barnesgonzo: After Leveson: the struggle to preserve cherished press freedoms won 300 years ago

Today's extract from the book After Leveson* is by the former national newspaper editor, Guardian deputy editor and academic, Peter Cole. He is firmly anti-statutory and pro-independent.

To that end, Cole considers what has happened in the aftermath of the publication of Lord Justice Leveson's report. After 86 days of public hearings and 474 witnesses, at a probable cost of £6m, what now for Leveson's recommendations?

It is not over yet. There is acceptance that there has to be a change in the regulation of the press.

There is division among politicians, editors, victims of shameful treatment by sections of the press, campaigners for reform, journalists and media academics about the precise nature of any reforms to be introduced, crucially whether or not they require legislation and whether that is acceptable in terms of cherished press freedoms that have existed for more than 300 years.

After the publication of the Leveson report David Cameron came out strongly against its call for statutory underpinning and verification of a new regulatory body. He told the Commons he had "serious concerns and misgivings" in principle to any statutory interference:

"It would mean for the first time we have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. We should think very, very carefully before crossing this line. We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

This was more of a surprise than anything in the report. Cameron's coalition deputy. Nick Clegg, and Labour leader Ed Miliband had both supported the statutory elements of Leveson, citing their duty to the victims of reprehensible press behaviour.

Nobody, however, assumed this would be Cameron's last word on the subject. He summoned the editors to Downing Street five days after the report was published and told them they had two days to agree a reformed regulatory structure that had to follow Leveson line by line, apart from the statute insistence.

Statute or no statute, however independent of government the press is, prime ministers show no reticence in sending for editors, expecting them to turn up and telling them what to do.

Although some of the editors were not entirely opposed to statutory insistence on regulation and verification of its form, by the time they were together in Downing Street they seemed of one mind now they appeared to have the prime minister's too.

'Independent regulation' versus self-regulation

Leveson described "independent regulation" as that "organised by the press itself, with a statutory underpinning and verification." Self-regulation implies the press regulating itself, whereas independence suggests that cannot be so.

The Press Complaints Commission, responsible for press regulation since 1991, is funded by the newspaper industry, through the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof). Its board is entirely made up of senior executives from the newspaper and magazine industries.

It appoints the chair of the PCC, which has 17 members, 10 of them (including the chairman) lay or public members with no connection to the newspaper and magazine industry, the other seven serving editors.

The editors' code of practice committee, responsible for developing and amending the code regulating journalists' standards, comprises 13 editors plus the PCC chairman and director.

So how "independent" does that leave the PCC? Throughout the Leveson hearings one common (and, as it turned out, complacent) presumption was that Leveson's report would recommend "PCC-2", a strengthened version of the original model, with investigatory powers and the right to impose large fines.

When Lord Hunt took over as the PCC's chair he acknowledged that it must be replaced and began work with Lord Black, chair of PressBof and executive director of the Telegraph Media Group, to design a revised PCC.

The plans included contracts between publishers and the new regulator, which would have the increased powers mentioned above. He must have been disappointed when the Leveson report said that the Hunt-Black proposals did not "come close" to true independent regulation.

However, Hunt-Black is a tenacious partnership with strong experience of regulation and will be expected to make any changes to their model short of statute to hold on to the regulatory role.

It would seem likely that the present PCC infrastructure – its able staff dealing with the arbitration of complaints – would be kept on. That side of the PCC's activities is widely held to have been effective.

The question is whether you can bolt on the investigative components that would make it an effective regulator, and convince the public and the verifying body that it is independent as well. All this without statute, the antithesis of independence.

Understanding the popular press agenda

The inquiry became about a series of stories where press behaviour had been questionable or much worse. Some of these involved celebrities like Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan who as a result became not only witnesses but campaigners.

Others involved those who had suffered heart-rending tragedies like a murdered child (the Dowlers) or a missing child (the McCanns). By front-loading the inquiry so that stark and dramatic victim stories came first Sir Brian Leveson set the tone.

It was almost as though he was using tabloid techniques to shock the public at the outset of the inquiry. The choreography did not always work.

Max Mosley is not a victim of the same order as Bob and Sally Dowler; Hugh Grant has not suffered like Gerry and Kate McCann. There seemed little understanding in the court of the difference between popular and serious newspapers.

Sitting there you had the strong feeling that nobody in court 73 had ever read The Sun or the Mirror, few the Daily Mail. It was clear from the expressions on the faces of the lawyers and assistants that they knew little about the content of the mass-selling tabloids (The Sun six times the sale of The Times; the Mail 10 times The Guardian) and the techniques used to get their stories.

Leveson seemed quite incredulous about some of the answers he heard from tabloid witnesses, not those about criminal activities like hacking but the legal investigative techniques employed to reveal corruption.

It is no disrespect to those who suffered grievously at the hands of the press to suggest that while evidence of their experiences was vital their views on regulation and reform should have carried no greater weight than others.

It was a point made by Tom Mockridge, then chief executive of News International on the BBC Today programme and quoted in a Times article by Matthew Syed.

'A tidal wave of revulsion at press intrusion'

Mockridge was asked whether the Dowler family should have the power of veto over proposals on press regulation. He replied: "[Their status] doesn't mean they get to determine the legislation of the state that governs the principle of free speech."

Syed suggests that "the crimes of the press (serious though they are) have been conflated with the death of an innocent schoolgirl. Sympathy at the Dowlers' loss alchemised into a tidal wave of revulsion at press intrusion.

"And from there we have seamlessly moved to the prospect of statutory underpinning which will affect all newspapers. Freedom of the press is simply too important to be hijacked like this."

From the moment it was set up there emerged a small industry of journalist navel-gazers, media pundits, columnists, broadcasters and reporters, editors with a reputation for playing a part in wider media debates, media lawyers and the journalism lecturers and researchers, with and without a professional journalism past (known as the hackademics). 'Whither journalism' debates were held up and down the land.

Too often the emphasis at these meetings was doing something about the popular press rather than preserving the freedoms of all the press. After all, if the police investigations had uncovered the extent of illegal phone hacking when it was first brought to their attention there would have been no need for Leveson.

As it is, those areas of the press that have behaved disreputably and despicably have been so shamed by the evidence given to the inquiry that such behaviour should not recur.

After Leveson? The future for British journalism, edited by John Mair, is published by Abramis. Available at a special Media Guardian price of £15 from richard@arimapublishing.co.uk

Tomorrow: Media commentator Ray Snoddy on where the Leveson report was right and where it was wrong