Duff arguments to ignore over Leveson

Here is a safe prediction: whatever the Leveson report recommends for British journalism, there will be an awful lot of duff arguments rolled out. Despite much of the debate being couched in how important it is for the press to tell the truth and how many difficult judgements there are to make, we’ll hear plenty of simplistic rhetoric based on shonky factual foundations.

That’s a shame, because the sight of large numbers of people proclaiming the former whilst doing the latter may make for great satirical black humour but it debases an important debate.

So here’s my contribution to some cloud-clearing ahead of the controversies.

“Britain’s press has been free since the 17th century and we must not risk it”

Could I introduce you to some of the exceptionally brave and resourceful journalists and editors of the 18th and 19th centuries? The idea that there was some wonderful ideal of press freedom secured centuries ago and preciously preserved since then is nonsense.

Press freedom has been a much longer battle, and one which in fact shows how risky it is to take the state of the press at any one moment in time and declare that its current state is the most perfect attainable and one to be preserved against all changes.

You do not have to go back very far in the press to see racism and homophobia widespread, let alone as you go further back to savour religious bigotry being the norm. There was a golden age where papers made plenty of money, journalists could work short hours before going to the pub and newspapers sold in their millions. But that is to confuse a golden age for journalists with a golden age for journalism.

Neither politicians nor journalists, for example, like to remind us how many newspapers used to be funded by direct grants from politicians. A media owner meeting the Prime Minister a few times is nothing compared to politicians handing over large slugs of cash direct to favoured newspaper titles.

So if you want to draw lessons from the past draw remember that never before has the press been in such a perfect state that changes have not been able to improve it. Not touching the press over the last four hundred years would have made things far worse. Good thing many people were repeatedly smarter than that.

If you think today is the final break in the pattern and things must not be touched, make the case for that – but don’t rely on dodgy historical claims which involve ignoring much of what has happened in the last four hundred years.

“Statutory regulation of the press would be an appalling departure from the past”

The idea that there is no legal framework controlling what the press can and cannot do at the moment would be news to the newspaper lawyers who regularly have to work out what is and isn’t legal to do.

News too to those who have successfully taken legal action against the press, not to mention the judges who have presided over such cases.

News also to anyone who remembers seeing coverage of the successful prosecution of several newspapers for contempt of court for their coverage.

The reality is that there are plenty of laws that regulate the press – and rightly so. Perhaps there will be something specifically wrong about what Leveson recommends which makes it bad.

But if you really believe that having politicians able to make laws that influences what the press can say is truly awful in principle and should never be done, have the courage of your convictions and start up with a long list of repeals that you believe in, starting with a blanket exemption from libel law and an complete opt-out from the contempt of court rules.

“It’s a slippery slope to [insert appropriate dictatorship]”

See above. Legislation and newspapers ain’t anything new. If it’s a slippery slope, it’s one we’ve been on since the first newspaper was printed. A slippery slope lasting several hundred years and with newspapers ending up gaining more, not less, freedom as we’ve moved along it is pointing in the wrong direction, not very slippery and useless as a sensible debating point.

“You can’t define what is a newspaper in the modern, internet world”

The newspaper industry is quite happy with the definition of itself when it comes to banking the preferential treatment it gets for VAT. Remind me the last time the newspaper industry said that tax break was impossible to have any more?

“We don’t need regulation as all the problems have been about rogue elements in the media breaking the law. We just need the police to do their job”

We’re surrounded with examples of industries where law breaking has taken place on a widespread and repeated scale and as a result regulation of that industry has been changed and (usually) improved.

In fact, it has often been the newspapers at the frontline of the charge demanding that some other industry is  better and tighter regulated, not simply that the police visit its offices more often.

Perhaps in this case there’s a reason to believe that law-breaking has been banished, but if so the case needs to be made, not just assumed as inevitable.

“Liberals should never contemplate something that restricts the freedom of the press”

When Mill gave his example of someone shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre, he was doing just that – giving an example, not making a specific point about who should be able to vocalise health and safety information in places of public entertainment.

That’s why liberals do not object in principle to libel laws; far from it, liberals want effective libel laws. And therein lies the other issue for liberal when judging the press – not only freedom of speech but also the balance of power between individuals and concentrations of it.

It’s liberal to be concerned about concentrations of power and it’s liberal to want rules that given the individual a fair chance to stand up to such concentrations of power.

“Newspapers are the same as the media”

Of course no-one is so foolish as to say this explicitly. However, look carefully at some of the claims that doing this or that would spell the end of press freedom and you realise what they really mean is ‘applying a rule that applies to TV and radio news to newspaper would spell the end of all media freedom’.

Not all TV and radio rules are sensible to apply to the newspapers by any means, but the idea that they’ve killed off freedom of the press on TV and radio is nonsense.


Does all this mean Leveson will be right? Of course not. Whether or not Leveson is right depends on what he has to say. But it does mean at least that a good number of his critics will be wrong.

* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • This discussion appears to again blur what may be proposed. A regulator is a bad idea, improving the libel laws (particularly reducing the costs involved) and improving the range of redress that courts order on a regular basis (proper corrections), corrections being made for factual inaccuracy even if it is not considered defamatory. But to create a regulatory body (in the forms of other regulators in the UK) would be dangerous. A tribunal system for smaller cases which forms part of the legal system would probably work, but not a regulator. Enforceable individual rights are a better solution than bureaucracy.

    As to: “We’re surrounded with examples of industries where law breaking has taken place on a widespread and repeated scale and as a result regulation of that industry has been changed and (usually) improved.”
    One of the most heavily regulated industries in the UK is Financial Services, that has not stopped many scandals eg Libor (I am not including the crash as that was not part of the regulators remit until after the crash).

    The current debate seems to excuse the Police from their failings in refusing to investigate clear crimes (even after the information commissioner produced Motorman). No regulator can fix a the police being unwilling to investigate crimes.

  • I think part of this is that we do need the police to do their job in a timely fashion. How long ago was it that NI executives told MPs that they paid for stories – nothing happened.
    We also need a libel process that works, not just as a way to fatten lawyers. You can see with the Newsnight saga that Libel law works only if you are rich enough to hire your own enforcers.

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.

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 ...?


Recent Comments

  • Anthony Durham
    I worked for a while, over ten years ago, in the administration of a college of further education and have an abiding memory of the malignant dishonesty of the ...
  • David Garlick
    I thought that P|ublic Health dealt with these issues. If not then there has to be a body with authority to enforce action. Landlords can be good but they can b...
  • Zoe Hollowood
    Very worrying story. Thank you for sharing. I spoke to my stepdad about this issue, he used to work for the housing association regulator. He mentioned several ...
  • James Cole
    Very glad to see the English state party come out so strongly against this diabolical decision. Almost everyone here has introduced themselves as male/female...
  • Nonconformistradical
    Re the sewage item - interesting article at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/26/water-chiefs-blame-uk-government-for-failure-to-stop-sewage-poll...