Leveson Report: The basics
After Lord Justice Leveson publishes his much-anticipated report into press standards, Full Fact brings you the first in our series of reports explaining what it all means.
A Summary of the Executive Summary:
Introduction
The fourth estate is regarded "as the guardian of the interests of the public, as a critical witness to events, as the standard bearer for those who have no one else to speak up for them".
Not all journalism in the public interest is serious or earnest. Indeed, it's important for the press to entertain us, and to be "irreverent, unruly and opinionated".
On too many occasions the press has ignored its own code of ethics. At times this has "wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people". There is a broad consensus that the current regulator, the Press Complaints Commission, is not fit for purpose.
Commercial background
The influence of newspapers is on the wane: the printed press faces intense global competition from broadcasters, websites and social media outlets. This has led to a fall in revenues and an increase in costs. In turn, newspapers have attempted to "to add value" to their content. This has often translated into more comment and more celebrity reporting; meanwhile there is a considerable pressure on newspaper journalists to find exclusive stories.
The factual background
Before the Inquiry was set up, there had been various attempts to investigate certain aspects of press practice.
Operation Motorman, an investigation conducted in part by the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO), revealed that large parts of the press had been engaged in "a widespread trade in private and confidential information, apparently with little regard to the public interest". However, in the aftermath no newspaper looked into whether its journalists had complied with data protection legislation, although certain titles prohibited the use of private detectives.
The Press Complaints Commission accepted the industry's explanation that "one rogue reporter", Clive Goodman, was to blame for these breaches of privacy. In 2009 Nick Davies, an investigative journalist working for the Guardian, alleged that there had been a cover up, but the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) decided not to re-open the investigation - in part because their efforts were focused on counter-terrorism. However, this led to the MPS being accused of partiality.
Meanwhile, the PCC appeared content with the assurances of Clive Goodman's employer, the News of the World. However, in a "rare" investigation of standards (the regulator normally tasking itself with the resolution of complaints), the PCC condemned the Guardian for publishing the results of its investigation. The report in question has now been withdrawn.
In 2011, Operation Weeting - an investigation into the practice of phone hacking - was launched. News International, the owner of the News of the World, offered their "extensive cooperation". In the material seized from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, there were 4,375 names linked to phone numbers. The police believe that 829 of those listed are "likely victims" of phone hacking.
The material seized from Glenn Muclaire pointed to a range of covert practices: "payments to public officials, computer hacking, mobile phone theft and other potentially unlawful activities". As a result, Operations Elveden and Tuleta were established - the former to investigate allegations of unlawful payment by News International staff to public officials, the latter computer hacking.
In the summer of 2011, the Guardian revealed that the mobile phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler had been hacked by journalists working for the News of the World. Three days later, News International announced that it would cease to publish the newspaper.
The press and the public
"Most stories do not generate issues around libel, privacy or the rights of others and most of those that do have been written with high (if not very high) standards of integrity and propriety". However, the significant number of stories that fail to meet those standards reflect a culture that had taken root within certain titles.
The practice of phone hacking was an open secret in the newspaper industry: "this was far more than a covert, secret activity, known to nobody save one or two practitioners of the 'dark arts'".
However, phone hacking is not the only example of bad journalistic practice: "there has been a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm that the stories may cause...all the while heedless of the public interest".
There is evidence that parts of the press regard celebrities or "anyone in whom the public might taken an interest" as "public property with little, if any, entitlement to any sort of private life or respect for dignity". Too often, there is no public interest in these stories.
Furthermore, "the virtue of persistence has sometimes been pursued...to the point of vice, where it has become (or, at the very least, verges on) harassment".
On many occasions, the spirit of the Editors' Code of Practice has been violated. Although many journalists agree to comply with the code as part of their contract of employment, "there seem to be few internal consequences for breach" even when a breach has been identified by the PCC or in the law courts.
Inaccuracies and misrepresentation cause harm to the public interest. While errors are inevitable, "when the story is just too big and the public appetite too great, there has been significant and reckless disregard for accuracy".
The press has shown a tendency to "vigorously resist or dismiss complainants". Even when an apology is made or a correction is produced, it is often not afforded due prominence. In certain cases, newspapers have initiated personal attacks on those who challenge them.
PCC
"I unhesitatingly agree with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who all believe that the PCC has failed and that a new body is required." In March 2012, the PCC agreed to prepare for its own abolition and replacement.
The PCC is not a regulator, so much as a "complaints-handling body". It has been hamstrung by "numerous structural deficiencies" and is poorly resourced. It also lacks independence: the Editors' Code Committee, which is responsible for setting the rules, is wholly made up of serving editors. Its members are appointed by the Press Standards Board of Finance ('PressBoF'), which is composed entirely of senior industry figures.
While membership of the PCC is voluntary, the regulator has not used its limited powers to the full: "When it did investigate major issues it sought to head off or minimise criticism of the press". In the case of phone hacking, complainants were forced to turn to the courts to seek redress.
The future: press regulation
- The Hunt/Black plan
The industry was asked to present its own proposal for independent self-regulation. In the autumn of 2011 Lord Hunt, the Chair of the PCC, suggested that a new self-regulatory system might be based on contracts between the regulator and publishers. Lord Black of Brentwood, as Chair of the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), built on this idea to propose the creation of a new self-regulatory body, under an independent Trust Board.
Under the Hunt/Black plan, the PCC would continue to handle complaints but a separate arm of the regulator would have the power to investigate serious or systemic failures and to impose fines.
