This House would regulate the press

The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing the children of celebrities all seem to be common tricks not just for the News of the World but for tabloid journalism as an industry.

Indeed, the journalist who broke the story for the Guardian admitted to the Levenson inquiry that he had hacked a phone on one occasion. Despite the protestation of the Guardian’s editors[i] that “99 percent” of journalists wouldn’t know how to hack a phone, such practices and a culture that invades privacy seems commonplace.

[i] Statement by Alan Rusbridger to the Leveson Inquiry.

It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder.

It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter.

Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.

The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As competition over dwindling advertising revenue becomes increasingly bitter, papers become ever more desperate for the next hit story –normally represented by celebrity gossip or a minor scandal. Such content has nothing to do with bold investigative journalism and everything to do with muck-racking for salacious stories and- when that doesn’t work- simply fabricating them.

Creating the impression that Millie Dowler was still alive was simply the most grotesque of a series of activities that put sales way ahead of truth.

There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest.

There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are for newspapers around the world – but the overwhelming majority of journalists and publications have responded to that by diversifying the platforms they use for delivering the news. In addition to which they have embraced a 24-hour approach to delivering the news and, for many, the print platform is now seen as a ‘legacy project’.

To constrain and obstruct the hard work and harder principles of the overwhelming majority of journalists because of the actions of a desperate few would really throw the baby out with the bath water.

In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks are under greater pressure than ever to go the extra mile. There is little reason to doubt that they will. Privacy is already one of the dominant legal issues of our age that looks likely to become ever more the case.

Against that background, when a flat out lie can be broadcast around the world in seconds, clearly a different legal and regulatory framework is needed from the old days of print where an apology was actually relevant – however begrudgingly given.

t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed.

To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckless at a time when they are no longer competing with a handful of their peers, but also a wider network of information exchange between semi-professional bloggers and capricious groups such as Anonymous and 4chan/b, who spread lies and discord disguised as “entertainment”.

It is surely better that stories should be put together by trained and acreddited journalists and published through businesses that are bound by libel and other laws than to have them drip out through social media, as was seen with the Ryan Giggs affair over super-injunctions. Introducing regulation would be self-defeating simply because of this fact[i].

[i] Lucy Buckland. “'It went from thrilling to seedy... I was a fool to risk everything': Natasha Giggs confesses her regrets over Ryan affair”. Daily Mail. 23 December 2011,

The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing the children of celebrities all seem to be common tricks not just for the News of the World but for tabloid journalism as an industry.

Indeed, the journalist who broke the story for the Guardian admitted to the Levenson inquiry that he had hacked a phone on one occasion. Despite the protestation of the Guardian’s editors[i] that “99 percent” of journalists wouldn’t know how to hack a phone, such practices and a culture that invades privacy seems commonplace.

[i] Statement by Alan Rusbridger to the Leveson Inquiry.

It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder.

It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter.

Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.

The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As competition over dwindling advertising revenue becomes increasingly bitter, papers become ever more desperate for the next hit story –normally represented by celebrity gossip or a minor scandal. Such content has nothing to do with bold investigative journalism and everything to do with muck-racking for salacious stories and- when that doesn’t work- simply fabricating them.

Creating the impression that Millie Dowler was still alive was simply the most grotesque of a series of activities that put sales way ahead of truth.

There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest.

There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are for newspapers around the world – but the overwhelming majority of journalists and publications have responded to that by diversifying the platforms they use for delivering the news. In addition to which they have embraced a 24-hour approach to delivering the news and, for many, the print platform is now seen as a ‘legacy project’.

To constrain and obstruct the hard work and harder principles of the overwhelming majority of journalists because of the actions of a desperate few would really throw the baby out with the bath water.

In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks are under greater pressure than ever to go the extra mile. There is little reason to doubt that they will. Privacy is already one of the dominant legal issues of our age that looks likely to become ever more the case.

Against that background, when a flat out lie can be broadcast around the world in seconds, clearly a different legal and regulatory framework is needed from the old days of print where an apology was actually relevant – however begrudgingly given.

t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed.

To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckless at a time when they are no longer competing with a handful of their peers, but also a wider network of information exchange between semi-professional bloggers and capricious groups such as Anonymous and 4chan/b, who spread lies and discord disguised as “entertainment”.

It is surely better that stories should be put together by trained and acreddited journalists and published through businesses that are bound by libel and other laws than to have them drip out through social media, as was seen with the Ryan Giggs affair over super-injunctions. Introducing regulation would be self-defeating simply because of this fact[i].

