Recent amendments to the Data Protection Bill, supported by the House of Lords and then narrowly defeated in the Commons, would have revived Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry into unlawful conduct and corporate cover-ups in national newspapers. Steven Barnett argues that in opposing Leveson Part 2 the government has surrendered to press lobbying, betrayed promises made to the victims of phone-hacking and undermined the public interest

Barnett, Steven

English

LSE Research Online

The	government	scuppers	Leveson	Part	2:	is	Britain’spress	undermining	democracy?Recent	amendments	to	the	Data	Protection	Bill,	supported	by	the	House	of	Lords	and	then	narrowly	defeated	in	theCommons,	would	have	revived	Part	2	of	the	Leveson	Inquiry	into	unlawful	conduct	and	corporate	cover-ups	innational	newspapers.	Steven	Barnett	argues	that	in	opposing	Leveson	Part	2	the	government	has	surrendered	topress	lobbying,	betrayed	promises	made	to	the	victims	of	phone-hacking	and	undermined	the	public	interest.Campaigners	for	Leveson	2	outside	the	Department	for	Culture	Media	and	Sport,	2017.	Picture:	Avaaz/Public	DomainAlmost	exactly	five	years	ago,	the	veteran	Guardian	columnist	Martin	Kettle	posed	a	question	about	where	powerlies	in	contemporary	Britain.	While	40	years	ago,	he	said,	the	central	political	issue	was	trade	union	power,	thefocus	had	shifted	today	to	Britain’s	unaccountable	press:	yesterday’s	trade	union	barons	have	been	overtaken	bytoday’s	press	barons,	who	‘ultimately	believe	in	their	own	unrestricted	power	–	though	they	call	it	freedom’.Last	week	saw	the	most	recent	–	and	perhaps	the	most	transparent	–	evidence	of	that	political	dominance,	as	thepress	succeeded	in	closing	down	a	public	enquiry	into	widespread	criminality	and	wrongdoing	within	their	ownindustry.	It	was	a	brutal	demonstration	of	naked	power	which	–	had	it	occurred	in	any	other	industry	–	would	haveprovoked	outrage	in	editorial	columns.	Instead,	we	saw	ministers	and	(mostly)	Conservative	MPs	and	peers	fallingover	themselves	to	convince	both	Houses	of	Parliament	that	a	‘free	press’	was	threatened	by	completion	of	theLeveson	Inquiry.A	great	deal	of	disingenuous	and	inaccurate	rhetoric	has	surrounded	this	debate,	so	it’s	worth	a	quick	recap.	TheLeveson	Inquiry	–	prompted	by	revelations	about	News	of	the	World	journalists	hacking	the	phone	of	murderedschoolgirl	Milly	Dowler	–	was	established	with	an	explicit	two-part	remit.	Part	1	was	designed	to	look	generally	atthe	culture	and	practices	of	the	press	with	a	view	to	recommending	an	effective	regulatory	framework	that	wascompatible	with	press	freedom.	But	it	was	barred	from	addressing	the	detail	of	precisely	who	authorised,	committedor	was	a	party	to	unlawful	activity,	to	avoid	hampering	police	investigations	and	prejudicing	subsequent	criminaltrials.	Many	questions	were	left	unasked	or	unanswered	in	the	full	expectation	that	they	would	be	covered	in	Part	2–	which	had	been	personally	promised	by	then	Prime	Minister	David	Cameron	to	victims	of	press	abuse.There	might,	conceivably,	have	been	a	case	for	reneging	on	that	promise	had	the	full	scale	of	illegality	andunethical	conduct	been	exposed	during	Part	1	or	the	trials.	But	in	the	intervening	six	years,	it	has	becomeincreasingly	clear	that	these	investigations	have	barely	scratched	the	surface	of	the	scale	of	wrongdoing	andsubsequent	cover-up,	or	the	number	of	publications	involved.Democratic Audit: The government scuppers Leveson Part 2: is Britain’s press undermining democracy? Page 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-05-21Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/05/21/the-government-scuppers-leveson-part-2-is-britains-press-undermining-democracy/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/Consider	the	evidence.	Since	Part	1		reported,	Mirror	Group	Newspapers	(MGN)	has	admitted	phone	hacking	on	allthree	of	its	titles	over	a	ten-year	period,	and	paid	out	huge	sums	to	victims	in	compensation.	But	not	a	single	MGNeditor	or	senior	executive	has	been	held	accountable.	Murdoch’s	News	UK	has	also	paid	out	huge	sums	in	respectof	phone	hacking	on	the	Sun,	without	either	admitting	or	denying	guilt.	Just	three	weeks	ago,	during	yet	more	courthearings	relating	to	the	Sun,	specific	allegations	were	made	about	complicity	of	senior	executives	in	a	‘hub	ofillegality’	which	involved	paying	for	the	private	medical	data	of	victims	of	terrorism,	murder,	miscarriage	and	cancer.Meanwhile,	John	Ford	–	employed	for	15	years	by	the	Sunday	Times	to	steal	private	data	through	‘blagging’	–	hasturned	whistleblower	and	detailed	some	of	the	shocking	things	he	was	employed	to	do	by	the	paper:	stealingconfidential	utility,	phone	and	financial	records	of	high	profile	individuals,	frequently	without	a	shred	of	publicinterest	justification.Any	illusions	that	unethical	practices	are	purely	historic	were	shattered	last	month	by	the	Kerslake	report	into	theManchester	bombing,	in	which	the	relatives	of	victims	described	–	entirely	unprompted	–	the	gross	intrusions	theysuffered	at	the	hands	of	the	press,	including	medical	staff	being	impersonated	and	children	being	intercepted	ontheir	way	to	school.	