Horse 1410 - Leveson And The Straw Man

It was a little bit surreal this weekend to read through the British newspapers' websites as they all colluded to erect a giant strawman following the wake of the Leveson Enquiry. Almost in unison they played the clarion call that the freedom of the press was important to democracy and that it is necessary to hold government to account. Whilst I agree with this entirely, it completely ignores what Lord Justice Leveson set out to do and it largely ignores what his report mainly says.

The Leveson Enquiry Into The Media And Ethics did exactly what it said on the tin, it looked into the media and ethics or rather the lack thereof. I don't think that actual utility of the freedom of the press was ever being investigated at all; nor did it need to be. What was being investigated was why the press thought it acceptable to hack the phones of the living and dead, to pry into privacy, to harass people, to pay off the police and to cosy up to government.
If freedom of the press is important to democracy and to hold government to account, then what gave them the right and ability to break the law and who exactly was holding the press to account?

Firstly I agree with that sentiment that the press and more generally the public should be able to publish whatever they like without fear of censorship. There are of course limits to that absolute freedom such as defamation and libel but you can even publish outright slander if that's all that it is.
I can for instance publish that Arthur Vanderlay is an idiot and a moron because that is only an opinion. I can not publish that Arthur Vanderlay is a thief and engaging in corruption unless I have good enough proof to show that this is true. I doubt that Arthur Vanderlay is ever likely to apply for damages though, as he is fictional.
As far as free speech and freedom of the press goes, we are talking about what comes out of the end of the sausage machine and not what went into it. Freedom of the press, freedom to publish and free speech generally is entirely unregulated in the UK. The Press Acts which in effect gave rise to the licensoing of printing presses were repealed in 1695 and although there are standards and licences covering TV and radio and Ofcom which regulates broadcast media, this doesn't apply to print. It also doesn't apply to the internet which although highlights a weakness in the law, shows that the press and print media doesn't necessarily need to fear regulation in a hurry.
In fact although the US has the right to free speech enshrined as the first amendment to their Constitution, the law in that case was only descriptive of what already existed. The environment of British law actually allowed the publication of no end of pamphlets and papers, which in its own way eventually forged that new nation. As for the press and democracy in Britain, the so called "golden age" of the 1720s simply would not have existed without the freedom of the press, and the only real reason why there is seemingly so few newspapers in the modern era is because wages and physical print costs are so high compared with the drive for profit.

For the record, I personally think that the complete lack of law in the UK with regards the freedom of the press is perfect. The press and the general public should have the right to publish whatever the heck they want, within the obvious limitation of tort law. The fact that the press is even making a hoohaa about this, is to build a strawman so that that will be attacked and they can continue to go about their business.
Long after the names Dowler, Coulson and Brooks have faded from peoples' memory the underlying issues still won't have to do with the freedom of the press to publish but the unethical practices which caused this in the first place; namely why did the press think it was free to break other parts of the law?

The Red Tops especially and the broadsheets to a lesser extent, are finding themselves in a world where physical sales of print media are falling because people can get their news from TV, radio and the internet. To counter this, rather than increasing the quality of journalism they'be been chasing an increasing diet of salaciousness and muck. The problem is that to get fresh supplies of muck, they've had to scrape even harder at the bottom of the barrel and delved into people's private lives.
The police failed in their function of policing this because they too were tangled in the muck. The political parties and by extension the government, which should have been seperate also did nothing because they rely on media to sway public opinion in their chase of reelection and power. When you have the Prime Minister himself sending texts and spending holidays with the editor of a.newspaper, although you can ask to what degree the press is being controlled by government the reverse question can and also should be asked.

So it wasn't the lack of regulation of what went to press which was the problem but rather the lack of prudence and decency in the collection of muck to go into print in the first place.
Private Eye editor Ian Hislop summed it up very well when he suggested of James Murdoch, the chief of News International that he should have been aware of the practices of his newspapers (in particular The News Of The World) that either "he was a knave or a fool but more likely a fool".
The finger should be pointed at people like Rebecca Brooks, Andy Coulson, Piers Morgan, etc. and some amount of prosecution is being undertaken through the courts but again, this isn't to do with the freedom of the press but criminal activity, the deliberate invasion of privacy and a lack of ethics.

Most commentators suspect that what will follow from this is a push by print media to form some sort of council and then for some arm of government to audit that council. If it takes three or so years to draw up the frame of reference, the climate will have changed yet again and the future government of the day will not want to appear heavy handed.
I will say this though, self regulation is as good as no regulation at all. Human nature is such that left unregulated, individuals and organisations will act exactly as they see fit; the fact that the  Leveson Enquiry even needs to exist is proof of that. Collectively organisations diffuse blame and the bloodletting of a few individuals is usually enough to ensure the survival of the group. In this case, unethical dealings by print media is almost certainly likely to occur although perhaps in a slightly modified form.
Yet again, the freedom of the press still won't actually be the real issue or the problem.

So watch over the next few weeks as the strawmen are built and ceremonially whacked because I don't think that the real issue, which is the unethical practices of the press will be dealt with beyond changing the staff at the top. Reset, regroup, roll again.