Additional Information


Content

The Leveson Report

What consequences, if any, will its publication have? By Alasdair Reid

Leveson: Cameron is under pressure to implement his recommendations. Credit: Getty Images

Leveson: Cameron is under pressure to implement his recommendations. Credit: Getty Images

Share this article

    What it means for... advertisers
  • We’re now likely to see the emergence of a new form of self-regulation for the press – and this would be welcomed by advertisers. Last week, Ian Twinn, ISBA’s director of public affairs, said: “Advertisers are great believers in self-regulation – we know it works. We hope that the debate over whether [publication of the Leveson Report should lead to] so-called statutory regulation does not distract from the need for the press to show a united front and support new proposals.”
  • If these proposals are shown to be workable, then the threat of statutory intervention will recede, he added.
    What it means for... the newspaper medium
  • Strangely, perhaps, in a perverse sort of way, the whole business has underscored the enduring power of the ink-on-paper medium – much to the chagrin of avant-garde social theorists in the “print is dead” camp.
  • For instance, the report highlights the notion that there is a “qualitative difference” between material viewed online (which, it argues, is easily ignored or dismissed) and in print. Sellers of print advertising inventory will note this with interest.
  • And another interesting notion, one that kept cropping up in the preamble to the report’s publication, is the realisation that newspaper companies can still expect to make a profit these days. Some observers seemed to be suggesting that this is a thoroughly bad thing. Some media owners might disagree.

Many of last Friday’s newspapers implied that the Leveson Report had been pretty much killed stone dead the previous afternoon. They pointed out that the report – 1,987 pages produced at a cost to the tax-payer of £3.9 million – had been "in play" for not much more than an hour and a half. That was the gap between the time of its publication on Thursday afternoon and the point in Prime Minister David Cameron’s Commons statement when he rejected its main recommendation, for a new regulatory body underpinned by primary legislation.

And that, they inferred, was that. This was surely all over, bar the shouting – and, actually, there probably wasn’t going to be much in the way of shouting either.

Over the weekend, however, that analysis became less clear-cut. The Government may yet be forced on to the back foot.

Observers who’d been predicting a long and bitter political row over Leveson were basing their forecast on the assumption that the report, in one of its many scenic detours down the B-roads of recent media business history, would be critical of the Government’s handling of News Corporation’s June 2010 bid for BSkyB. Or accuse it generally of hobnobbing dis­reputably with media barons.

No such matter. Had the report been embarrassing in this respect, Cameron’s room for manoeuvre might have been much reduced. And yet it found no substantive fault in the manner in which Jeremy Hunt, the then Culture Secretary, dealt with regulatory issues arising from the bid.

Interestingly, though, we may not have heard the last of this – it began to emerge over the weekend that Hunt’s political opponents still believe they can keep this issue alive. Their faint hope is based on the fact that the report criticises Hunt’s special advisor, Adam Smith, for some of his actions during the bid process. Labour, it seems, may now seek to argue that this amounts to a "breach of the ministerial code" on Hunt’s part, and could refer this to the man charged with investigating such breaches, Sir Alex Allan.

Arguably, if the Opposition succeeds on this front, all sorts of things could be back in play once more.

1. From the perspective of the media world as a business sector, the most important aspect of the Leveson Report is, indeed, its exoneration of Hunt. Those disposed to paranoia have long had a visceral distrust of mergers and acquisitions activity in this marketplace – and have depicted a sleazy world of corrupt politicians in hock to greedy media barons. That boil, hopefully, has been lanced.

2. It was acknowledged by almost everyone, including the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, that it might be a rather good idea to keep Ofcom’s nose out of the newspaper business (as had been one of the report’s central recommendations). Recent weeks have been rather unkind to the Ofcom chief executive, Ed Richards, who (wholly separately) was also passed over yet again for the BBC director-general job.

3. Maria Miller had a com­fortable run-out in her first high-profile set piece as the new Culture Secretary. And she has now been given a cameo role in kicking the report even deeper into the long grass. The Conservatives’ Liberal Democrat coalition partners are threatening to vote next month, alongside Labour, for a full implementation of the report’s recommendations. So Miller has been charged with persuading them of the ridiculousness of their position by drafting a dummy bill along Leveson-style lines.

4. Miller and Cameron were planning this week to instigate meetings with senior newspaper executives, with a view to exploring new forms of self-regulation for the newspaper industry.

5. It has been rumoured that ideas for new self-regulatory structures might be taken forward politically by a committee including, in addition to Conservatives, a former Labour cabinet minister and a former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

6. Meanwhile, Hacked Off, the lobby group fronted by, among others, the actor Hugh Grant, is continuing to call for full implementation of the Leveson Report. Its online petition, launched at the end of last week, had attracted more than 50,000 signatories within its first 24 hours. At the time of writing, that figure had risen to almost 130,000.

This article was first published on campaignlive.co.uk

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus

Additional Information

Latest jobs Jobs web feed

FROM THE BLOGS

The Wall blogs

TT not PC External website

by Ian Moore, 23/11/2014

 

Beer monsters External website

by Greg Taylor, 21/11/2014

 

Back to top ^