The dispute over statutory (backed by Leveson, Miliband,
Clegg) or non-statutory regulation of the press (Cameron) is really no dispute
at all. Because regulated or not, the press will as a whole always remain hostile
to the interests of ordinary people.
Phone hacking and paying off police officers for inside
information was exposed at Leveson. But there was no way the report was going
to stray into deeper issues. The report went soft on successive governments’
close ties to Murdoch’s empire. And the police were laughably more or less
given a clean bill of health.
Some of Leveson’s proposals could even make it more
difficult for investigative journalists to operate. In his proposals, the Leveson
suggests major alterations to both the 1998 Data Protection Act and the 1984
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Pace).
Between them, journalists could become liable to prison
sentences and their sources
be required to sign written agreements.
Ultimately, the press is neither free nor fair. The reasons
are self-evident. Newspapers are owned by an assortment of Murdoch’s global
corporation News International, Russian oligarchs (The Independent and the
London Standard) or right-wing aristocrats like Viscount Rothermere.
He is chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail
and General Trust PLCs, one of the largest media conglomerates with interests
in newspapers, TV and radio in Europe, the United
States and Australia .
Any regulatory system of the press will not make a jot of
difference when it comes to the Daily Mail witch-hunting trade unionists,
denying climate change is actually taking place (even though many of its
readers are regularly flooded out by extreme weather) or scapegoating asylum
seekers and migrant workers.
If we had had a regulatory system in place in 2003, would it
have compelled the media to expose government lies in the run-up to the
invasion and occupation of Iraq ?
Of course not. Newspapers lapped up the Blair government’s falsehoods and
helped create the spurious grounds for an invasion.
Not even the liberal Guardian could bring itself to oppose
the war, which by any standards was illegal under international law and did not
have the backing of the United Nations.
During major strikes, the media is at one in siding with the
employers and the government. Which paper supported the strikes in 2011 by
public sector workers defending their pension rights?
Rail union RMT general Secretary Bob Crow, who gave evidence
to the Leveson inquiry, said it had uncovered “the level of collusion between
press, politicians and the state to do over anyone seen as a threat to their
interests and that includes the trade union movement.
"From the miners to the firefighters and right up to
date with our struggles today on transport and public services, no stone has
been left unturned in vilifying and slandering those with the guts to stand up
and fight back."
Crow’s reference to the miners’ strike of 1984-5 is
compelling. Urged on by the then Labour leader Neil Kinnock, papers like the
Daily Mirror attacked miners’ leader Arthur Scargill throughout the dispute.
When it was over, the Mirror joined in a scurrilous
denigration of Scargill over false allegations of misappropriation of funds.
There was more than a little suspicion about the involvement of the dirty hand
of the state in this infamous character assassination.
So when Miliband and Clegg urge on the very same state to
get involved in “regulation” of the media, they are not proposing to remedy
these kinds of wrongs.
In any case, what’s the use of an apology or a fine long
after the event. The damage has already been done. In the hands of capitalist
owners, the media can never be “free nor fair”. Always remember that.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor