Guarding the Guardians
The Leveson Inquiry's recommendations on voluntary regulation of the British press are sensible.
R Raghavan writes:
of the press in the United Kingdom (uk) was awaited with
The hostility of thehostility
report and
pressdread
and byof inFleettheStreet.
the dread JusticewasUnited
The fear
Leveson would recommend a regulatory authority formalised by
statute. These fears have been realised. The press has responded
to Leveson just like any other beleaguered profession that has
been called to account for long-held illegal practices. Hardly
any among this group of free-thinking libertarians denounced
the immorality of the methods used by them and their colleagues
to pry into and disturb the private lives of innocent persons.
Instead, the print media was flooded with prophecies about the
imminent death of democracy. Whenever the issue was discussed
in other media, owners of newspapers, freelancers, editors and
journalists started from the premise that Leveson and those who
supported him were evil, venal or, at the best, misguided bigots
who must be prevented from doing incalculable damage by a
single foolish action - regulation. It was as if the media, as a
whole, had closed their ranks to make common cause against
critics and complainants, forgetting that their primary mission
is to understand and reflect public sentiment.
The reaction of the press to Leveson is not surprising, but for
the uk public it is disturbing and disappointing. When it comes
to the crunch, like all other institutions - Members of Parliament
(mps), judiciary and the civil service - the press too plumps for its
own and leaves the public to fight its own battles. The citizen
had to turn to Justice Leveson to express her concerns and seek
protection and justice. It was he who reminded the press, while
releasing his report, that the behaviour that he was condemn-
ing was exactly that which the press itself would have derided
if it had been shown by any other institution.
The political reaction too has been predictable, mps may be
representatives of their electors, but they are far more afraid of
hostile press coverage than of voter anger. No wonder, Prime
Minister James Cameron and the majority of his parliamentary
comrades hastened to reassure the press that the Leveson report,
like other earlier ones, will gather dust on the shelves. Another
display of the solidarity between the press and politicians that
Leveson was mandated to probe. And what a spectacle that was!
Prime minister after prime minister swearing on oath before the
I FROM 50 YEARS AGO
g fournal of Current economic and Political gttsir*
VOL XIV, NOS 51 & 52, DECEMBER 22, 1ÇÓ2
Romesh Thapar:
Sabotaging lndo-Pak Talks
And, the future that is developing has aspects
which are nòne too healthy.. What is of grave
concern is the studied manner in which the
delicate talks between India and Pakistan
Economic & Political weekly 13322 December 29, 2012 vol xlvii no 52 9
Leveson Commission that he had never sought the support of the
Murdoch empire and never promoted policies to benefit the
that by Leveson Fleet Kingdom Street. Inquiry (uk) The on was the fear awaited functioning was with that group. Except for the fact that nobody out there believed them.
Can lost ground be regained and the press brought back to its
mission? This is a question that concerns everybody. For, regula-
tion or not, democracy and free speech are indeed in danger if
press freedoms are surrendered to authority. This is the strain of
Leveson's inquiry and he has taken advice from many quarters
and ranged far and wide for a workable solution. There seems to be
no escape from letting outsiders in to scrutinise press behaviour.
In the words of Leveson, we cannot have the industry marking
its own homework. The remedy may be in first choosing the
right mix of persons for a regulatory body - former editors and
public personalities perhaps. Who selects them is crucial too. The
government will easily succumb to the lure of planting its moles
on the regulatory commission which means that there should be
a clear distance between Parliament and the appointment.
The tasks of the commission must be limited and its remit
vis-à-vis specific press campaigns clear. Standards and procedures
will then have to be evolved by the commission itself as it moves
forward. Which means (and this is central to the Leveson argument)
acceptance of the commission's involvement must be voluntary.
Leveson has not made it mandatory for the print media to submit
itself to regulation; each publication must make a choice, but there
could be incentives (tangible and intangible) for those who accept
oversight. These would be certification of the authority and integ-
rity of the paper - moral and professional. It could even be financial.
For instance, a publication, already cleared by the regulator, would
pay significantly less in costs and damages if it is taken to court.
The idea of voluntary adherence to regulation is difficult to op-
pose and the press know it. They are, therefore, countering Leveson
by demanding that regulation should not be underpinned by
statute; they will do it themselves. Leveson has already pointed
out why this would soon degenerate into a farce, unfair and unac-
ceptable to complainants. Surely, after the sobering spectacle of
intrusive phone-tapping, hacking and the rest by journalists, Fleet
Street owes this to those who depend on it to protect hard-won
liberties. It too must bite the bullet and let others judge the press
as they have been judging others all these years.
have been compromised. All kinds of reports The threat that we will not get the military
have gained currency - that the Valley is to aidbe which we require unless we neutralise Paki-
partitioned, that a scheme of joint sovereigntystan's fears and accommodate her has soured
over Kashmir is being worked out, that there the friendship with the West which marked the
may be a large-scale swap of territory. Bakshi earlier days of the emergency. Everywhere one
Ghulam Mohammad has rightly taken it upon can hear talk about 'strings', 'pressure tactics' and
himself to denounce this kind of talk which 'blackmail'... Attention is again turning to the
could create serious problems in the Valley, Soviet Union. There is wider sympathy for the
but the result has been that the effort to 'ra- ideological battle Khrushchev has been waging;
tionalise' the cease-fire line in Kashmir... hasthe hope is expressed, even in policymaking cir-
been nullified. It is now extremely doubtful cles, that he will curb Chinese militancy and so
that anything tangible will emerge from the give India vital time to reorganise the defence
talks between the two countries. of her frontiers against any future attack...
This content downloaded from 192.190.180.53 on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:56:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms