Lord Justice Leveson has finally published a 2,000 page report which summed up his findings on the inquiry which the government launched last year to explore the ethics and journalistic standards newspapers and other forms of media incorporate on a daily basis. Leveson's inquiry intended to unravel the events which surrounded the phone hacking scandal which angered many people across Britain. It was up to Leveson to interview countless amount of people who were victim to such crime, editors and journalists past and present, politicians past and present and media moguls to reveal their relationships between one another, openly talk about the emotional damage papers caused to loved ones and passionately express their concern about the attitudes of the media towards the general public.
Leveson heard it all in the twelve months where he interviewed hundreds of people, and it took him enough time to release what he thinks the British media must do in the future to serve their freedom with pride and dignity, and avoid the mess it has been in the last 20-30 years. Leveson stated on Thursday that the relationship between the papers and politicians was unhealthy and that the press took little consideration to the public interest.
Although Leveson praised the freedom of the press which led other countries by example, he said that this "havoc" had to stop. In hindsight, he wants the media and politicians to move on and start fresh, forgetting about the past and dedicate themselves for a crime free future. How do the media do this? Leveson agreed on Thursday afternoon that ditching the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was correct and advised the government that starting up a new independent regulatory system free from political and media affiliation would be substantial progress from the previous system which caused so much controversy.
What did I think about Leveson's appearance on Thursday afternoon? I thought he was passionate and deserves all praise. He observed and listened to every single person interviewed and read every statement and transcript given to him, giving him the impression about the state of the British media. He was open, honest and expected every witness to have done the same when him and sidekick Robert Jay QC grilled over 350 people. I agreed with about 90 percent of what Leveson said. What he had was courage and he deserves his recent acclaims such as getting an honorary doctorate at a top UK University.
My only concern about Leveson's summary of findings was that he is passionate about the independent regulatory system which he hopes would replace the departing PCC. Although I feel the PCC failed modern journalism and that editors shouldn't have dealt with their own complaints, it is very difficult to find independent people to run the proposed regulatory system. If I counted myself as a person who is independent from politics and media because I never worked in either sector, I could be later found out that I am a Labour voter and read The Independent and The Times. What does that make me? People who both don't politically affiliate themselves and don't read a particular paper on a daily basis is rare. You can have people with a range of beliefs, certainly- but having all "independent" executives involved in a system like this could only make things worse. Regardless, I have confidence in Leveson and his suggestions and feedback. He didn't say anything crazy and I think he did the media industry justice. If only he was appointed Media and Culture Secretary.
The report should make Hugh Grant happy. Talking of the Notting Hill actor, did you see his documentary on Channel Four on Wednesday night? It showed his account of the last six weeks before the Leveson report with the campaign team "Hacked Off", which champions the thought of an independent system free from political and media affiliation. Mr Grant as you may know, was a phone hacking victim and has been the ambassador against press freedom. He was one of many which had his reputation trampled on by the press because of his private life was explicitly exposed during the late 1990s - he wanted things to change.
The documentary itself was interesting. He was open about the attacks The Daily Mail gave him in recent weeks. When trying to get hold of the newspaper's editor, Grant failed - unsurprisingly. I'm glad I heard Grant's side in this way rather than him ranting to Leveson about it. His approach was in the public interest and didn't breach any privacy. But again, I am not convinced by an independent regulatory system. It is a very complicated road to recovery for the media and having this new proposed system needs further detail and explanation. It's good if the government considered this and explored Leveson's findings themselves, without completely changing the Justice's idea.
Political leaders responded to Leveson's report moments after his appearance. David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the leaders of the Coalition, decided to clash on the matter. Clegg joined with Labour's Ed Miliband by acknowledging the Justice's report and also agree the suggestions must be pursued further. However, Cameron decided to be the pantomime villain. Although he appreciates Leveson's efforts, he disagreed with the Justice's advice. He says the papers are doing an exceptional job as it is and in hindsight, he completely shunned the 2,000 pages, creating widespread anger among the opposition and Conservative rebel.
Being the villain is something Cameron is very good at. In fact, it seems to be the only thing he is good at. He ignored the public's outcry for more income by cutting benefits, jobs and raising the VAT meaning a hike in food and petrol prices. Now he ignores victims to a horrific crime that hasn't punished the perpetrators the way they deserve. Cameron talks as if the past never happened. In all honesty, he does have every right to thank the press. Without their constant attacks on former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Cameron wouldn't have resided at 10 Downing Street in May 2010. A lot of the papers in the UK are right-wing and he took advantage of that.
I have no problem with newspapers being politically affiliated - in fact, I embrace it. It is completely normal for that to happen, however, I condemn editors and politicians being personal friends, rather than professionals. If I was Leveson, I would have proposed a plan to ban any communications with politicians and editors about newspaper content. Political opinion is good, political influence on the public is morally wrong. We've always criticised pan-Arab press for doing such thing, why does it have to happen in the UK? I will always continue to support newspapers as they are a fantastic source of information, as like television and radio - however, editors and journalists must accept responsibility. Even the innocent papers, it is up to them to support their competitors and work together efficiently.
Overall, I am proud of Leveson and really think that Cameron has shot himself on the foot - I hope the public will realise this. However, I feel that the papers wrongdoing has been due to the online revolution. In the past thirty years, we have seen the rise in the internet which has increased the voice of the public. People (myself included) have that opportunity to express their views about anything. The online revolution got rid of dictators in the Middle East due to public interaction, the online revolution has revealed the Iraq War in 2003 was illegal thanks to Julian Assange's investigations and hacking skills. I have little problems with that, although I'm not convinced about the latter.
However Web 2.0 and the rise of social media changed the definition of privacy. People who formed Facebook, like Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter have become so popular, papers couldn't heckle it. They simply went crazy and thought if social networking gets away with altering the definition of privacy, why couldn't they? What papers have to appreciate is that they will never have the qualities of the internet. Equally, internet will never have newspaper qualities. It has been that impression that newspapers are competing with the internet to cope with modern times but it shouldn't be the case. The internet brought the worse out of the the papers and that impression has to change.
Leveson heard it all in the twelve months where he interviewed hundreds of people, and it took him enough time to release what he thinks the British media must do in the future to serve their freedom with pride and dignity, and avoid the mess it has been in the last 20-30 years. Leveson stated on Thursday that the relationship between the papers and politicians was unhealthy and that the press took little consideration to the public interest.
Although Leveson praised the freedom of the press which led other countries by example, he said that this "havoc" had to stop. In hindsight, he wants the media and politicians to move on and start fresh, forgetting about the past and dedicate themselves for a crime free future. How do the media do this? Leveson agreed on Thursday afternoon that ditching the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) was correct and advised the government that starting up a new independent regulatory system free from political and media affiliation would be substantial progress from the previous system which caused so much controversy.
What did I think about Leveson's appearance on Thursday afternoon? I thought he was passionate and deserves all praise. He observed and listened to every single person interviewed and read every statement and transcript given to him, giving him the impression about the state of the British media. He was open, honest and expected every witness to have done the same when him and sidekick Robert Jay QC grilled over 350 people. I agreed with about 90 percent of what Leveson said. What he had was courage and he deserves his recent acclaims such as getting an honorary doctorate at a top UK University.
My only concern about Leveson's summary of findings was that he is passionate about the independent regulatory system which he hopes would replace the departing PCC. Although I feel the PCC failed modern journalism and that editors shouldn't have dealt with their own complaints, it is very difficult to find independent people to run the proposed regulatory system. If I counted myself as a person who is independent from politics and media because I never worked in either sector, I could be later found out that I am a Labour voter and read The Independent and The Times. What does that make me? People who both don't politically affiliate themselves and don't read a particular paper on a daily basis is rare. You can have people with a range of beliefs, certainly- but having all "independent" executives involved in a system like this could only make things worse. Regardless, I have confidence in Leveson and his suggestions and feedback. He didn't say anything crazy and I think he did the media industry justice. If only he was appointed Media and Culture Secretary.
