Establishing a free press
We have a free press. The UK is proud to have a completely free press.
It is free to be bought by any overseas-based billionaire who wishes to uses it to promulgate his own political and social views.
It is free to publish whatever lies and libels it wishes, and to present as selective and biased a view of current affairs as it chooses.
Such
freedom
is demonstrably harmful to the people of the UK. It is not
the press which is free but the owners of the press. The
journalists
are not free. The people are not free.
What
to
do about it? No political party can reasonably hope to be
elected on a manifesto which promises to establish a free press.
The
press will not allow it. So any proposal needs to be largely
covert
and wholly oblique.
Ownership
restrictions.
One aim might be to stipulate that all newspapers
published in the UK must be majority owned by UK citizens resident
in
the UK. Legislation to that effect would need to be formulated
with
care, but I suspect there are several foreign models we could draw
on. However, such an aim would clearly best not be publicised
before
the election.
Content
restrictions.
Another aim would be to take steps to lessen the
dishonesty and malice of material which is published. This might
possibly be declared in advance, though necessarily in a muted and
hopefully uncontroversial form.
Libels.
Why are victims of vicious
libels so often reluctant to pursue them in court? Perhaps
because
taking it to court is likely to lead to the lies being repeatedly aired publicly, and compounded by much peripheral muck-raking
the courts seem likely to apply a narrow “damage” criterion, and even within that there is great uncertainty that the courts would reach a favourable verdict
for a politician, there is a high risk of even greater reputational harm.
We could redress the financial imbalance by guaranteeing legal aid. But that does not solve the other problems.
They could be addressed by having the government rather than the victim pursue the case. But that would still leave it done in public, and still according to the established criteria for libel.
Which leads to the conclusion that such matters are probably best handled, in the public interest, by a vigilant and appropriately empowered press regulator. It then remains to be decided:
Should the regulator act only on complaints received, or sometimes on its own initiative?
Should its investigations and hearings be in public or in private?
What penalties should it be empowered to impose?
What rights of appeal should the affected parties have?
Other crimes.
Blatant lies, known to be untrue, or insufficiently checked before publication.
Excessively biased and selective presentation of news.
Campaigns of vilification against selected individuals.
Publication of intrusive and private material.
Etc
The Leveson Equiry. [Text from Wikipedia]
The 2,000-page final report was published on 29 November 2012, along with a 48-page executive summary. Leveson found that the existing Press Complaints Commission is not sufficient, and recommends a new independent body, which would have a range of sanctions available to it, including fines and direction of the prominence of apologies and corrections. Membership of the body would be voluntary, but incentivised by schemes such as a kitemark and an inquisitorial arbitration service for handling tort claims such as libel and breach of privacy, and by allowing exemplary damages to be awarded in cases brought against non-participants in the scheme, something not usually part of English law.
Shortly after the publication of the report David Cameron made a statement to the House of Commons. Cameron welcomed many of Leveson's findings, but expressed "serious concerns and misgivings" regarding the prospect of implementing the changes with legislation.
Policy. Have an urgent public consultation on proposals on how to give the Press Commission the powers it needs to best help the press to maintain and improve the quality of what it publishes.