Ending months of feverish speculation, Lord Justice Leveson has finally given his verdict on the British press — and it does not make comfortable reading either for journalists or politicians. The Financial Times called it a “damning indictment of the culture and practices of the newspaper industry.” And The Times whose sister paper, the now defunct News of the World, caused the phone hacking scandal that led to the inquiry, credited Lord Leveson with correctly identifying the “lapses in moral and professional standards” of the press. His 2000-page report — “longer than Harry Potter, shorter than Proust, denser than Tolstoy,” as the Guardian put it — lambasts the media for its “reckless” and “outrageous” behaviour and accuses it of having “wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people” for many decades. Politicians get a sharp rap on the knuckles for developing “too close a relationship with the press in a way which has not been in the public interest”. Yet, for all the apparent sound and fury, the report is more significant not so much for what it says but for what it does not say.
During the hearings, Lord Leveson made some strong observations about the need for a radically new regulatory regime. This sparked speculation that he was likely to recommend a strong dose of statutory regulation. It was widely thought that he might bow to pressure from victims’ campaign groups such as Hacked Off and go for the “nuclear option” — a press law. In the end, though, he settled for a sensible middle course between the discredited current system of self-regulation and state regulation. He wants the creation of a new regulatory body which would be “truly independent” of the newspaper industry and the government, but backed by legislation. He stressed that this did not imply state control. The proposed legislation was not meant to “establish” the new body but only to “recognise” an independent regulatory regime as the public had no confidence in the industry-controlled Press Complaints Commission. While the Opposition Labour Party and the government’s junior coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, have enthusiastically embraced the proposal, Prime Minister David Cameron believes it “has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press,” a view not shared by many of his own MPs. Eventually what will count is public opinion and it is overwhelmingly in favour of the Leveson proposal, leaving Mr. Cameron looking like the odd man out. The report will find resonance in India too, where calls for media regulation are growing louder. Indeed, before it is beset with its own hacking scandal, the Indian media should see what lessons it can draw from the Leveson report.
Keywords: Media freedom, Self regulation, Lord Leveson report, BBC, Phone hacking scandal
The findings of Lord Leveson equally applies to our context also. Not
only politicians, most of the Industry, Bureaucrats, Police and
Activists are parties to the media lobby, a new species of 'Right'
referred by Lord Leveson. Their intention and means of sharing/getting
information or note files is mostly illegal. In the name of
Investigative journalism, such information/details of tainted origin
are quickly sewnsationalised and accord them a status which they later
claim as public domain. While we enjoy freedom of speech and
expression we don't have right to refuse the same to others. All penal
laws and regulations are meant to protect ours as well as that of
others rights only. Once the media houses become to wear the dress of
a corporate body, they become a business of profit establishments and
to me they loose the noble calling as fourth pillar. Any regulation
should not aim at curtailing the freedom of genuine Press or media.
Let there be a lot of debate on this vital question, more articles
discussing the Leveson report with reference to Indian conditions and
some of the warts that we have noticed in the way press has behaved.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that we must not harm the
press in the process. In today's chaotic governance and the list of
woes like corruption, scandals overflowing the daily life, two
institutions that are vital for us are judiciary and the other is a
free press. Let us not forget that. Damaging the free press by putting
needless fetters would produce exactlythe opposite effect.
It will be interesting to know the views of Press Council of India on the recommendations of the Leveson panel. A more detailed analysis is expected from The Hindu.
In recent years the sensationalism of news has become daily exercise
of media. This lead to loss of moral and values of media. The news
should be objective and unbiased. Recently the paid news scandal and
allegation against Zee reporters has raised the questions about moral
and credibility of media.The self regulation of media in India is not
sufficient. It is the need of the hour to form the independent
regulatory body for media but it should be independent of state.
infulence also.
Freedom of press doesnot mean freedom media houses to do whatever
which suits its business interest it only means freedom of people to
know fair and objective information.With freedom there is
responsibility,if some body wants freedom without responsibility ,it
would be meaningless.Moreover regulation does not mean curtailment of
freedom,it only means ensuring that freedom is enjoyed in a
responsible way,which protects public interest in long term rather
than sensationalising what public is interested in ,in short term and
cashing in on that sensationalism.
Its a historic judgement which goes a long way in curbing
Media malpractices and promotes ethical, and professional journalism
by genuine independent regulation.some sort independent Media
regulation is required in India too....
Please Email the Editor