Abstract
After the Leveson Inquiry, what’s next for British journalism?
The past few months have been horrible times for any ‘real’ investigative journalist in Britain. There has been a faecal odour around the entire profession that has dragged reporters to the social status of tax collectors or bailiffs.
Who could have imagined that a once noble profession could have sunk so speedily into the sewer? And who could have predicted that investigative journalists would be likened to the worst privacy invaders on earth, ruining reputations and destroying the lives of innocent people?
In the wake of scandal upon scandal, the mighty BBC has twisted in the wind, the News of the World is rotting in its coffin and a hundred media bosses chewed their fingernails as Lord Justice Leveson prepared to blow away much of the remaining integrity of the UK press. Sure, Leveson negotiated a positive spin on his findings, but even his vocabulary was tested by the constantly unfolding drama.
As mighty media institutions fell into the mire many people found it hard to imagine a future where the profession would regain pride or dignity. Nonetheless, I believe there are brighter days ahead – although not before a Great Catharsis.
For me, this is a complex prediction. As a teenager I cut my teeth in journalism on a belief in truth in reporting. In later years I built my career as a privacy advocate on the realisation that much of the industry had become corrupt, self-serving and invasive. I took solace in the knowledge that there are countless decent men and women in the industry who believe in ethics and truth in reporting. The immediate danger arising from the public mood of recent times is that people may overlook that reality.
There is a huge threat here – even greater than the scandals of recent times. At the more obvious level the authorities could easily back away from tackling traditional media and start a witch hunt against Twitter and the new forms of social media. Governments across the world have a track record on that score, and the recent BBC controversy is likely to lead to calls for censorship of new media. When former Tory party treasurer Lord McAlpine was incorrectly accused of being a paedophile following a Newsnight report, a so-called ‘trial by Twitter’ ensued. This followed the Jimmy Savile scandal, during which it was uncovered that the celebrity had abused numerous children and adults over five decades, often on BBC premises.
However, there is an even more alarming possible outcome. If we all eagerly support an institutional denigration of the media, then those who seek to protect their own corrupt interests may indefinitely achieve protection from such a generational stereotype. The very values of a free press could be sullied to the point where people may not know how to disentangle the good players from the bad. What is at stake here is a pillar of trust that for centuries has helped steer societies – a sort of ‘rudder of truth’ in reporting. Nothing – not even the drama of the past year – should override that dynamic.
Ignore the management failures, the editorial misjudgments and the botched investigations of recent times. The real poison is that media had come to believe the falsehood that people should trust in its judgment without any corresponding accountability. That’s what needs to be addressed. Institutions such as the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) were always a farce. Everyone in the industry knew as much, but journalists said little and MPs fell silent in fear of the consequence of criticism. We had a narrow window to address those failures, but that window has all but disappeared.
Indeed the fact that the PCC is still formally representing the press and is involved in the Leveson negotiations moves the situation from farce to travesty. That organisation should have been abolished outright months ago.
By refusing to support Leveson’s core recommendation for a regulator with statutory underpinning, David Cameron has not only breathed life into the PCC corpse, he has also reinforced a widespread fear over the past year: the British press is untouchable and unaccountable.
After the closure of the News of the World, the BBC scandals and the Leveson Inquiry, what is the future for British journalism?
Some, such as the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank, have suggested a compromise: that the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the UK’s government-approved broadcasting regulator, should be given some sort of stop-gap role as press regulator. That’s an appalling notion. Ofcom is an industry negotiator, not a bastion of consumer rights. That much has been made clear by the agency’s insipid actions in recent years.
Yes, it is difficult to get to the core issues behind the soap opera. Until recently media executives were – as the press liked to romanticise it – ‘falling on their swords’. Indeed so many were falling on their swords that the media scene came to resemble Masada more than some glorified Roman battle defeat. Yet in my view – like the aftermath of most glorified Roman defeats – a positive future will be wrought from the carnage. It’s a future that I believe will reinstate the true values and ethics of journalism, and it is a future that may set journalism on a genuine foundation of public trust and self worth.
If all goes well, there will be five positive outcomes.
Parliamentarians will no longer be terrified to criticise or to investigate media organisations. We can look forward to greater transparency, despite the cowardice currently being displayed by the parties.
Bodies entrusted to protect media standards will be expected to do their job. The bad old days where such bodies were given over to press owners are gone – despite the death throes of the PCC.
True journalism – investigative journalism – will have an opportunity to rebuild its definition and its credibility without the institutional poison that has infected it over the past 20 years.
The moguls and tyrants that ruined media will be flushed out, and journalists themselves will feel more empowered to challenge bad decisions by editorial management.
Finally, the rights of people will be more genuinely respected by a new generation of journalists who understand the importance of ethics and responsibilities.
If even some of those outcomes emerge, this horror story may well be worth the trauma.
