What to look out for in the Leveson report

From governance to sourcing, David Allen Green outlines five key issues in the report into press practice and ethics.

One: Governance

A great deal of the evidence before the Leveson Inquiry was about how newspapers were organised internally and how such arrangements facilitated or discouraged bad press practices. 

Accordingly, it will be intriguing to see how report will deal with the respective roles of editors and “managing editors” and those who oversee them.  How do you tame an autocratic editor? 

Two: Sourcing of news

The Leveson Inquiry was not really that concerned with the ultimate publication of news reports (and it deliberately did not deal with issues such as defamation).  But it was very interested in how news stories were sourced, and in particular the relationship between reporters and private investigators and other “commercial” sources.  Here it will be interesting what the report recommends to stop any illegal and unethical trade in private information.

Three: Relationships with police and public officials

What is the appropriate relationship between the media and police officers and other public officials? 

Clearly any suggestion that sourcing stories from police officers and other public officials  on a cash basis will be unacceptable.   But that leaves open the question of what should be the way journalists can properly exploit “official” sources.   Only the naïve would say that there cannot ever be any direct contact: it would be unfortunate and unsustainable to expect the news media only to use (often obstructive and uninformative) press offices. 

Four: How politicians and the press influence each other

What, if anything, can be done about the eternal tug-of-war of politicians and the press seeking to influence each other?  What sort of access should proprietors and editors have to ministers?  The Leveson Inquiry heard evidence on this point from many former senior ministers, and also from editors and proprietors themselves; but it remains unclear what, if anything, can be done to address such Realpolitik.

Five: Can regulation really make a difference?

Politicians and newspaper editors routinely call for new legislation.  In political speeches and leader columns, MPs and editors clamour almost daily to bring in some new statutory regime for something or other.  In contrast, lawyers tend to be naturally sceptical of the efficacy of any new laws.  Every solicitor and barrister will have their own examples of how a well-meaning provision did not have the intended consequence or was deftly circumvented: regulatory failure is not unusual.

Accordingly, the key question for the Leveson Inquiry is not so much the form of any regulation, but whether it can make any positive difference to the culture and practices of the press.  If there is to be regulation, it is difficult to see how it cannot have some statutory basis: otherwise, it will be regulation at the behest of the regulated, an approach which simply failed with the Press Complaints Commission regime.

But there is a problem for the Leveson Inquiry in respect of “regulation” which is more difficult to solve than as to whether it will have any statutory basis.  Before the rise of the internet, it was easy to identify who would be subject to any media regulation, as it was only a few entities which would be capable of publishing or broadcasting the news on a regular basis.  However, as now anyone with an internet connection can publish what they want to the world, how does one define who should be subject to the more onerous and restrictive burdens of being regulated? 

And if a non-regulated entity can publish what it wants (subject to the law of the land), then any sector-specific regulation would surely be futile in practical terms.  All because you think something should be regulated, it does not always mean it can be regulated.  It may well be that the internet will succeed where the alarmist hyperbole of the newspaper industry has failed, and rendered ineffective any way the press can now be regulated. 

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Fleet Street. Photo: Getty

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

Election 2017: 30 MPs at risk from a Lib Dem surge

The Lib Dems are hopeful of winning "dozens" of seats on June 8. Here's a list of the 30 most vulnerable if the party surges.

Buoyed by the 48 per cent's Brexit backlash, Labour's disarray, a famous win in Richmond Park and a string of council by-election victories, the Liberal Democrats say they are on course to make "dozens" of gains come June 8. 

Its targets can for the most part be divided into two broad categories: the first a disparate clutch of seats held before their 2015 collapse, the second a handful of new targets whose pro-Remain electorates are at odds with Brexiteer MPs.

The party is particularly hopeful of recouping the losses it made to the Tories in its erstwhile south west heartlands at the last election. As George revealed last month, internal polling reveals most of those seats could be vulnerable to a Lib Dem surge - as several Labour-held seats in England and Wales that broke heavily for remain in last year's referendum. 

EU referendum results were, for the most part, released by local authority rather than Westminster constituency – the totals in this list, where not officially available, are taken from political scientist Dr Chris Hanretty’s estimates, of which a full table is available here.

Labour-held:

Daniel Zeichner – Cambridge
Majority: 599 (1.2 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 69 per cent Remain

Julie Cooper – Burnley
Majority: 3,244 (8.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 40 per cent Remain

Neil Coyle – Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Majority: 4,489 (8.7 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 68 per cent Remain

Thangam Debbonaire – Bristol West
Majority: 5,673 (8.9 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 80 per cent Remain

Jo Stevens – Cardiff Central
Majority: 4,981 (12.9 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 62 per cent Remain

Jess Phillips – Birmingham Yardley
Majority: 6,595 (16 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 36 per cent Remain

Kate Hoey - Vauxhall 
Majority: 12708 (25.6 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 81 per cent Remain

Conservative-held:

Maria Caulfield – Lewes
Majority: 1083 (2.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 50 per cent Remain

Luke Hall – Thornbury and Yate
Majority: 1459 (3.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 44 per cent Remain

James Berry – Kingston and Surbiton
Majority: 2834 (4.8 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 60 per cent Remain

Marcus Fysh – Yeovil
Majority: 5293 (5.3 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 39 per cent Remain

Derek Thomas – St Ives
Majority: 2469 (5.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 46 per cent Remain

Kevin Foster – Torbay
Majority: 3286 (6.8 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 40 per cent Remain

Paul Scully – Sutton and Cheam
Majority: 3921 (7.8 per cent)
EU referendum vote:  49 per cent Remain

Ben Howlett – Bath
Majority: 3833 (8.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 66 per cent Remain

Will Quince – Colchester
Majority: 5575 (11.5 per cent)
EU referendum vote:  49 per cent Remain

Mary Robinson – Cheadle
Majority: 6453 (12.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 58 per cent Remain

 Alex Chalk - Cheltenham
Majority: 6516 (12.1 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 57 per cent Remain

Peter Heaton-Jones - North Devon
Majority: 6936 (13.3 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 43 per cent Remain

James Heappey – Wells
Majority: 7585 (13.3 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 47 per cent Remain

Scott Mann - North Cornwall
Majority: 6621 (13.7 per cent)
EU referendum vote:  40 per cent Remain

Anne-Marie Trevelyan – Berwick-upon-Tweed
Majority: 4914 (12.2 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 45 per cent Remain
 

Flick Drummond - Portsmouth South
Majority: 5241 (12.5 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 48 per cent Remain

Nicola Blackwood – Oxford West and Abingdon
Majority: 9,582 (16.7 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 61 per cent Remain

Anne Main – St Albans
Majority: 12,732 (23.4 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 64 per cent Remain

 

SNP-held:

John Nicolson – Dunbartonshire East
Majority: 2167 (4 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 71 per cent Remain

Michelle Thomson – Edinburgh West
Majority: 3210 (5.9 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 71 per cent Remain

Stephen Gethins – North East Fife
Majority: 4344 (9.6 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 62 per cent Remain

Paul Monaghan – Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
Majority: 3844 (11.2 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 51 per cent Remain

Ian Blackford - Ross, Skye and Lochaber
Majority: 5124 (12.2 per cent)
EU referendum vote: 57 per cent Remain

 

 

 

0800 7318496