Sunday 21 October, 11.30am until 1.00pm, Pit Theatre
When education secretary and former journalist Michael Gove expressed concerns that the Leveson Inquiry might have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, Lord Leveson responded by insisting, ‘I do not need to be told about the importance of freedom of speech’. But given the powerful momentum behind the Leveson Inquiry, might we all benefit from asking what the lord justice’s judicial juggernaut means for the future of the free press?
The Inquiry began in the wake of phone-hacking allegations, setting its sights on culture, practices and ethics of the media in general. There has been no shortage of witnesses queuing up to express their disdain for the unethical way the media has operated. The Inquiry has provided quite a spectacle, with everyone from irate celebrities to cabinet ministers and ex-PMs, and of course the Murdoch family, appearing before the Lord Justice and his army of lawyers. The daily cross-examinations, readings of private emails and texts have become a surprise online hit show among the chattering classes. But is this anything beyond a show trial, an elitist attack on the ‘gutter press’? The Leveson Inquiry’s avowed aim is to reassure the public that the beasts of Fleet Street would be tamed. But is a tame press a healthy outcome? While in principle, everyone supports the idea of a free press, there seems to be a greater appetite for restraining renegade reporters. If we don’t tighten regulation of the press, people ask, what’s to stop it plumbing further depths? Whatever the faults of contemporary media culture, however, it is worth remembering that the modern media has its origins in the radical pamphlets and often scurrilous periodicals of the eighteenth century. While the authorities sought to censor them, the judgement of history is that a free press is worth having regardless of how venal it sometimes is. As Karl Marx said, you cannot have the rose without the thorn. Without total freedom of the press, are we jeopardising the role of the media as a check on politicians, institutions and businesses? Do we even have a free enough press as it stands?
Leveson’s critics are accused of creating straw men when they warn of state interference in the media, but isn’t the Leveson Inquiry itself a form of state interference? Leveson opened the inquiry saying its central question was, ‘who guards the guardians?’. But with the inquiry expanding into an interrogation of the entire British system of politics and government – and Leveson even suggesting Gove had no right to raise concerns until the inquiry had ruled - who can we expect to scrutinise unelected, unaccountable judges if the press is cowed?
Listen to session audio:
Download mp3 (Right-click and choose “Save link as”)
|Professor George Brock|
head of journalism, Department of Journalism, City University London; former managing editor, Saturday editor and, most recently, international editor, The Times; board member, World Editors Forum
editor-at-large, spiked; author, There Is No Such Thing As A Free Press ...and we need one more than ever
writer and columnist, Independent
freelance journalist; former presenter, BBC NewsWatch; author, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
journalist and political commentator, spiked; columnist, Huffington Post and Free Society
n A balanced outcome from the inquiry could both strengthen the legal defences for good journalism done in the public interest and create incentives for regulation which does not rely on statutory backing. Both the law and regulation must make more use of an effective public interest test.George Brock, The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society, 2012
Although regulation is the word widely used (often pejoratively), what it should mean here is the industry having due process, effectively applied standards and accountability, and effective redress, none of which is objectionable, and has been supported by virtually all the press insiders in their submissions to Leveson.Peter Lloyd, Free Society, 26 September 2012
Once the media reported the news. Now it makes it. The phone-hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the media has put the UK press under scrutiny and on trial as never before.
Mick Hume, Imprint Acaademic, 1 September 2012
Lord Justice Leveson's quest for balance between press freedom and censorship leaves only one task outstanding - the creation of a new regulatory body for the British press...Raymond Snoddy, MediaTel, 18 July 2012
The fuss has died down as the inquiry has piled up a mountain of facts and opinions. Politicians have realised that the interest in the scandal outside the worlds of media and politics has faded.George Brock, georgebrock.net, May 2012
Today, spiked launches the Counter-Leveson Inquiry, an intellectual two-fingered salute to the creeping conformism and censoriousness being unleashed by the Leveson process.Brendan O'Neill, spiked, 29 February 2012
There is a system for ensuring that people's phones aren't hacked. It's called the law. If the police who were meant to be upholding it had acted on the evidence they had, then quite a lot of this horrible, ugly, shameful exploitation of what ought to have been private grief, and, in Grant's case, private joy, wouldn't have happened.Christina Patterson, Huffington Post, 23 November 2011
What is feminism for?
"I thought the Battle of Ideas was wonderful. Especially the extent and quality of audience participation. I can't imagine how I missed this exciting forum for exchange of ideas in the past. I will certainly not miss another one and look forward already to 2012 Battle of Ideas."
Professor Marilyn Monk, emeritus professor of molecular embryology, University College London