This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/25/leveson-fundamentalist-press-self-regulation

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
How to move on from being a Leveson fundamentalist How to move on from being a Leveson fundamentalist
(6 months later)
After last week's hysteria about press regulation comes time for reconsideration. The excitable posturing in parliament (spurred on giddily by Hacked Off) has left us in a mess. MPs have proposed "voluntary" regulation, but also statute to make it effectively compulsory. This has already driven out the New Statesman and the Spectator (members of the current system), and left Private Eye remaining aloof on the sidelines. This week, we may see a move by a regional newspaper group, who could quite legitimately say that it cannot afford to be part of the new regulatory superclub being proposed by Westminster. It would be hard to criticise them.After last week's hysteria about press regulation comes time for reconsideration. The excitable posturing in parliament (spurred on giddily by Hacked Off) has left us in a mess. MPs have proposed "voluntary" regulation, but also statute to make it effectively compulsory. This has already driven out the New Statesman and the Spectator (members of the current system), and left Private Eye remaining aloof on the sidelines. This week, we may see a move by a regional newspaper group, who could quite legitimately say that it cannot afford to be part of the new regulatory superclub being proposed by Westminster. It would be hard to criticise them.
Back in Westminster, Hacked Off its continuing its self-appointed legislative role by proposing changes to the crime and courts bill to protect "loss-making" bloggers from being caught by the legislation, and compelled to pay exemplary damages if they lose a libel or privacy case. More clumsy amendments to a deal that was clumsily concocted in the first place.Back in Westminster, Hacked Off its continuing its self-appointed legislative role by proposing changes to the crime and courts bill to protect "loss-making" bloggers from being caught by the legislation, and compelled to pay exemplary damages if they lose a libel or privacy case. More clumsy amendments to a deal that was clumsily concocted in the first place.
At the heart of this is the problem of dealing with that well-paraded paradox: regulating the free press. The Leveson inquiry was a legitimate response to the issue, and a healthy process of holding editors to account, but the major mistake was imagining that Lord Leveson would have all the answers. All politicians – along with Hacked Off – started from the flawed position, without thinking, of being Leveson fundamentalists. And, like all fundamentalists, they have become incapable of nuanced thought and compromise.At the heart of this is the problem of dealing with that well-paraded paradox: regulating the free press. The Leveson inquiry was a legitimate response to the issue, and a healthy process of holding editors to account, but the major mistake was imagining that Lord Leveson would have all the answers. All politicians – along with Hacked Off – started from the flawed position, without thinking, of being Leveson fundamentalists. And, like all fundamentalists, they have become incapable of nuanced thought and compromise.
In that sense, Leveson is like the pope. A symbol of purity and infallibility in theory, but in reality a figurehead surrounded by conflict and misunderstanding. Worse, he has moved from beetle-browed, harrumphing man of flesh and blood, to half of an oft-uttered adjectival compound: "Leveson-compliant". The best brains in the land (well, in parliament) have wrestled with trying to second-guess what he meant, as if his report conceals some eternal verities. It does not.In that sense, Leveson is like the pope. A symbol of purity and infallibility in theory, but in reality a figurehead surrounded by conflict and misunderstanding. Worse, he has moved from beetle-browed, harrumphing man of flesh and blood, to half of an oft-uttered adjectival compound: "Leveson-compliant". The best brains in the land (well, in parliament) have wrestled with trying to second-guess what he meant, as if his report conceals some eternal verities. It does not.
But there is hope. It is easy to forget, but about 80% of what is on the table is acceptable to almost everybody. And, although there is an astounding level of insincerity at work, the political solution remains voluntary self-regulation. That means it is for the editors and publishers now to act.But there is hope. It is easy to forget, but about 80% of what is on the table is acceptable to almost everybody. And, although there is an astounding level of insincerity at work, the political solution remains voluntary self-regulation. That means it is for the editors and publishers now to act.
The various strands of the industry must seize this opportunity to forget for a moment about recognition bodies, royal charters and Leveson-compliance. They must listen to this advice from Monty Python. They must see what can be agreed and achieved immediately, which might include the following:The various strands of the industry must seize this opportunity to forget for a moment about recognition bodies, royal charters and Leveson-compliance. They must listen to this advice from Monty Python. They must see what can be agreed and achieved immediately, which might include the following:
1. Scrap the "arbitral arm", for dealing with breaches of libel and privacy law. I know Leveson wanted it, but it is impractical and damaging to small newspaper groups. It was always too ambitious to try to solve the problem of regulation and legal costs in one go. Let's just agree this causes more problems than it solves and forget about it. If we want better libel arbitration, then it should be available for everybody, not just newspapers.1. Scrap the "arbitral arm", for dealing with breaches of libel and privacy law. I know Leveson wanted it, but it is impractical and damaging to small newspaper groups. It was always too ambitious to try to solve the problem of regulation and legal costs in one go. Let's just agree this causes more problems than it solves and forget about it. If we want better libel arbitration, then it should be available for everybody, not just newspapers.
2. Set up a new body with a standards arm, and the power to fine. This would provide the mandate and powers lacked by the PCC, and go almost all of the way towards a meaningfully improved system.2. Set up a new body with a standards arm, and the power to fine. This would provide the mandate and powers lacked by the PCC, and go almost all of the way towards a meaningfully improved system.
3. Accept an independent appointments process. By the end, PCC commissioners were appointed by three public members and an independent adviser from the public sector. There was no industry veto. This can easily be built on.3. Accept an independent appointments process. By the end, PCC commissioners were appointed by three public members and an independent adviser from the public sector. There was no industry veto. This can easily be built on.
4. Accept no editors on the complaints body. This has more or less been done.4. Accept no editors on the complaints body. This has more or less been done.
5. Accept an external system of audit. Agree now that a panel can publish an annual report into the workings and funding of the new system and that the system itself can be held externally to account.5. Accept an external system of audit. Agree now that a panel can publish an annual report into the workings and funding of the new system and that the system itself can be held externally to account.
6. Agree a kitemark. All members should have to see the value of being part of a new, robust system of regulation.6. Agree a kitemark. All members should have to see the value of being part of a new, robust system of regulation.
This system would answer the most serious criticisms about the PCC. It would be palatable to most of the current refuseniks. It would be in the spirit of Leveson, without being bound to every minor detail.This system would answer the most serious criticisms about the PCC. It would be palatable to most of the current refuseniks. It would be in the spirit of Leveson, without being bound to every minor detail.
If it gets up and running (and working), it will be a matter for government to worry about whether it fits the arbitrary recognition schemes they are desperate to propose. Because, let us be clear, the threat of full statutory regulation has never been further away. The last weeks have shown us that it is impossible and unworkable. The threat of exemplary damages is likely to fail the legal test.If it gets up and running (and working), it will be a matter for government to worry about whether it fits the arbitrary recognition schemes they are desperate to propose. Because, let us be clear, the threat of full statutory regulation has never been further away. The last weeks have shown us that it is impossible and unworkable. The threat of exemplary damages is likely to fail the legal test.
So the industry should let the government worry about the legislative mess they have created. Give the public what they deserve: a better system that is working now; not a tedious wrangle for the next two years.So the industry should let the government worry about the legislative mess they have created. Give the public what they deserve: a better system that is working now; not a tedious wrangle for the next two years.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.