Interested by this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.

In advance of the publication of the Leveson report, two guest bloggers take sides on the arguments for and against press regulation. A more obviously theological take will follow in due course.

FOR

A year’s worth of inquiries into the “culture, practices and ethics” of the UK’s media has borne shocking revelations about the abhorrent nature of journalistic practices that are rife in today’s press. Lord Justice Leveson will deliver his verdict on the state of media affairs today, and many hope that “for the first time, there is a possibility of [at least] modest reform”.

And so they might – the current state of play has (implicitly) condoned systematic, immoral intrusions into the private lives of the British public, whether celebrity or civilian. The nefarious nature of these assaults on privacy is only too well documented in the witness submission from Milly Dowler’s parents. Sally Dowler recalled:

“I had dialled a number of times only to hear the same message [mailbox full]. I was then shocked to phone again and to hear Milly’s voice…In that moment, I was just so elated to think that there was a possibility Milly had accessed her voicemail and therefore was still alive.”

The reality was that a journalist had hacked into Milly’s phone after her disappearance and by doing so had altered her mailbox settings, giving her parents a cruel phantom hope that she was still alive.

The Dowler’s testimony spotlights the obvious need for a change in the system, and an independent referee; so, one might reasonably ask, what can those who oppose proper regulation of the press have to say for themselves?

Well, the Free Speech Network (a press lobbying group), wrote the following tagline over an advert showing pictures of a trio of dictators, Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin and Robert Mugabe: “These people believe in state control of the press … Do you?” Not surprisingly this campaign hails from Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun newspaper. An advert featured in this tabloid, offering freedom or oppression as the only answers, reeks of a hidden agenda. Demonising the opposition to make your team look better is a loser’s tactic.

True to form, the closing submission from News International to the Inquiry, similarly argued, and to equal effect, that it is far better to leave the press in the hands of journalists, “who only wield their pens”; rather than to create a state-endorsed body that is “staffed by the usual cadre of powerful but unelected and unaccountable establishment figures.” But are such media outlets really so ‘accountable’ themselves? The fact that it took years of investigation and months of robust questioning to uncover the names of offending journalists seems to contradict this – those who have been ‘dishing the dirt’ have been most effective in covering their traces; accountable to whom exactly?

In Leveson’s opening statement of the Inquiry, he rightly reminded us that the media’s role in a democratic society is to “provide an essential check on all aspects of public life” and to be a “guardian” for its citizens. The dictionary tells us that guardians are those who “look after, protect, or defend…public morals.” Ironic, then, that it is the public who have turned into the ‘guardian’ of the media’s morals, by holding it to account for malpractice and corruption.

So, while corporations like News International might fight against the ‘nanny state’ and its restrictions, if the last year or so has taught us anything it is that the media needs a babysitter, and the baby cannot babysit itself.

Holly Weldin

AGAINST

As the report of the eagerly anticipated inquiry into the culture, conduct and ethics of the British media, carried out by Lord Justice Leveson, threatens to set the coalition against itself – the Deputy Prime Minister Mr Nick Clegg last night sought the extraordinary right to dissent from the Prime Minister at the despatch box in the Commons today if he disagrees with Mr Cameron’s take on Lord Leveson’s conclusions – the real question of the inquiry is that of morality: can morality be regulated? More importantly, should it? If so, where should the watchdog sit?

The answer is not within the chambers of Westminster or the statutes of the law. Although we shouldn’t believe the scare-mongering comparisons drawn between a state-regulated British press and the oppressive regimes of North Korea, once the government become an interested party in the press, a majority shareholder as it were, it will not rescind this control; state intervention of any kind, no matter how well-intentioned, is the proverbial thin edge of the wedge.

There is a strong case to be made for the position adopted of the majority of British media outlets, namely that the statutory regulation of the press will impact negatively upon free speech.

The press is not, of course, neutral: it cannot be neutral just as people cannot be neutral. It can, however, be independent. At its best, the media is a reflection of society, a melting pot of views, social, political, religious, and other. Individual newspapers or media outlets may have particular leanings; that is only natural. People of particular persuasions naturally come together. That is how a democratic society works. Indeed, democracy is dependent upon the existence and accessibility of differing and disparate views. To seek to contain and regulate these views is to seek to render democracy static, undemocratic.

The press has undoubtedly done wrong. But, it is important to realise that everyone recognises this, not least the British media itself, which has already begun to self-regulate in the light of this. The media has not held back from reporting on its crimes, from confessing its sins. It does not see itself as exempt from the law. Through extensive coverage of its sins, the British press has illustrated that it can regulate its ethics, by listening to the (outraged) voice of the British people. The public outcry brought on by the findings of the Leveson inquiry underlines that the morality of the British press must come not from the statutes of the law, but from the public itself.

It is clear that the status quo is unsustainable: public outcry has brought the press to this position, and this outcry will remain the best form of regulation. The initial shock of the misdeeds of the press brought us to Leveson, and it is safe to say that we will not return.

Emma Bailey

Holly Weldin and Emma Bailey were interns at Theos Think Tank.

Image by Tine Hemeryck from flickr.com available under this Creative Commons licence.