Missing: the people the Leveson Inquiry won’t be talking to

“Follow the money”. It’s a cliché of investigative journalism for a very good reason. If you want to get to the heart of what is really going on, knowing who has paid what to whom frequently exposes the real action being hidden away behind warm words, evasive statements and muttered “no comments”.

It is also at the heart of many a public inquiry. Want to know why something happened? Who pays whom is again right at the centre of the story. Whether it is understanding drugs policy and the economics of the illegal market or looking at problems of rail safety, following the money reveals the systematic features that shape the behaviour being probed. Understand the financial incentives and you understand a large part of what is going on.

But there’s an exception.

Step forward, Lord Leveson and his inquiry. Many people being asked for their views. But the inquiry isn’t following the money.

Instead, it is studiously ignoring the money. For where are the advertisers, the sellers or the  purchasers of newspapers?

When you buy a newspaper, sell a newspaper or place an advert, you’re funding journalism. You may be funding a brave investigator unearthing corruption. Or a sordid fly-by-night who bullies, lies and intimidates. Either way, it is your cash transaction that is keeping them in business.

So why in this inquiry should those doing the funding get a free pass and not have their own behaviour looked at? After all, we know from the few occasions when people do withhold their money how quickly even mighty multinationals react.

Some stories do not betray their unpleasant sources and disreputable tactics when they appear in print. But plenty do.

And if newsagents are happy to still sell them, advertisers still happy to have their words appear next to them and the public still happy to buy them, is it any wonder the stories have been so widespread for so long?

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


  • The people to blame are the “Great British Public” (GBP)…….Their taste for the salacious has allowed Murdoch, who’s utter contempt for anything but money and power, free rein. The much repeated H. L. Mencken quote that, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public” applies more to modern Britain than early C20th America.

  • Old Codger Chris 25th Nov '11 - 7:07pm

    Jason is absoloutely right. Newsagents cannot and should not act as censors and it’s unrealistic to expect advertisers to shun big circulations – if people didn’t buy em the advertisers wouldn’t book space.

    In fairness the newspaper industry has always attracted more than its fair share of iffy proprietors and if Murdoch hadn’t purchased The Times it might well have closed.

  • Old Codger Chris 30th Nov '11 - 4:08pm

    Sadly Jane the British public has only given up the NOW in the same way as an acoholic may stop drinking if he is locked inside a booze-free building. How many have given up reading The Sun?

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 ...?


Recent Comments

  • Malc
    I sometimes wonder if the Tories bring attention to things like this party on purpose. A few weeks ago they were under serious pressure because of the Owen Pat...
  • Joe Bourke
    Peter Martin, "If spending, generally, is too high and/or government wishes to spend more, then taxes have to rise to prevent inflation rather than to ‘raise...
  • David Raw
    @ Alex Macfie I'm sorry if I misattributed a comment made by you. I assume you weren't around during the Darlington by-election, though I certainly was....
  • Michael BG
    In October we made little impression with our response to the budget and it was not clear how much extra we wanted to spend than the Chancellor (see my article ...
  • Joe Bourke
    The recent spending review presented a forecast for the five years from 2022-23 to 2026-27. By the end of this parliament the government expects to be running a...