Whatever the Leveson Report recommends, it’s worth remembering the value of the Leveson Inquiry

I’m as clueless as anyone else at the moment about what Lord Justice Leveson will recommend in his report, to be published tomorrow, on press standards in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

I’ve said already I oppose any form of state regulation which would allow the government of the day, whether explicitly or (far more likely) implicitly, to interfere in the content of the free press. My co-editor Mark Pack has a different take on things here. But, regardless of whether Mark or I end up most agreeing with Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations tomorrow, two points I suspect we agree on are these:

First, the Leveson Inquiry has been an important moment of reckoning for the media — and hopefully too for the Conservative and Labour parties and for the police. Their too-cosy, intertwining relationships — which allowed illegal activities to become not only endemic, but also accepted as the norm – have been remorselessly exposed through the close questioning of Sir Brian and the Inquiry’s QC, Robert Jay. The Inquiry has laid bare the corrupting tendency of power — and the need for fearless journalistic scrutiny of those wielding power.

Secondly, those who agree the Leveson Inquiry has been well-handled have the Lib Dems to thank for ensuring it was judge-led and with wide terms of reference and powers. Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders made the case to Nick Clegg; the Deputy Prime Minister pressed David Cameron to accept such an Inquiry.

The disagreements about the Leveson Report recommendations will most likely begin tomorrow (unless Sir Brian has invented a square-circling tool) — but tonight it’s worth remembering the value of the Inquiry and of the due process followed.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

2 Comments

  • John Broggio 28th Nov '12 - 8:22pm

    Whilst I want some form of compulsory regulation (i.e. Desmond can’t opt the sExpress out like he has done with the PCC), the government already has implicit influence on the BBC (which for many in the UK *is* the media). One only has to look at how the Beeb has neutered critical output since Gilligan got it right (but before Bambi confessed what was already known about WMD’s); where was the examination of the H&SC bill that reflected 99.9% of medics concerns?

    I remember the debates that were on Today in the run up to (for example) the railways privatisation – nothing of comparable note here & as others have noted, the passing of this privatisation didn’t even get a mention on the Beeb’s website!

    Apart from protecting intrusion from government, many journalists need to be free of influence from their owners. No matter how much Murdoch et al protest they don’t tell their employees what to say, they don’t need to – most questioning members of the public know what the owners in question expect to be printed & lo, it comes to pass…

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMartin Roche 23rd Feb - 3:56pm
    If not too late, Private Eye this week publishes a list of stories that would be allowed if these proposals were to become law. *Goldman...
  • User AvatarNom de Plume 23rd Feb - 3:37pm
    I agree with the vote against Article 50. As I understand it the Party is still a pro-EU party. Besides anything else, someone needs to...
  • User Avatarpaul holmes 23rd Feb - 3:37pm
    @John Barrett. Hi John, I agree with you that Kishwer's article is 'well said.' A thoughtful and well articulated point of view. As you and...
  • User AvatarToby Keynes 23rd Feb - 3:31pm
    Lawrence: Conference debates start on Saturday morning and finish on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, Federal Conference Committee had a choice between holding the debate when orthodox...
  • User Avatarpaul holmes 23rd Feb - 3:02pm
    @David Evans. A genuine question David in view of what you say above. At what point did the Party discuss, debate and decide that our...
  • User AvatarJohn Barrett 23rd Feb - 2:53pm
    My apologies about the final paragraph(s) of my last comment, which should have read It has also been interesting to note the absolute certainty that...