“A great victory for the forces of oppression”, that’s how Trevor Kavanagh the associate editor of the Sun Newspaper described the Royal Charter drafted by UK politicians in the wake of the Leveson enquiry. “You can’t have any kind of political interference in a Free Press” agreed Bob Satchwell, the executive director of the Society of Editors. “A free press, neither directly censored nor self-censoring, is essential to exposing corruption, encouraging public debate and keeping… the law”, added Jacob Rees-Mogg MP.
Over the last few weeks the British press has been awash with quotes like these. As every Tom, Dick and Harry that Fleet Street can muster, queues up in their respective publications to tell the world what lovely people they all are. Lovely people whose day to day operations may have involved just the slightest hints of serious and systemic illegality and poor practice.
Now I’m not attacking journalistic freedom here, quite the opposite in fact I’m enjoying it. Though I really must emphasise how perverse a situation we are in in which nationally recognised, and respected, institutions over the course of several decades knowingly profiteered from violations of British Law. From the compromising of indivial’s rights, the limited opportunities available to their victims for legal recourse and from the common knowledge that the politicians of today were heavily influenced by the press.
In brief I’m disgusted with our press for transforming what should be a discourse upon their institutionalised moral deficiency, into a melodramatic sob story that is based upon a fantasy of their own persecution. Gone from the debate is the question of justice, gone too is any implicit sense of regret or reform, both have been replaced with a metanarrative that the political classes are out there to exploit society and that it is the likes of Viscount Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch who defend what is right.
I do not need to reiterate Lord Justice Leveson’s findings to point out just how ridiculous this corporate propaganda is. Nor do I need to remind anyone that some of these publications, so committed to freedom and liberty, once published editorials in praise of Adolf Hitler for ridding the German state of ‘alien elements’ like Jews. No, I need not go down that route. Sometimes hypocrisy is best left to out itself. What I would rather bring to the debate is the consideration that the press need not be fearful of regulation, as for the most part they are already subject to it. The News International phone hacking scandal is an exemplar of this as the scandal ended with criminal convictions under pre-existing UK law, namely The Criminal Law Act 1977 – which covers ‘Conspiracy’, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIP) 2000 – which Covers Hacking and the Data Protection Act 1998 – which covers the protection of Personal information.
So the Press is in effect is already regulated. However while these laws have proved sufficient in their ability to bring individual journalists and private investigators to account, it was the scale at which the practice of hacking was undertaken which shocked both public and politicians alike. Furthermore when Rupert and James Murdoch were brought before a parliamentary select committee it became increasingly evident that a culture of malpractice was endemic in British journalism for which those with the responsibility of oversight could not account for.
Following recent allegations regarding phone hacking, the News of the World printed it’s final ever edition of the Sunday paper, Sunday 10th July 2011. Image credit: Gene Hunt
This is what brought about the Leveson Enquiry. And when Justice Leveson’s findings confirmed that the British media was culturally flawed so blew the winds of change. Just not on Fleet Street or in Wapping. As I write this Labour’s Gloria de Piero (shadow minister for women and equalities), has accused a news agency of trying to obtain topless pictures of her taken when she was 15. Clearly then nothing has changed. Not only are the papers seeking to break British law and cause their subjects unmentionable emotional distress, but they are doing so with stories which are at best outside of the public interest and at worst; contemptuous displays of a vulgar and exploitative misogyny, and in the name of free speech? Doesn’t it make you sick?
And don’t be naive enough to think that this story was just being pursued by some sleazy tabloid or a minor and little known Yellow paper. Supposedly reputable broadsheets are not averse to printing sleaze themselves; they just package it differently as a ‘celebrity’ or ‘showbiz’ story.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for press freedom, but I want to see responsibility too. When you look at the behaviour of our press, what they are willing to do to sell newsprint, to hurt, shame and exploit. Is it any surprise that one of the most trusted legal minds in the country believes that more can be done? Surely until a cultural change is demonstrated, these smut peddlers get exactly what they deserve.
Put simply the responsibility for bringing about a need for greater press regulation lies solely with the press themselves. Were it not for the Moral perfidy of the British press, for their contempt of all virtue, for their iniquitous behaviour, there would be no royal charter.
About the Author
