Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 8-10 months you'll know all about Leveson, phone hacking, Murdoch, New of The World....blah blah blahhhhh. Well oh happy day......the 2000 page report which presents the findings of the many wonderful and oh so distracting hearings from earlier on in the year is here......bom bom bommmmmm!!! (Also as a side note to this, i have discovered that my supervisor Professor Tom O'Malley's book "Regulating The Press" is cited by Leveson in the report on numerous occasions as a background to press regulation - to put it politely, he's in a very chuffed, happy, pleased as punch mood this morning.... making my 9am supervision with him today a rather jolly affair with many jokes that he's finally hit the big time.....ANYWAY.....moving on).........
What will the reaction be i hear you cry? Will politicians congratulate the report for its thorough and extensive work!? Will they now clammer for greater regulation? or sidestep the issue entirely.......burying their heads in the sand claiming they dont know what the problem is (yes .....im looking at you Jeremy Hunt) Or will they do what most politicians do which is throw out a couple of choice sound bites for posterity and the 6 o clock news which makes it SOUND like they're going to do something BUT actually if you listen carefully....yeh nothing will change (YEH IM LOOKING AT YOU CAMERON......)
From what we have seen in the last day or so, its the latter. It was always going to be the latter!!
Thing is, arguments about the press, its regulation, what newspapers can and cant do......its the oldest argument going in terms of the press and what its there for. THIS IS NOT NEW PEOPLE!!!
Getting my "press historian hat" on for a few moments *rustles about in an old draw....dusts off an old fedora iv got hanging around* there are many contrasting theories and ideas about what the press should ideally be and what it actually is. Much of the work by historians on the history of the press has concentrated on the idea that ultimately over the centuries, the struggle for freedom of the press from state control was central to the development of Democracy in the UK. The cultural theorist Raymond Williams attempted to construct a significantly more complex model of press history during the 1960s but even he, who wished to help broaden the study of press history and bring the discipline out of its shell a bit, was still cautious of advocating state intervention in the press, warning against the 'radical confusion between popular interest and the state that could lead to forms of public intervention by people who for their own reasons, want a more visibly controlled and protected society'.
The Liberal theory believes that press freedom is paramount to its continuing existence - the removal of taxes on the production of newspapers in the 1840's allowed for a greater number of newspapers to be created, produced and circulated, bringing news and information to a wider audience. Liberals see the job of the press as a regulator, a fourth estate if you will, to keep the powers that be in check. The Marxist view of things sees things a little differently. They think that the press is and always will be controlled by the powers that be - a select group of people, often involving the long arms of the Government, who are usually the wealthiest in society. They produce the stories that they want the public to hear, keeping them in a state of perpetual "down troddeness" - Capitalism reigns supreme once more and they care not for the little man on the street. I am pretty sure that in these modern times, both of these theories are sounding pretty familiar and we can all give examples that would back up both beautifully, in regards to Leveson, phone hacking etc etc I mean on one hand.....without some under hand dealing and snooping by journalists we wouldn't have known about MP's expenses. But on the flip side....hacking a dead girls mobile phone? hmmmmmmm!
Previous attempts to control what the press can and cant say havnt always ended well either. Two examples from my period of WWII alone can tell you that. The first being the suppression and closure of The Daily Worker from 1941-1942; this Communist Party newspaper (highly Stalinist in its political views) was notoriously critical of the coalition Government and many saw its closure as a positive thing.
The Guardian wrote on Wednesday 22nd January 1941
"More recently the paper has largely devoted its columns to derogatory accounts of Service conditions on the one hand and to the encouragement of agitation among munition workers on the other. This might be excusable if the motive were honest, if it were really desired to help the country in its struggle to keep democracy alive in Europe. But the "Daily Worker" did not believe either in the war or in democracy; its only aim was to confuse and weaken. We can well spare it"
However, the many protests and exclamations which followed from the public and some in Government was enough to convince the Coalition that they had to lift the ban (all be it begrudgingly). Many felt that suppression and control of the press was precisely the kind of 'curtailing of fundamental freedoms' which they were fighting the war against - it was tantamount to a dictatorship of the worst kind!!
Non the less, the Government didnt stop at The Daily Worker. Churchill himself attempted to bully and harass The Daily Mirror after the printing of this cartoon on the 6th March 1942.
The cartoon featured a merchant seaman adrift in dangerous waters clinging to the remains of a ship, apparently torpedoed by a German submarine. The caption read: “The price of petrol has been increased by one penny – Official.” One of a series of pieces attacking profiteers, the original caption created by cartoonist Philip Zec was to have been "Petrol is Dearer Now." According to Zec, the cartoon was intended to illustrate that wasting fuel had serious consequences in terms of the risks taken (and the lives lost) by sailors bringing it to the country. However, Churchill and the Minister of Supply Herbert Morrison were outraged and disgusted. They interpreted the cartoon as a comment that petrol companies were deliberately profiting at the expense of British lives - particularly those in the Merchant Navy.....which is possible....but not the way i am sure Zec intended his cartoon to be interpreted. Zec went on to receive a half assed, wishy washy apology from the Governemnt in later years but exacted revenge on Churchill by being the brains behind the adopted Labour party slogan of 1945 campaign " Dont lose it again" - a take on another cartoon of Zec's from the VE day celebrations which depicted a wounded soldier handing over a laurel wreath representing peace and victory in Europe.
