a wider view of the public good, and help me grapple with the length, width, and depth of the problem as it exists.”

David Cameron surprised many by including social media, broadcasting, and the BBC in the terms of the inquiry, thus expanding its remit significantly. This was surprising because broadcasting is already tightly regulated through Ofcom rather than the self-regulatory model favored by newspapers. In particular, the inclusion of the BBC is surely a calculated move to throw some red meat to the wilder-eyed members of the Tory backbenches.

Despite Cameron’s cheap and unwarranted shot at the BBC, this does not automatically mean that his view is gospel among the members of the inquiry. In any case, an inquiry that looks at the totality of British media is better than none at all. Indeed, if it helps bring about an end to the baffling system where the mechanism of delivery determines the regulatory structure a company operates under (broadcasters being subject to statutory regulation, newspapers free to do whatever they please), it will be a decidedly welcome intervention.

What is particularly important is that the Leveson Inquiry does not join the long, sad litany of inquiries and Royal Commissions into British press practices where public confidence in the press falls, change is demanded, and the press, to a large extent, rumble on as normal, all the while letting anybody who will listen know the importance of self-regulation. The public must remain vigilant to this.

It is, of course, churlish to get the bunting out because of the demise of the News of the World, poisonous rag though it was. Nobody should take pleasure in the summary dismissal of over 200 people, journalists and non-journalists alike, particularly given that many of the dismissed had nothing at all to do with the phone hacking scandal. However, advocates of a press that is both robust and ethical, that concerns itself with the public interest rather than what some of the public are interested in knowing, and which competes in a media environment where pluralism is valued, have much to be optimistic about.

There now exists an opportunity for a new model of journalism that serves the interests of the public and is geared toward social responsibility rather than doing whatever it takes to chase circulation. Critical to this is accountability; the actions at News International are illustrative of an organisation that was accountable to nobody, doing whatever to whomever it pleased without fear of punishment. As the inquiry begins and gathers pace, the question of how the press should be regulated will become critical. It is important that what emerges is a media system that allows the press operational freedom but ensures accountability and responsibility, as this is ultimately in all our interests.

This article is the first in a series of three. Part 2 will look at the concept of freedom of the press and why we have nothing to fear from the bogeyman of regulation. Part 3 will examine ways in which the media can be reformed.