Helen Lewis

News and views about writing, eating, gaming and watching

Labour's odd plan to get bad journalists "struck off"

Ivan Lewis has a proposal to clean up the press. Shame it's unworkable and illiberal.

By Helen Lewis Published 27 September 2011 12:03

I know it's the season for political kite-flying but I have to confess that I'm completely taken aback by the idea of the shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, that bad journalists should be "struck off" and never allowed to darken a newsroom again. I'm sure his attacks on Rupert Murdoch and News Corp's market dominance will get more coverage but this is worth addressing.

In his speech at the Labour party conference today, Lewis said:

As in other professions, the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off.

To which my response is bafflement, mixed with queasy foreboding. You can strike off doctors, because they have specific professional qualifications (and they perform specific professional duties, such as prescribing medicines). There are no professional qualifications required to become a journalist, despite the best efforts of several postgraduate courses to imply there are. The everyday activities involved in being a journalist are similarly nebulous: talking to people, writing, researching.

What Lewis presumably means, then, is that bad journalists would be banned from employment with established newspapers and magazines. There is no way they can be prevented from writing a blog or having a Twitter account, unless this is even more draconian than it sounds.

So, already this proposal looks hard to enforce. And this is before we get to the idea of a "register" of journalists (which the idea of "striking off" implies). If we look at the countries around the world where the government keeps such a register, I bet they're not the ones you'd regard as shining beacons of democracy and enlightenment. Who would administer the register? What would the appeals procedure be? How much would it cost to join?

Finally, there is the question of cost. On 22 September, the long-delayed NHS database was scrapped, despite the £12.7bn ploughed into it by successive governments; a failure that might remind politicians that bureaucratic database projects are hard, expensive and require careful supervision. Why launch more, needlessly?

I know that Lewis's language is vague at best and there is no firm commitment. But when an idea is this bad, why float it at all?

PS Cory Doctorow has also written on this subject, noting: "For a party eager to shed its reputation as sinister, spying authoritarians, Labour's really got its head up its arse."

Update, 1pm: Ivan Lewis has now clarified his remarks, saying on Twitter: "Journalism is a highly respected profession. Why shouldn't journos found to have commissioned or engaged in phone hacking be struck off." He adds: "I said industry should consider whether gross malpractice should lead to a journo being struck off and i oppose state oversight of press."

The full text of his speech can be found here.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Party Conferences 2011 Rupert Murdoch Labour Conference Labour

More from Helen Lewis

View the discussion thread.

18 comments

Fri, 2011-09-30 09:56 — swatantra

Anyn that can get rid of journalists like Oborne Melanie Phillips and Hari, would be doing us aall a big service as well as those phone hackers and disgraceful paperazi.
But where celebs are setting double standards like Rio and Prezza, and Moseley then its fair game and journalism is vindicated.

Mon, 2011-11-28 13:38 — trxsuspension (not verified)

Hello. everyone.
would like to make new friends with you guys.

Wed, 2011-09-28 13:27 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

How many journalists do you think Gordon Brown would have jailed Andy Mc?

The only reason this has been brought up is to censor the Press and indeed the internet and TV.

Do you really want a 1984 Big Brother society, how much do you reckon they would then be claiming in expenses with a tame press, you've already seen the Met trying to strong arm the Guardian.

We need a much more free media not strangulated!

Tue, 2011-09-27 12:16 — paul haine (not verified)

So, what they should do instead is have a blacklist register, like the sex offenders register. News organisations should be able to check up if any journalists in their area are on the Journalist Offenders Register (we can call the right to do this "Coogan's Law"), and anyone on the register would be banned from coming within 20 metres of a newsworthy event when they're carrying a pen and paper.

Tue, 2011-09-27 12:28 — Angela (not verified)

He's only talking about News Int. journos!

Tue, 2011-09-27 12:36 — Medh4 (not verified)

"There is no way they can be prevented from writing a blog or having a Twitter account, unless this is even more draconian than it sounds."

This wins the award for the most purposefully obtuse piece of the year!

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:20 — Phil (not verified)

I agree this proposal sounds illiberal. That said, your comparison with the NHS Connecting for Health programme is ridiculous.