The caption read "Here you are, dont lose it again": it was used again on the July morning of the 1945 election on the front page of The Daily Mirror, and the accompanying text implied that to sustain peace and harmony in Europe - vote Labour! A suitable and sweet revenge to exact on a Government/politician who had hounded Zec for the way he had expressed himself and his political beliefs. Ok so iv shows two examples of how interfering in the freedom of the press, specifically in a wartime context i will grant you, can backfire and not be to the advantage of the expression of free thinking and diversifying opinions. We dont all think the same way even in wartime with a common enemy and foe - thats human nature, thats life..... However, there is another side.
In 1943, Ivor Thomas an MP and former Journalist for The Times admitted that 'misleading reports, misleading headings and even downright errors are commoner today than good journalists would wish', something that we coders have noticed from our many extensive hours perusing newspapers in The National Library of Wales. In the room that has privately, but very affectionately, become known as "The Cage" (the small glass room within the NLW where we code/discuss stuff/distract one another/slowly go insane over a period of months) there has been much discussion about the various stories in which we find ourselves engrossed. One of the main complaints, well not complaints as such more sort of highly interesting and startling comments, is that stories sometimes, and adverts in particular, seem to get away with saying quite a lot of things which they cant seem to corroborate. Many stories present themselves with no byline (no named writer....not even a casual "from our correspondent") and proceed to present their findings/ opinions in the most dogmatic and biased manner. Adverts are the worst for it (i know adverts should be taken in a separate context but if i have to read one more time how certain brands of cigarettes are good for Bronchitis sufferers or how Ovaltine and Liver bile salts will protect the whole family guaranteed....i think i may go spare......(as Kris so kindly pointed out the other day, Ovaltine cant protect you against the blackout or a burglar....yehhh in your face adverts.....the king of pedantic grammar has destroyed your argument and not for the last time...oh no sir!!!) In keeping with my WWII examples (sorry i havnt taken off my WWII press hat yet...i like it...it makes me feel kinda cool in a vintage press/mad men/the day the earth caught fire kinda way) i read an editorial from November 1939 the other day which pontificated and raged against rationing, slandered shopkeepers for being "high and mighty" as they merely attempted to curtail consumption on Governments orders. The unknown writer exclaimed that people "could be trusted to self regulate" that you didnt need to stop people buying things - there would be enough for all. Yeh Sorry mate not buying it. Are you perhaps invested in food industry and the stocks and shares which have just taken a bit of a plummit thanks to the start of a war? yes i thought you might be! And that lovely story on page 2 about the Empire and all its dominions donating money, arms and men into the picture to help our boys win the war......do you mind telling me where you got your facts and figures from? Oh you cant come to the phone right now? Are you by any chance inflating the figures to instill a sense of calm in the public so that it'll drown out the voice inside their heads, in the lilting style of Private Frazier, chanting "We're doomed....doomed" Thought you might be......
You might wonder where im going with this.....i'll tell you.
Papers all have differing opinions. They all have different agendas. Some are biased towards the left, others the right. Different people read different papers depending on their political views and ideas (this is so eloquently illustrated in this FANTASTIC video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M ) and very rarely do we find ourselves stepping out of that niche - i mean im a Polar Bear hugging, welfare loving Liberal.....therefore i read The Guardian .....no chance i am suddenly going to start reading The Daily Mail.......*shudders at the thought*
However, one fundamental thing is true. If the public doesnt trust the journalistic skills of editors and writers on any given paper.....how are they going to trust what appears within its pages?? How can we have faith that we are being provided with accurate information? I knew that some of the facts and figures i was reading in my 1939 paper were inflated and a little questionable because i've got history on my side....i can go and check. How about in 2012? how do you go and corroborate what a newspaper is telling you? The fact of the matter is....you cant really or at least its pretty difficult for your average man in the street! Yes there are plenty more outlets of mass media than there were in 1939 (i mean Twitter.....i love you....like so much....its basically the world passing notes in class and i cant get enough of it) but now that the trust has been removed (lets be fair was it ever really there in the first place?) what are we to do as newspaper readers? Do we allow the press to continue to provide us with stories that undermine and effectively destroy people's lives? That bully, cajole and force its ideas and stories through onto their pages by underhand means?
This is not the case in all newspaper and with all journalists and i know the dangers of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But honestly, Leveson is not suggesting that one person will have complete control over EVERY SINGLE BLOODY NEWS STORY IN THE COUNTRY.....there isn't gonna be a little man with horned rimmed glasses sat in an office on Fleet street, with a direct line to 10 Downing Street, with a red rubber stamp entitled "approved", which he uses to stamp in the most authoritative manner going, every bit of paper that flashes under his nose! The Government isn't going to try and shut down every newspaper that threatens the 'delicate sensibilities' of the public and just have one state approved and sanctioned body which provides us with all our news. Thats just ridiculous. But the way the press and politicians were clamouring yesterday afternoon, thats just what you'd think was going to happen.....
Although i have mixed feelings about regulation (im a fence sitter....i like to see things from all angles....yeh i know....despite the awesome vintage fedora i'd make a crap journalist), i fundamentally believe that the consequences of Leveson must be CHANGE....and quick! Or else we'll be back here in another 20/30 years.......doomed to repeat the same argument we've been having since.....well iv lost count of the years this argument has been going on for!
"How justified are the press in behaving the way they do for the sake of "The Truth"? "Does Government have too much control in the workings and output of the press"? "How easy is it to fall down a slippery slope towards total state control of the press?" "Do papers have the right to print whatever the hell they like with no thought for the consequences to individual lives?"
Arnt we tired of asking the same old questions every few decades without actually doing something effective about it?
No alright....i'll see you in 2026 and we'll talk about it then.......
(All quotes taken from Regulating The Press by Tom O'Malley and Clive Soley (London: Pluto Press, 2000).