[i] Lucy Buckland. “'It went from thrilling to seedy... I was a fool to risk everything': Natasha Giggs confesses her regrets over Ryan affair”. Daily Mail. 23 December 2011,

Introducing regulation on the basis that a handful of journalists have broken laws that already exist – and were caught doing so by other journalists – seems odd, to say the least.

There is little doubt that there was something extremely murky going on at the News of the World but it is worth remembering that the paper has since been shut down.

To any observer this looks an awful lot like politicians using the excuse of one newspaper’s poor conduct- which, it is worth repeating, has been shuttered- to attempt to regulate the rest. One of the popular suggestions at the moment is that no journalist should be able to print a story about a politician without getting their permission first. Such a rule would strike at the very heart of a free press.

We should remember that the original defence of the NoW was that phone hacking had been carried out by just ‘one rogue reporter’[i] and that defence has crumbled at every stage. It quickly became clear that others at the paper were involved, then that others in the group and now, apparently, that the practice was fairly commonplace at other papers.

Had this been just one bad apple then the idea that no new regulation was really needed for the otherwise good and noble folk of medialand might stand. As evidence- and a string of arrests among the News of the World’s senior staff- has demonstrated, flaunting of the law, of basic ethical standards and of simple honesty was rife at the news of the world, and is likely to have been used frequently in the newsrooms of the NoW’s rivals.

[i] Huffington Post. “Julian Pike, News Of The World Solicitor, Says He Knew That Phone Hacking Was Widespread In 2009”. 11 January 2012.

Newspapers are at least accountable to their readers and it is worth noting that exactly the kinds of stories now under the spotlight are the ones that prove the most popular. Further they already work within a legal framework and are accountable to the courts when they break laws governing libel, privacy or theft of information.

When we look at the possible candidates for overseeing the media, the line-up is fairly unimpressive and all have an obvious self-interest: MP’s expenses scandal was revealed by journalists, corruption and incompetence (as well as racism previously) at the Metropolitan Police was uncovered by journalists. That would only leave them accountable to the courts, which they already are, or a regulatory body comprising other papers and the public, which they already are.

It is, of course, a matter for Lord Leveson and his inquiry to make recommendations on what the final regulatory framework should be. However the idea that newspapers are already accountable in an appropriate manner simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is, if nothing else, compelling popular support[i] on such a scale that, apparently the readers of the newspapers in question are uncertain as to whether they are up to the job themselves.

There has also been an undercurrent in the press which amounts to “well people bought it so it’s their fault really”, which also doesn’t stand up to analysis. Readers of newspapers should surely be allowed to assume that the journalists who gather their news- and style themselves as professionals- act both legally and ethically. It is not the job of readers to double check the facts and activities behind a story.

[i] BBC Website. “Poll suggests public want much tighter press controls”. 14 December 2011.

We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them. Whatever Lord Leveson suggests, chances are those decisions will need to go before parliament.

The actions of the British media may frequently be distasteful and those who read the so-called ‘quality’ press may find the obsession of the tabloid press with matters that mostly seem trivial and tawdry offensive. However, the liberty that- almost incidentally- allows tabloid newspapers to produce populist pablum, enables broadsheets to maintain an excoriating and forensic oversight of the political class as a whole. The recent Parliamentary expenses scandal would be unthinkable in many countries: analysis undertaken by the press as a whole demonstrating a culture of corruption across the entire political class, not only breathtaking in its extent but also a clear mark of just how far politicians had moved from the realities of day-to-day life for people who actually pay for their own house.

In this regard, journalistic license is the price of liberty.

The idea that stopping journalists rummaging through the bins of private citizens in pursuit of credit card statements on the off-chance they might have done something unusual is hardly likely to bring down the entire edifice of freedom and democracy.

Indeed, there is a clear democratic mandate for the robust protection of privacy- informed by the basic equality that underlies rule-of-law- derived from the revulsion that most people feel at the actions of certain parts of the press. As in any profession- including law, medicine and politics- practitioners are allowed discretion on the understanding that they won’t abuse it.

In this instance, the discretion leant to the political class has been routinely and systematically abused over a period of decades, to little benefit. All of the examples that Opposition has been able to cite have been the result of old-fashioned, dogged investigation and courageous writing and editorship.

If regulation gets journalists away from the addiction to celebrity, away from the easy sells of sex and venality and back into the better traditions of the trade, it may serve to revive the entire newspaper industry.