Solid and sensible piece. However, I worry that opening the UK press to statutory regulation gives politicians a narrow sliver of a very important wedge. Once given it will never be recovered. Regulation of newspapers, online services and non-TV services by politcians or statute other than the criminal law is a risky slope to go down. Ofcom regulates television on the well-understood but sometimes arguable theory that spectrum is a finite national asset. The BBC Trust regulates the BBC because of the unique system of a compulsory licence fee. None of these characteristics apply to newspapers or the Net [other than the Trust regulation BBC activities on the Net]. In the case of Hacking and the alleged criminal behaviour of some journalists in paying civil servants, the criminal law looks like it will perform as it should. There's no evidence greater press regulation would have stopped it. The fact the initial police response was pathetic and implied a far too cosy relationship between the Met and News International is nothing to do with regulation of the media and all to do with the Police. That too is now being dealt with by forces other than media regulation.
While it is clear newspapers behaved arrogantly and abused their readers and the weak unconscienably and have to improve self-regulation, much of that can be dealt with in the civil law provided the government guarantees greater access in defamation cases -- perhaps twinned with some sort of "first amendment" protection for free speech. I worry that statutory regulation means bodies akin to the increasingly grandstanding select committees will be empowered to interfere even more and effectively suppress stories such as parliamentary expenses and even some of the work the Guardian has done to expose the wrongdoing of individuals and papers.

Just a brief reply to TTG who redeploys the old Murdochian canard that 'we vote for our papers everyday.... I have an election every morning'

Purchasing a newspaper, or subscribing to a cable channel, is not the same as a democratic choice. This is a libertarian fallacy that market power equals voting rights.

When someone buys the Sun, are they voting for the crossword, Page Three, sports news, or the editorial line? Most Sun subscribers believe it is a Labour supporting newspaper.

And even if purchasers of a newspapers did somehow, through their expenditure, indicate support for one political line or another, where did we get the idea that money spent=votes cast?

On that basis, someone who buys a million copies gets a million votes: a clear breach of the fundamental democratic principle that money doesn't buy you votes.

If the last few years have taught us anything, let it at least relieve us of the ridiculous 80s fallacy that market power is the same as democratic choice

A statute to create a regulatory body is unnecessary. A statute to set out a structure, constitution, or remit.. is unnecessary. A statute becomes necessary if a body is to have any power to compel.. and once that power is given, then we have allowed parliament to interfere. If parliament does not wish to exert some influence, then why does it need to involve itself?

My feeling is that we need no new body, no new power for any regulator, and no 'independent' arbiter of what the media may and may not say. Or, I should say, we cannot afford to pay the true price of that.

The media is at the mercy of democracy.. far moreso that the parliament that would seek to control it. Each one of us has the power to vote on the media each and every day.. we can starve them of their livelihoods if we desire (except, laughably enough, the BBC) by not giving them our money. It was, lest we forget, the power of the people that brought down the News of the World... after it finally did cross a line. If the media acts in a way that we truly deem unacceptable (based on our revealed preferences, not on what people *say* they believe) then we've got plenty of power to regulate them ourselves.

I would ask for one thing to be passed into law, and that would be an obligation (enforceable by law) on all who publish something (be they a national newspaper, or a humble blogger) to publish their retractions and corrections with absolute equal prominence. That is all. Let the public be made fully aware of the mistakes of those who, intentionally, negligently or inadvertently, mislead us.

Let the media say what it wishes to say, provide it stays within the laws as they are and as they apply to everyone. Just enshrine the appropriate sanction for when they get it wrong.

I cannot help but feel that statutory regulation specific to the press is a bad thing. Of course the press have to operate within the law of the land, and much of what is in the Leveson enquiry was about activities that would have been illegal whosoever carried them out. Not least of the objections to statutory regulations specific to the press will be defining what the "press" actually is. Just where is the boundary, and who will define it? Does David Allen Green writing for the New Statesman fall within the compass, whilst anything he puts on his Jack of Kent blog fall without, even though the readership is much the same?

I can't help but feel that if, for instance, we need a clarified "law on privacy", then it shouldn't be specific to "the press". Essentially I don't see "the press" as being a well defined group. Inevitably statute regulations will leak into areas unanticipated by the original legislators.

However, I await whatever proposals come about before passing judgement, but I feel any statutory regulation which is specific to the press will be an ugly construct hedged about by complicated qualifications as to who it applies to. Finally, there is the obvious point that statutory regulation of the press can only apply in the UK (or, perhaps even only England and Wales).