You would not need a multi-billion or even multi-million pound 'large, bureaucratic project' to keep a record of a handful of people who are not allowed to be journalists. It is likely that the identity of any journalist who was 'struck off' would be known to major news organisations even without any sort of centralised system, but in any event, the PCC or another body could administer such a system at the cost of single-digit thousands.

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:47 — fdfdfd

@ Phil

It's a fair point that we're talking about completely different scales; could have expressed myself better. Just thought it odd that in the shadow of one collapsed database project, Labour would be so enthusiastic about another, whatever the size.

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:47 — dwb790 (not verified)

only sounds odd to journalists! doctors= poor analogy. other professions have self-regulation eg engineers, scientists. why not journalists..what are they scared of?

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:54 — Hansarder (not verified)

Um - Lewis explicitly says that "the industry should consider whether people guilty of gross malpractice should be struck off" - how do you get from there to "countries around the world where the government keeps such a register"?

Lewis is surely only talking about beefing up self-regulation. Presumably he wants media orgs to sign up to a pledge not to employ journalists found guilty (by some updated PCC) of unethical practices. Is that really such a crazy idea?

In the past, the reason that the NotW was able to get away with so much was because (many but thankfully not all) good journalists decided to turn a blind eye in the interests of media solidarity. That has to end.

That said, the points you make about blogs and twitter are totally valid, and such a scheme might well be completely unworkable.

Tue, 2011-09-27 13:58 — David Banes (not verified)

+1 here for an industry code of conduct whereby a journalist (or photographer) get's black listed if they step over a line the code defines.

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:00 — David Banes (not verified)

I should have said that the chances are high that you'll be regulated if you don't self regulate. Industry Codes of Conduct are always useful tools to prevent bad regulation.

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:16 — fdfdfd

@Hansarder

Lewis talks about "independent regulation" in the previous sentence of the speech, but it's not clear who he thinks would be in charge of any potential "striking off". For me, the phrase implies a professional standards body, e.g. the General Medical Council.

The idea of the register is speculation (although it's clearly the line they were briefing journalists with before the speech, as both the Guardian and Sky ran it) - but then, as I say later, it's all speculation.

I'm just not sure what the point of opening this up to speculation is!

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:34 — Hansarder (not verified)

@Helen L-H

Right - this whole conference seems to be full of ministers talking about things that *sound* like policies, then hurriedly running away from them shouting "it's just an idea, we're not actually committing ourselves to it" as soon as anyone starts looking more closely at them.

But - half-baked non-policies aside - better self-regulation is worth talking about. I mean, if we could set up a new PCC with people like you on it keeping journalism honest, we'd all be better off.

Tue, 2011-09-27 14:46 — fdfdfd

@Hansarder

Couldn't agree with you more about self-regulation needing improvement! That's why stuff like this is annoying - it overshadows other, sensible proposals. I just don't see the thinking behind floating it.

Tue, 2011-09-27 15:01 — Broga

I think what he means are journalists who write what he doesn't like. I would like to strike off phony, dishonest, censored of criticism Party Conferences. Rather like the one going on at present.

Tue, 2011-09-27 19:24 — Richard (not verified)

Take a look at, say, law. You can't be an attorney-at-law (ie represent your client in court or legal negotiations) unless you're a qualified solicitor or barrister. You can't call yourself a lawyer unless you're a solicitor, barrister or legal executive (or, in some circumstances, a conveyancer).

But anyone can give legal advice to anyone else, and even charge for it.

Big, reputable law firms wouldn't employ someone who wasn't qualified.

Why would big, reputable newspapers want to employ a journalist who wasn't qualified?

Tue, 2011-09-27 21:30 — Andy Mc (not verified)

Print, TV and internet news media is a dying industry. For too long the hacks have got away with arrogantly assuming what the public wants to hear, and dressing their own unqualified opinions as fact: witness the laughable Independent piece on "If Labour is to win it should drop Ed Balls" yesterday. People out there don't know the astronomical fees some of these London hacks are paid, or get sight of their expenses. Journalists need to raise their game and show they offer something better than a well-resourced print blog. And if they hack peoples' phones or commit similar outrageous acts, don't just strike 'em off, jail 'em.