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/commentisfree/2013/mar/17/leveson-press-regulation-royal-charter

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

Version 0 Version 1
Press regulation: after Leveson, let's put hysteria and mistrust behind us Press regulation: after Leveson, let's put hysteria and mistrust behind us
(7 months later)
It is not the cruellest crisis facing newspapers. Think, rather, of readers disappearing into cyberspace. It is not David Cameron's worst crisis either. Think of George Osborne's sad script for Thursday's budget. It is not even the most pressing problem of media regulation. Remember that the most recent phone-hacking allegations, as they surface, still date from the time when Tony Blair ruled in Downing Street, while internet trolls and scams remain unaddressed. But tomorrow, amid a rumble of Westminster guns, will see David Cameron's royal charter pitched against the Clegg/Miliband royal charter. The prime minister wants "decisive action". He means winning or losing.It is not the cruellest crisis facing newspapers. Think, rather, of readers disappearing into cyberspace. It is not David Cameron's worst crisis either. Think of George Osborne's sad script for Thursday's budget. It is not even the most pressing problem of media regulation. Remember that the most recent phone-hacking allegations, as they surface, still date from the time when Tony Blair ruled in Downing Street, while internet trolls and scams remain unaddressed. But tomorrow, amid a rumble of Westminster guns, will see David Cameron's royal charter pitched against the Clegg/Miliband royal charter. The prime minister wants "decisive action". He means winning or losing.
Yet most people who have scrutinised the rival texts of these quaintly olde world documents may be forgiven for scratching their heads. Where, exactly, are the devils in the detail that can't be negotiated backstage at Westminster? Mr Cameron wants to "require" guilty newspapers to publish apologies, Labour to "direct" the same outcome. But, in practice, an independent press standards board – and it has to be seen to be robustly independent and not puppeteered by the press, as was too often the case with the old PCC – led by a powerful and independent chairman would want its writ run directly anyway. And the stringently independent recognition panel that validates the new board would stamp its foot instantly if it failed to do so.Yet most people who have scrutinised the rival texts of these quaintly olde world documents may be forgiven for scratching their heads. Where, exactly, are the devils in the detail that can't be negotiated backstage at Westminster? Mr Cameron wants to "require" guilty newspapers to publish apologies, Labour to "direct" the same outcome. But, in practice, an independent press standards board – and it has to be seen to be robustly independent and not puppeteered by the press, as was too often the case with the old PCC – led by a powerful and independent chairman would want its writ run directly anyway. And the stringently independent recognition panel that validates the new board would stamp its foot instantly if it failed to do so.
There is no significant canyon of division here. Labour's charter is a little more welcoming to third-party pressure group complaints, but the Cameron version would allow them, too, if they raise matters of significant public interest. But since the standards commissioners of the future will be men and women of stature and common sense, there'll surely be no difficulty in striking agreements and building case law on areas like this.There is no significant canyon of division here. Labour's charter is a little more welcoming to third-party pressure group complaints, but the Cameron version would allow them, too, if they raise matters of significant public interest. But since the standards commissioners of the future will be men and women of stature and common sense, there'll surely be no difficulty in striking agreements and building case law on areas like this.
It ought to be the same in the appointments area where, theoretically, a minority press representation can veto a candidate it doesn't like, in just the same way that the majority independents can blackball a press member. But what this should involve in practice is agreement, the agreement of common purpose.It ought to be the same in the appointments area where, theoretically, a minority press representation can veto a candidate it doesn't like, in just the same way that the majority independents can blackball a press member. But what this should involve in practice is agreement, the agreement of common purpose.
In short, there are no true devils lurking in the sub-clauses of this supposed confrontation. The only serious sticking point is whether the charter that emerges can be brought into being without the underpinning of some brief statute, or whether Parliament must ringfence its freedom of action by what's called "a dab" of law that ties its existence more clearly to elected MPs acting out in the open rather than privy councillors (including ministers of the day) manipulating matters behind some arras.In short, there are no true devils lurking in the sub-clauses of this supposed confrontation. The only serious sticking point is whether the charter that emerges can be brought into being without the underpinning of some brief statute, or whether Parliament must ringfence its freedom of action by what's called "a dab" of law that ties its existence more clearly to elected MPs acting out in the open rather than privy councillors (including ministers of the day) manipulating matters behind some arras.
Again, the differences involved are far smaller than either Hacked Off or the Furies of Fleet Street would have you believe. In pragmatism, this paper sees advantages to that dab of statute. It would put future changes and pressures out in the open, for discussion on the floor of the House (which is where they will land soon enough as wider digital regulation becomes inevitable). It would make for clearer court decision-making once the charter hits the shoals of European law over its penchant for "exemplary damages".Again, the differences involved are far smaller than either Hacked Off or the Furies of Fleet Street would have you believe. In pragmatism, this paper sees advantages to that dab of statute. It would put future changes and pressures out in the open, for discussion on the floor of the House (which is where they will land soon enough as wider digital regulation becomes inevitable). It would make for clearer court decision-making once the charter hits the shoals of European law over its penchant for "exemplary damages".
It might even allow some relaxation of the onerously complex regime of rolling civil law contracts devised by Lord Hunt of the departing Press Complaints Commission as his own legal route to exacting membership of a replacement regime.It might even allow some relaxation of the onerously complex regime of rolling civil law contracts devised by Lord Hunt of the departing Press Complaints Commission as his own legal route to exacting membership of a replacement regime.
We see the advantages to the "dab of statute" – but with due caution attached. Nobody on the press side of this argument believes that the PCC can or should survive its ordeal by Leveson. Everyone has signed up to a much tighter, more rigorous system. But nothing can flourish in a real commission world where mistrust, bad faith and hysterical denunciations are the disorder of the day.We see the advantages to the "dab of statute" – but with due caution attached. Nobody on the press side of this argument believes that the PCC can or should survive its ordeal by Leveson. Everyone has signed up to a much tighter, more rigorous system. But nothing can flourish in a real commission world where mistrust, bad faith and hysterical denunciations are the disorder of the day.
The new board, when and if it comes into being, will need to function – and, frankly, to keep in touch with what's going on – by working as a team. That means the press striving to heal its own wounds. It also means the politicians leaving this pitch. What happened over hacking was shameful, but it cannot be the future. The press has learned bitter lessons and must swallow some more. The politicians have equally bitter issues to swallow now, as the chancellor reaches for his red box.The new board, when and if it comes into being, will need to function – and, frankly, to keep in touch with what's going on – by working as a team. That means the press striving to heal its own wounds. It also means the politicians leaving this pitch. What happened over hacking was shameful, but it cannot be the future. The press has learned bitter lessons and must swallow some more. The politicians have equally bitter issues to swallow now, as the chancellor reaches for his red box.
• This article will be opened for comments on Sunday morning• This article will be opened for comments on Sunday morning
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.