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 AvatarCaracatus 29th Jul - 8:36pm
    @rightsaidfredfan - so Boris and Farage who told you Turkey was weeks away from EU membership have been proved wrong and you think that justifies...
  • User AvatarCaracatus 29th Jul - 8:32pm
    Hangers and Forest Ward the turnout in 2015 was 76%, in 2016 it was 27%. 2015 result: ONSLOW, Judy, Con: 983 OWSNETT, Neil, Lab: 184...
  • User AvatarJohn Grout 29th Jul - 7:45pm
    My concern is that NATO does not really involve itself in internal affairs of its members, being primarily a defensive alliance. That alliance would surely...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 29th Jul - 7:28pm
    Alistair, we need to make sure the Americans are operating on the same terms of engagement as us. There's been too many civilian casualties recently....
  • User AvatarAlistair 29th Jul - 7:14pm
    The Lib Dems helped to worsen the crisis in Syria by supporting further bombing.
  • User AvatarNeil Sandison 29th Jul - 7:03pm
    And the moral of the story is never believe your agent !