You wouldn't think it at first, but national newspapers aren't too dissimilar from city banks. That might sound a little odd considering their visceral disdain for each other. However, both institutions have historically been significant in the development of British society, and with sourcing first class talent, have developed brand names that continue to resonate globally. Yet, in the sombre aftermath of the post-Leveson inquiry and the parliamentary proposal that has since emerged, it seems that the they also have something else in common- they too, are victims of their own fantasies.
As tabloids and broadsheets go up in arms to resist plans to introduce a Royal Charter and with a possible statutory underpinning, the press have resurrected bygone ‘gloden era’ myths in order to justify operating under a self-regulated code of ethics. Whether through invoking Winston Churchill, or making comical comparisons with China and Zimbabwe, this rhetoric perpetuates a distorted fantasy in which newspaper editors are unfairly thrown into Kafka’s Trial. Claiming their privilege is necessary to hold the powerful accountable, they argue that the forces of evil- lawyers, politicians and Hugh Grant, have colluded to undermine the only institution designed to empower citizens.
Of course, we’ve heard it all before. Nationalised banks like RBS continue to pay out large bonuses despite continually losing money, while even at the height of the financial crisis, bankers and their advocates argued for even less regulation. In both the newspaper and banking industries, the argument remains the same- ‘yes, we acknowledge there were some problems, but we won’t do it again, we promise’.
Most national newspapers took a similar line in calling for bank regulation, acknowledging that financial institutions-particularly those backed by the state, should operate in a way that protects and fulfils obligations to the public. Further, they rightly believed that more light-touch regulation would only evolve into more unfair play, illustrated through the LIBOR scandal. It’s striking then, that these newspapers wish to disregard the problems in their own back yard- the ones that prompted the Leveson inquiry in the first place.
After all, the parents of Milly Dowler weren’t exactly Bob Diamond. Nor were the relatives of British soldiers, Sara Payne or the other victims of the phone-hacking scandal. And this of course, was only the tip of the iceberg. For years, the tabloid press have gotten away with running grossly distorted stories vilifying some of the most vulnerable in our society, including immigrants, Muslims, and the working class. Despite what some of the press may wish, we shouldn’t forget that Leveson’s proposals are not without a precedent.
This isn’t to say that the method in which the charter was born was necessarily right. None of the party leaders, especially Ed Miliband, did themselves any favours by making the agreement look like a back room deal, designed to be political. Yet as The Guardian and The Independent have noted, while the technicalities of regulation may be in contention, the principle of an independent regulator is far cry from North Korean totalitarianism. If an agreed regulatory system is effectively executed, then there is no reason why the press cannot continue to serve the public and hold the powerful accountable. More importantly, an acknowledgement that the press will not be allowed to abuse their privilege will assist in winning back public trust- something that all print media groups require to survive.
During the golden era of The Sun newspaper in the 1980′s, when the newspaper also began running sensational stories based on few facts, a poster on the wall of its news desk read “News is anything that makes a reader say ‘Gee Whiz!’”. Just as the latter phrase became extinct, so has the insidious culture that this dictum built. The British press must realise that to survive, they cannot be exempt from the law. And unlike the banks, I’m not sure taxpayers will be willing to bail them out.
No comments:
Post a Comment