However, the model "does not go anything like far enough to demonstrate sufficient independence from the industry". The idea of a medium term of commitment (5 years) could be of value, but there are few incentives for a newspaper to become a member.
- Lord Justice Leveson's proposal
Instead, an independent regulatory body should be established to promote high standards of journalism and to impose penalties for breaches of its code.
This body will hear individual complaints against its members and while it will encourage individual newspapers to deal internally with complaints, it will be able to investigate "serious or systemic breaches". It would also provide an arbitration service to deal with any civil law claims based upon its members' publications.
- Appointments
"The appointment of the Chair, and other members, of the body must be independent." This would be achieved by the establishment of an independent appointments panel (which could include one current editor, although the majority of its members would be independent of the press).
The body must be (and must be seen to be) independent of political and commercial interests. The Board and the Chair will be independent of the press but will include "a sufficient number of people with experience of the industry". No serving editor and no member of the House of Commons or the Government will be allowed to be a member of the body.
However, serving editors may be on the board of a Code Committee, which will advise the new body on the industry's code of practice. However, the new body will take responsibility for the content and interpretation of the code.
The new body might provide guidance on the interpretation of the public interest and may offer advice to editors before a story is published. A whistle-blowing hotline would allow journalists to speak out when they have been put under pressure to breach the code. The body might also encourage its members to ensure that journalists' contracts include a conscience clause protecting them if they refuse to take part in an unethical practice.
The press should help their readers find the source of information that is quoted in an article, provided there is no need to protect the source in question.
- Arbitration Service
In order to encourage newspapers to become members of the new body, there is a need for "powerful incentives". An arbitration service might fulfill the role of resolving disputes between newspapers and complainants. If a newspaper has declined membership of the new body, it could open itself up to exemplary damages if a claimant is successful, or the payment of legal costs (whether the claimant is successful or not).
For these incentives to be introduced, "it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system and facilitate its recognition in legal processes". However, "this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press".
For the first time, the Government would have a legal duty to protect the freedom of the press. Legislation would allow the new self-regulatory body to be independently recognised (potentially by Ofcom) and would validate its standards code and the arbitral system "sufficient to justify the benefits in law".
The press and the police: Operation Caryatid
It was alleged that certain senior officers within the Metropolitan Police Service, on account of their intimacy with News International staff, had been reluctant to investigate fully what had happened at the News of the World.
There is no basis for challenging the integrity of the police, or the senior police officers concerned. While there were some conflicts of interest that ought to have been recognised, "there is no evidence to suggest that anyone was influenced either directly or indirectly in the conduct of the investigation by any fear or wish for favour from News International".
The press and the police: the relationship
The relationship between the press and the police needs to take the form of "a constructive tension and absolutely not a self-serving cosiness".
The problem of "leaks" is not widespread. "Off-the-record" police briefings have been a cause for public concern. Therefore, it would be useful to designate briefings as "open, embargoed (in time), non-reportable or, where a combination, clear so as to be beyond doubt."
The names or personal details of those who have been arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public. It becomes an issue of perception, rather than one of integrity.
With regards to police officers receiving inappropriate hospitality from members of the press, "high level national guidance" would supplement the so-called "blush-test".
A 12 month "cooling-off" period might be stipulated in the employment contracts of certain high ranking officers, so as to mitigate against the "revolving door" phenomenon, whereby the press employs or engages former police officers.
The press and data protection
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) laid two reports before Parliament and it campaigned for tougher criminal penalties for those guilty of data protection breaches. However, the press lobby was successful in thwarting these efforts.
The change of the law that was agreed (which includes an enhanced defence for public interest journalism) has not yet been brought into force, but there should be no further delay in achieving this.
In the meantime, the ICO should issue "practical guidance designed to support the press in improving standards and practice in the handling of personal information". In addition, the constitution of the ICO might need to be strengthened.
The press and politicians
In the main, relations between politicians and the newspaper industry are "in robust good health and performing the vital public interest functions of a free press in a vigorous democracy". It is not surprising or concerning that "close relationships, including personal friendships, are very much part and parcel of all of this".
However, over the last 30-35 years, political parties in the UK have spent "a disproportionate amount of time, attention and resource" on their relationship with the press. In part, this has involved politicians attempting "to control the supply of news and information to the public in return for the hope of favourable treatment by sections of
the press".
In the case of the BSkyB bid, the Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP's remarks to a pair of undercover journalists were "unguarded". The Prime Minister was "fully entitled" to transfer the assessment of the bid to the department of the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP and the Secretary of State was also "entitled" to his "strong views as to the merits of the bid".
Mr Hunt acted entirely properly, without bias. However, he failed to clarify the role of and effectively supervise his Special Political Advisor, Adam Smith.
Media companies should not be criticised for "advocating their private interests". However politicians should be prepared to publish the details of their meetings with the press - "whether Governmental, or capable of being designated 'political' or 'personal', because of the degree to which those classifications do not appear to hold good."
Plurality
The Secretary of State has the power to intervene in a proposed media merger if he or she believes that there is a concern over media plurality, but only "at the point that a transaction threatens to reduce it". In other words, the Government cannot step in if the plurality of the market is at risk from "organic change".
The Government should seek to adopt a warning system to protect against this eventuality. It also needs to clarify the definition of plurality and it should include online news provision in any plurality measure.
In the case of a media merger, "the Secretary of State should be required to accept the advice of the independent regulators or explain why that advice has been rejected". The Secretary of State should also publish the details of any attempts to lobby him or her or his/her advisors.
[A more detailed Summary of the Recommendations can be found at p32 of the report.]