Britain's press has shown it can't police itself. Now it's time for politicians to act

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/britain-press-police-politicians

Version 0 of 1.

There is an old adage in the movie industry that you should "never pick a fight with anyone who buys their ink wholesale", but the truth is that nobody speaking in favour of the form of regulation envisaged by Lord Justice Leveson has picked this fight. Certainly, the entire thrust of my argument these past dozen years has been with those sections of the press that have consistently failed to observe the "rules of engagement" that they themselves established.

Anyone taking a few moments to study the editors' code of practice can only conclude that had these self-created guidelines been observed, there would have been no reason for an inquiry in the first place. The Leveson inquiry was set up to address the systematic abuse, and misuse of hard-won press freedoms, in circumstances in which the editors' code had been wilfully ignored. In attempting to put together a persuasive argument in favour of statute, and in trying to take on board the more thoughtful of the countervailing arguments, I've been struck by the fact that, as every behavioural psychologist knows, genuine improvement doesn't occur until the "patient" acknowledges the nature of the problem.

That respected commentator Philip Stephens nailed this perfectly when he recently observed in the Financial Times: "The most striking thing about the behaviour of the newspapers in Lord Justice Leveson's line of fire has been a complete lack of contrition. It is almost as if the real crime of the phone-hackers was to get caught." He went on: "Their strategy was clear: derail attempts to establish independent oversight, lie low for a while and then return to the old ways." He concluded: "Lord Justice Leveson is right: the press cannot any longer expect to mark its own homework; but neither can the rich and powerful."

I would simply add the self-evident fact that, all too often, the press and the rich and powerful are one and the same and it's at that point that the status quo becomes insupportable.

The most overused phrase throughout this debate has undoubtedly been "freedom of the press" and that's strange because I've yet to hear any serious person arguing against the concept of a press – "free and fair". The problem only arises when the press itself crosses the line and misuses its freedoms – not to reveal great truths, but to distort and misinform in pursuit of its own agenda.

To any objective observer, the parliamentary expenses scandal, while politically embarrassing and even damaging, was small beer when compared with the revelations detailed in the Leveson report. In fact, the levels of hypocrisy and mendacity we've been subjected to these past few months has been little short of breathtaking.

Let me offer a couple of examples. On 16 November, the Daily Mail used its front page and 10 pages inside to "expose the misdeeds" of one of Leveson's panel of assessors, Sir David Bell, and what were, in the paper's words, "his incestuous network of political, business and financial links … promoting their own ideological agenda in a surreptitious manner". I have no problem with the editor's right to publish this story, but what came across was a somewhat hysterical attempt to "smear" a person whose record in public life has been exemplary.

At first, I put it down to a lack of editorial judgment, but then the penny dropped – it wasn't really about Bell at all, it was far more a shot across the bows of anyone in public life who had the temerity to support Leveson and his proposals. It's the closest the UK media have come, in my recent memory, to Joseph McCarthy's playbook, whereby you throw enough excrement in the hope that at least some of it might stick.

Another "moment of madness" was the leading article in the Sunday Times immediately following the prime minister's rejection of the crucial Leveson recommendation regarding statute. After informing the world that "some of his [Leveson's] recommendations are unworkable, unworldly and would represent a real threat of political influence and control over Britain's press" (momentarily forgetting that "political influence and control" were what their own proprietor had most avidly sought for more than 30 years), the article went on to flirt with ridicule by suggesting: "Mr Cameron's concern was not for the headlines of today or tomorrow or those leading up to the next election."

And it ended with a telling phrase: "Mr Cameron has bravely stood up to political pressure to demand that newspapers regulate themselves; politicians have pointed a loaded gun at the press and many fingers are ready to pull the trigger."

Scary language and not dissimilar from that used by the National Rifle Association. It, too, remorselessly invokes its country's "traditional rights and freedoms" in attempting to see off the advocates of laws on gun control. In truth, far from risking damaging headlines, since Cameron stepped away from his commitment to the Dowlers and other victims of criminal behaviour by announcing his opposition to statutory regulation, influential sections of the press would appear to have suddenly rediscovered their inner Tory, at least for the time being.

Let's be clear, there are many fine and well-motivated people working in our newspapers. For example, with the resignation of the editor of the Times, James Harding, the country has lost a thoughtful and influential voice. Earlier, in a brave and balanced editorial, he had written: "The failure of News International to get to grips with what had happened at one of its newspapers suggested that the company had succumbed to that most dangerous delusion of the powerful, namely that it could play by its own set of rules." That certainly qualifies as my idea of the proper use of press freedom; Mr Harding would appear to have paid a heavy price for his adherence to editorial independence.

It's worth repeating that perceptive warning – "The most dangerous delusion of the powerful is the belief that they can play by their own set of rules" – because in essence that is exactly what Leveson concluded when offering us a very thoughtful way forward . It is now up to the prime minister, and then Parliament, to find the courage to accept his recommendations and then turn them into proportionate and workable legislation.

The press also has to reassess itself, because what's at stake is regaining readers' trust and their right to believe that the privileges of press freedom and the responsibilities that come with it will no longer be used to manipulate and distort, but to further the emergence of an informed, compassionate and confident democracy. That's the challenge both the prime minister and much of the press seems unable or unwilling to confront fully.