Lord Leveson’s offspring has been the target of some considerable debate since its conception in 2011.
Its recent birth, however, has not only caused an unprecedented furore and torrential commentary but has also managed to partially separate the coalition government because of the parties’ differing views on the matter.
It is worth noting, for those unfamiliar with the with the subject, that the report provides a two- thousand page review of the current conduct, regulation and policies of the media sector in the United Kingdom.
The report resulted in a substantially damning review of the present conduct and policies of the press, branding its recent behaviour as one that "wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people".
Today’s article will by no means opt to provide readers with a detailed history of the report and how it came to be or with a critical overview of the report as this author has not yet had the time to go through all two- thousand pages of it. The article will, however, examine several issues that have arisen around and from the Leveson inquiry.
To begin with, in his report, Lord Leveson recommends setting up an independent self-regulatory watchdog for the press, backed by legislation.
This proposal has been met with stark criticism by the press and, rather surprisingly, from Mr Cameron himself. At the time of commissioning the report, Mr Cameron gave his word that he would implement the reforms proposed by the report in full, provided that they were ‘bonkers’.
One is then tempted to enquire into the legitimacy of such a proposal and the need for such a body; after all, one might argue, the media sector is currently regulated by the Press Complaints Commission (‘PCC’) chaired by Lord Hunt.
Several issues arise; namely, the PCC is an independent body which has been set up by the media sector itself. Hence, ever since its creation, it has been kept alive by ‘an annual levy’ it charges magazines, newspapers, etc.
Such a notion, of course, is, from a purely logical point of view, quite unnerving.
To begin with, one wonders whether such a body can at all be called ‘independent’; after all, if the media pays to keep it alive then, surely, it must pay it back by somehow transmuting their relationship from parasitism to symbiosis.
Further, in the light of recent events surrounding the News Corp scandal, one might note that the PCC has not been sufficiently efficient in tackling the media’s misconduct; or even reporting it, for that matter.
I would like to sign off by looking at a certain article which I found rather disturbing and, regretfully, devoid of any morality.
I would like to draw your attention to the second article on the above website; ‘The Case Against - Alex Dinsdale’.
I shall let you look through the article at your leisure.
For the purposes of today’s discussion, I should like to concentrate on only two arguments in it:
- ‘We are in danger of misinterpreting already punishable crimes committed by a small section of the press as widespread misconduct throughout Britain’s media.’
Firstly, the very suggestion that Mr. Murdoch’s empire in the UK is a ‘small section’ is quite ludicrous. Further, even if that was the case, one wonders, would that excuse the atrocities committed by the media sector that have come to light in recent years. Here are but a few:
à Hacking the phone of a murdered girl (Milly Dowler)
à Accusing an innocent person of murder and leading to his arrest (Chris Jefferries)
à Wrongly accusing a senior member of the House of Lords of child abuse (Lord McAlpine)
- ‘Has self-regulation failed? In some respects, but only failed in a tiny section of an enormous free press.’
The media should be there to protect us be keeping us informed. It does not matter that many aspects of self- regulation work; what matters is that some do not.
To conclude, it would seem that the reforms proposed by Lord Leveson are not ‘bonkers’ and need to be implemented as soon as practicably possible. The reforms do not suggest that the press will be censored in any way; rather, they offer a way of monitoring and preventing such media behaviour and policies that we have witnessed lately.
It must be at all times remembered that the media of today can no longer be seen as our local friendly newspaper; rather, it is a giant with considerable influence, power and appetite to meddle in our political affairs and social lives; a giant that needs to be overseen, if not controlled.
No comments:
Post a Comment