Figen	Murray,	the	mother	of	one	of	the	victims,	Martyn	Hett,	wrote	personally	to	MPs	and	peersin	advance	of	last	week’s	parliamentary	debates	describing	in	excruciating	detail	how	journalists	had	knocked	onher	front	door	and	given	condolences	to	her	16-year-old	daughter	even	before	her	brother’s	death	had	beenconfirmed.Nor,	it	seems,	has	unlawful	activity	stopped.	Ford	told	the	Culture	Media	and	Sport	committee	in	March	this	yearthat	‘I	still	know	people	in	the	illegal	data	theft	industry,	and	specifically….I	know	individuals	who	are	still	engaged	inthese	activities	on	behalf	of	newspapers.’	All	this	evidence	and	much	more	was	to	be	properly	scrutinised	duringLeveson	Part	2.Attempting	to	justify	what	amounts	to	government	collusion	in	a	monumental	cover-up,	Culture	Secretary	MattHancock	argued	in	the	Commons	last	week	that	Part	2	would	be	too	‘backward-looking’.	But	the	amendments	tothe	Data	Protection	Bill	that	would	have	revived	Part	2	of	the	inquiry	had	specifically	charged	it	with	looking	atproblems	of	fake	news	and	social	media,	as	well	as	examining	the	efficacy	of	current	regulatory	practice.	It	wouldnot	only	have	helped	to	flush	out	the	manifest	untruths	and	corporate	malpractices	of	the	past,	but	makerecommendations	that	could	help	to	engender	trust	in	UK	print	journalism	that	languishes	–	by	some	margin	–	atthe	very	bottom	of	Europe’s	league	table.Hancock	also	tried	to	defend	his	position	by	talking	up	the	newspapers’	own	regulator	the	Independent	PressStandards	Organisation	(IPSO),	suggesting	that	it	had	new	and	tougher	regulatory	powers,	as	well	as	a	brand	new‘compulsory’	arbitration	scheme.	Unfortunately,	its	powers	–	of	fines	and	investigations	–	have	never	once	beenused	in	its	four-year	existence,	and	its	compulsory	arbitration	scheme	is	a	chimera:	any	publication	can	opt	in	or	outat	will,	and	those	which	loudly	announced	their	participation	can	be	guaranteed	to	leave	once	the	parliamentaryglare	subsides.	In	practice,	IPSO	is	a	puppet	regulator,	owned	by	the	newspapers	and	serving	the	same	purposeas	its	discredited	predecessor,	the	Press	Complaints	Commission	(PCC):	to	provide	a	fig-leaf	of	regulatoryrespectability	to	an	industry	which	is	resolutely	determined	that	it	will	remain	accountable	to	no-one	but	itself.This	matters	not	just	because	there	will	now	be	more	victims	of	press	wrongdoing,	nor	because	hundreds	ofgrassroots	journalists	will	continue	to	be	compromised	by	editors	and	executives	who	routinely	ignore	their	industrycode,	nor	even	because	we	have	missed	an	opportunity	to	restore	faith	in	British	journalism’s	battered	reputation.	Itmatters	primarily	because,	once	again,	Britain’s	political	leaders	have	abdicated	all	political	responsibility	to	standup	for	the	public	interest.	Twenty-five	years	ago,	when	the	Calcutt	Committee	produced	an	equally	scathing	reporton	shocking	press	behaviour	and	editors	pleaded	for	one	last	chance	at	self-regulation,	the	press	successfullyfinessed	Calcutt’s	moderate	recommendations	and	John	Major’s	government	was	too	weak	to	challenge	theirdefiance.	The	phone-hacking	scandal	was	a	direct	result	of	that	cowardice.Now,	once	again,	we	see	a	spineless	government,	craving	political	support	from	newspaper	editors,	feeblymimicking	inanities	about	a	‘free	and	fair	press’	–	as	if	a	public	enquiry	into	corruption,	perjury,	police	collusion	andsubsequent	corporate	cover-ups	would	remotely	interfere	with	either	fairness	or	freedom.	Yet	again,	our	electedrepresentatives	have	capitulated	to	the	one	industry	that	seems	permanently	to	escape	the	kind	of	scrutiny	that	itrightly	demands	in	every	other	walk	of	life.For	a	government	to	be	in	thrall	to	unelected	newspapers	editors	is	bad	for	journalism.	But	it	is	dreadful	fordemocracy.Democratic Audit: The government scuppers Leveson Part 2: is Britain’s press undermining democracy? Page 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-05-21Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/05/21/the-government-scuppers-leveson-part-2-is-britains-press-undermining-democracy/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	not	the	position	of	Democratic	Audit.	About	the	authorSteven	Barnett	is	Professor	of	Communications	at	the	University	of	Westminster.		Similar	PostsAudit	2017:	How	well	does	the	UK’s	media	system	sustain	democratic	politics?The	UK’s	referendum	and	post-fact	politics:	How	can	campaigners	be	held	accountable	for	their	claims?The	future	of	the	BBC	should	not	be	left	to	the	House	of	Commons’	Media,	Culture	and	Sport	committee‘Toothless’	press	regulator	is	a	busted	flush,	but	genuine	post-Leveson	reform	is	still	on	the	wayDemocratic Audit: The government scuppers Leveson Part 2: is Britain’s press undermining democracy? Page 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-05-21Permalink: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/05/21/the-government-scuppers-leveson-part-2-is-britains-press-undermining-democracy/Blog homepage: https://www.democraticaudit.com/

The government scuppers Leveson part 2: is Britain’s press undermining democracy?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/109656/1/dit_com_2018_05_21_the_government_scuppers_leveson_part_2_is_britains.pdf

The government scuppers Leveson part 2: is Britain’s press undermining democracy?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online