The report should make Hugh Grant happy. Talking of the Notting Hill actor, did you see his documentary on Channel Four on Wednesday night? It showed his account of the last six weeks before the Leveson report with the campaign team "Hacked Off", which champions the thought of an independent system free from political and media affiliation. Mr Grant as you may know, was a phone hacking victim and has been the ambassador against press freedom. He was one of many which had his reputation trampled on by the press because of his private life was explicitly exposed during the late 1990s - he wanted things to change.
The documentary itself was interesting. He was open about the attacks The Daily Mail gave him in recent weeks. When trying to get hold of the newspaper's editor, Grant failed - unsurprisingly. I'm glad I heard Grant's side in this way rather than him ranting to Leveson about it. His approach was in the public interest and didn't breach any privacy. But again, I am not convinced by an independent regulatory system. It is a very complicated road to recovery for the media and having this new proposed system needs further detail and explanation. It's good if the government considered this and explored Leveson's findings themselves, without completely changing the Justice's idea.
Political leaders responded to Leveson's report moments after his appearance. David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the leaders of the Coalition, decided to clash on the matter. Clegg joined with Labour's Ed Miliband by acknowledging the Justice's report and also agree the suggestions must be pursued further. However, Cameron decided to be the pantomime villain. Although he appreciates Leveson's efforts, he disagreed with the Justice's advice. He says the papers are doing an exceptional job as it is and in hindsight, he completely shunned the 2,000 pages, creating widespread anger among the opposition and Conservative rebel.
Being the villain is something Cameron is very good at. In fact, it seems to be the only thing he is good at. He ignored the public's outcry for more income by cutting benefits, jobs and raising the VAT meaning a hike in food and petrol prices. Now he ignores victims to a horrific crime that hasn't punished the perpetrators the way they deserve. Cameron talks as if the past never happened. In all honesty, he does have every right to thank the press. Without their constant attacks on former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Cameron wouldn't have resided at 10 Downing Street in May 2010. A lot of the papers in the UK are right-wing and he took advantage of that.
I have no problem with newspapers being politically affiliated - in fact, I embrace it. It is completely normal for that to happen, however, I condemn editors and politicians being personal friends, rather than professionals. If I was Leveson, I would have proposed a plan to ban any communications with politicians and editors about newspaper content. Political opinion is good, political influence on the public is morally wrong. We've always criticised pan-Arab press for doing such thing, why does it have to happen in the UK? I will always continue to support newspapers as they are a fantastic source of information, as like television and radio - however, editors and journalists must accept responsibility. Even the innocent papers, it is up to them to support their competitors and work together efficiently.
Overall, I am proud of Leveson and really think that Cameron has shot himself on the foot - I hope the public will realise this. However, I feel that the papers wrongdoing has been due to the online revolution. In the past thirty years, we have seen the rise in the internet which has increased the voice of the public. People (myself included) have that opportunity to express their views about anything. The online revolution got rid of dictators in the Middle East due to public interaction, the online revolution has revealed the Iraq War in 2003 was illegal thanks to Julian Assange's investigations and hacking skills. I have little problems with that, although I'm not convinced about the latter.
However Web 2.0 and the rise of social media changed the definition of privacy. People who formed Facebook, like Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter have become so popular, papers couldn't heckle it. They simply went crazy and thought if social networking gets away with altering the definition of privacy, why couldn't they? What papers have to appreciate is that they will never have the qualities of the internet. Equally, internet will never have newspaper qualities. It has been that impression that newspapers are competing with the internet to cope with modern times but it shouldn't be the case. The internet brought the worse out of the the papers and that impression has to change.
Comments
Post a Comment