The bad habits of the British press made headlines across the world in 2011 and 2012 in the wake of claims that media baron Rupert Murdoch's News of the World newspaper had hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

The Leveson Inquiry into the culture and practice of the British press led to a report last autumn which recommended for the first time that regulation of the press should be strengthened with legislation.

Professor Charlie Beckett of the London School of Economics media department told Xinhua, "Leveson said the problems were with a small proportion of newspaper output but people needed much better justice. He felt that newspapers had become so powerful so that if you did make a complaint very little happened about it."

Harsh Libel Laws

Beckett said that in Britain, broadcasting was very regulated with a regulatory body setting codes and insisting on balance.

By contrast, newspapers are still "very unregulated" but are subject to the law like any organization, and journalists are subject to the same laws as the rest of the public.

"Britain has some of the harshest libel laws in the world," said Beckett.

The phone hacking that led to the scandal involving Murdoch's newspapers is already illegal, he said.

Beckett said newspapers aren't regulated to be balanced or fair, but they do have a code and it is up to them to decide how to use it.

He added, "The current plans would mark a significant shift; it would make Britain more like the German press where there is more oversight and citizens have more rights in respect of the media."

British politicians, led by Prime Minister Cameron, have finally agreed on what action to take, after a series of last minute talks between the leaders of the country's three main political parties.

However, elements of the British press are not fully behind the deal, which could see a small piece of legislation rushed through parliament to set up a Royal Charter to give power to a body to regulate the press.

This body would be able to censure newspapers and editors and hand out fines if its code of practice were broken. Membership would not be compulsory but newspapers outside the body could face higher fines if they are found guilty in court of breaking the law.

The Royal Charter would function in a similar way to the Royal Charter which governs the BBC; it aims to give a legal toughening to the press regulation body while keeping politicians away from influence over that body.

However, influential magazines from across the political spectrum like "The Economist," "The Spectator" and "The New Statesman" have already said they will not sign up to the press regulation body.

Journalists Facing Prosecution

Larger daily newspaper groups are considering not backing the body, and even setting up their own regulatory body, because they don't want politicians in any way connected with press regulation.

Beckett said, "The difference between the current Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and the plans are that beforehand it was pure self regulation; it is still voluntary, but critics would say that it is not purely self regulation any more, because there is that element of statute in the Royal Charter which means that politicians are involved where they weren't before."

The current PCC, the voluntary body set up by the press to regulate the press, has been criticized because it failed to halt the excesses that caused the Leveson Inquiry.

But former PCC Chairman Sir Christopher Meyer said the PCC could have handled the problems highlighted by the Leveson Inquiry if it had been more powerful.

Other critics of the Leveson Inquiry and of planned legislation say that no new laws are necessary and that there are currently 50 or more journalists facing prosecution in connection with the scandal at Murdoch's newspapers and other papers.

They argue that the law applied to everybody is strong enough to deal with the press's bad behaviour, and that the press does not need special, new laws.

But it looks likely there will be changes.

Professor Beckett said, "What we are going to get is the PCC on steroids."

He added, "The code that is going to be set up and the regulator is going to be similar to the PCC. But there will be another body which will oversee that regulator and make sure it will do its job. Because it is set up in law it means the politicians can change it."

Professor Beckett continued, "So, technically the politicians could have indirect influence on regulation. They will not be sitting there deciding on cases; but they will be deciding on the body which then oversees the body that will be regulating newspapers."

The press had learnt that the PCC was weak, and so paid it less respect. "If you go round saying to children 'don't do that' but don't do anything about it they learn that there aren't any sanctions so they are more likely to misbehave," said Beckett.

Beckett said Cameron and the other political leaders were responding to Leveson's call in his report for statutory control of the press, legislated through parliament.

He said, "The argument is that the only way you can have tough punishment is to have the power of the law behind it. Unlike the PCC in the past which was effectively run by journalists for journalists, this regulator with fewer journalists in it is going to be more independent (of the press). It will definitely be stronger, but the row is about whether it needs the strength of law behind it."

Robust Media Culture

The British national newspaper market is incredibly competitive, with several newspapers in each sector of a very tight market, all of them in cut-throat competition.

Beckett said, "Britain had national newspapers from an early period because of early industrialization. All the national newspapers are based in the capital, which is unusual. In Germany or the United States, the press is spread around different parts of the country."

This made them very competitive, said Beckett.

There was also a history of newspaper proprietors having their own political agendas, like Murdoch.

"So the British have got used to this very robust culture, and some would argue it reflects the political culture of a two-party adversarial system, and also an adversarial legal system," said Beckett.

It was unusual, but not unique, said Beckett; other European countries had a less boisterous press, like France and Germany, or in some cases a relatively neutral press, like the Scandinavian nations, but nations like Australia had a similar hard-nosed press. Endi

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)