Press Freedom and responsibility – regulation and the Royal Charter

With a Royal Charter on regulating the press apparently about to be implemented, and the press still resisting the level of political control it would involve, all in the name of 'public interest', what actually is the public interest? Many have felt outraged by press intrusions into the privacy of private individuals whose media importance relates to some crime story where they are 'victims' in some way (this excludes most celebrities, felt to be 'fair game'). But also, there is a very long tradition of believing that one of the most important roles of a free press is that it holds the political system, and individual politicians, to account. How can they do so if that political system has the power to censor the press and control what it publishes?

It was common knowledge in the last decade that journalists had taken advantage of modern technology by 'hacking'. But (apart from the Guardian) we were not really worried by it until the trial of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Milly Dowler, when it was suggested that Bellfield might have got off because of the phone-hacking activity of an 'enterprising' investigative journalist. The resultant public outrage was huge, as more stories emerged suggesting that this was not an isolated case; that other, 'ordinary' men and women, involuntarily and unfortunately involved in crime stories, had found themselves subjected to unwarranted journalistic intrusion. The consequence was the Leveson Inquiry (which sadly lost sight of its original brief to investigate the impact of poor practices in investigative journalism on the criminal justice process, and links to bodies such as the police).

Leveson concluded that 'What is required is independent self-regulation'. Reining in the excesses of the press while maintaining its freedom was always going to require compromise, and, to date, there has been no real meeting of minds despite consensus that a new regulatory body needs to be established. As ever, the devil is in the detail. Despite the claims of compromise, the Charter contains a key provision which is identified by the newspaper industry as amounting to a return to state licensing of newspapers: something fought against as long ago as 1644, in John Milton's Areopagitica. The research done to produce Crime News in Modern Britain: Press Reporting and Responsibility 1820-2010 (PalgraveMacmillan, 2013) has put us on the side of the press in this aspect of the fight. There is no current intention to interfere: but only the historically-uninformed could claim it could not happen in the future. As we have argued

it has been print journalism, using the authority and permanence of the written word, which has campaigned most vigorously for changes to 'bad' laws or for new laws to fill 'gaps' in existing legislation. Such pressure has played a major part in making governments feel compelled to preside over the enactment of apparently electorate-friendly legislation which has been rushed through the parliamentary process.

But press and government have ducked a central issue in improving investigative journalism: an honest look at relations between journalists and members of the police force (the recent Plebgate revelations underline this need). Sensationalism can be responsible and in the public interest. Guy Bartholomew's Daily Mirror of the 1930s prided itself on this. The law also has powers currently not well used. Up to the 1960s, when journalists and editors overstepped the mark contempt of court proceedings were used to control such excess. Should we not be exploring that, rather than political licensing?

Judith Rowbotham, Kim Stevenson and Samantha Pegg are the authors of 'Crime News in Modern Britain. Press Reporting and Responsibility 1820-2010' (Palgrave Macmillan, published 16 October 2013).

Dr Samantha Pegg is a senior lecturer at Nottingham Law School.

Further information