This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/12/guardian-press-regulation

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Guardian, Independent and FT speak out on press regulation Guardian, Independent and FT speak out on press regulation
(7 months later)
Three national newspapers have broken ranks with other UK media titles to propose a way to end a deadlock over press regulation in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and Lord Leveson's inquiry.Three national newspapers have broken ranks with other UK media titles to propose a way to end a deadlock over press regulation in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and Lord Leveson's inquiry.
The move by the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times came as the latest round of cross-party discussion on the Leveson proposals looked no closer to reaching a solution.The move by the Guardian, Independent and Financial Times came as the latest round of cross-party discussion on the Leveson proposals looked no closer to reaching a solution.
An editorial in Tuesday's FT said the failure to agree on a regulatory regime would threaten vital economic reforms and could result in a backlash. "What is now needed is a practical gesture of goodwill to break the deadlock and avoid a sweeping press law," it said.An editorial in Tuesday's FT said the failure to agree on a regulatory regime would threaten vital economic reforms and could result in a backlash. "What is now needed is a practical gesture of goodwill to break the deadlock and avoid a sweeping press law," it said.
The Guardian, in its editorial, argued that the prime minister's royal charter proposal amounted to statutory regulation "via the back door of Buckingham Palace rather than the front door of Westminster." The creation of a legal clause to underpin such a royal charter would offer a "constitutional fudge" that could be "amended only in the open with the agreement of an overwhelming majority of parliament".The Guardian, in its editorial, argued that the prime minister's royal charter proposal amounted to statutory regulation "via the back door of Buckingham Palace rather than the front door of Westminster." The creation of a legal clause to underpin such a royal charter would offer a "constitutional fudge" that could be "amended only in the open with the agreement of an overwhelming majority of parliament".
The Guardian warned that by refusing to give ground on regulation, editors were gambling with the freedoms they sought to protect.The Guardian warned that by refusing to give ground on regulation, editors were gambling with the freedoms they sought to protect.
"This is a high stakes game in which the assumption is that, as always in the past, the politicians will blink first. But what if they don't.""This is a high stakes game in which the assumption is that, as always in the past, the politicians will blink first. But what if they don't."
The Independent said that while Leveson's proposal to create a legally-enshrined independent regulator went too far, the arguments against some form of statutory underpinning had lost perspective. "Even reasonable half-way measures are characterised as press freedoms eroded and democratic principles laid waste," it said in its editorial.The Independent said that while Leveson's proposal to create a legally-enshrined independent regulator went too far, the arguments against some form of statutory underpinning had lost perspective. "Even reasonable half-way measures are characterised as press freedoms eroded and democratic principles laid waste," it said in its editorial.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.