The Leveson report is in – Protecting liberty or curtailing free speech?

And so Lord Leveson has delivered his esteemed judgement in a truly impressive 2000 page report. Typical lawyers, they always have to go overboard with the wording! For all that, it is a serious study with a lot of analysis behind it and so none of its recommendations should be dismissed lightly or quickly.

Leveson has pretty much publicly confirmed what anyone who has had any professional dealings with the media already knows. On the whole they lie. A lot! The reasons for this are many, but it boils down to deadlines, lack of standards and professionalism and outright political or commercial bias. This is on top of the mistakes that any pressured written work will have. This is not to tarnish all journalists with the same brush, but for anyone who takes pride in their work it is unacceptable to put a misleading statement into the public domain, I still remain horrified by how often the media reports opinions and complete fabrications as fact. I am a big fan of proper investigative journalism, which in many ways mirror some of the basic principles in being a good civil servant – find out what is going on and get it confirmed/checked from more than one source if possible. If this is not possible, make this clear and say it is the best judgement that can be made with the information available.

Leveson draws a crucial distinction between what is put on the internet and what has a ‘big name’ behind it. The mainstream media claim to have the high ground when it comes to news because unlike some random blogger they have the resources and people to add credibility to their articles or posts. We cannot just make free market claims that if people do not believe the veracity of the press they will go elsewhere. This might be true of blogs in the ‘wild west’ of the internet, but the mainstream press is not as diverse and the tricks used to manipulate people are subtle and well used. In short, the mainstream press have a tremendous capacity to ‘influence’ people for good or for bad and so they have a lot of power. What Leveson highlights all too starkly is that this power is too often abused with little in the way of restraint or punishment against its misuse. In short, it is a very unhealthy situation for a democracy to be in and something has to change. He make take nearly 2000 pages to say this, but I can only say that I fully agree with Leveson’s observations of the problems of the press.

Many comments and articles have been written about how the British media is controlled by a small number of wealthy individuals and it cannot be denied this is one problem, but I would argue it is certainly not the only one. One of the other big problems is the belief that the press protects liberty. While this is true in part, what this belief does is provide a good excuse for vested interests to clamour against reform. The mainstream press is not just ugly, it is clearly corrupt, self-promoting and in worse cases actually restricts liberty not safeguards it. The most obvious cases of the way liberty is restricted are those of hacking victims and those who are victims of vigilante justice promoted by the press. Less obvious is the way the press curtails critical reporting for ‘editorial reasons’ or the fact that complex issues are dumbed down and presented in a way to reduce independent/critical thought by the reader. Liberty and free speech will not be preserved by entrusting its protection to a group of journalists motivated by a variety of factors, but by making sure the population at large is well informed and able to articulate its feelings in a coherent way that politicians can listen to.

The danger of the press is not only that they have colluded in reducing informed free speech by the population, but they have cluttered the communication from the population to those at the top and so the politicians themselves cannot clearly hear the ‘will of the people’. This has been frequently referred to as “the Westminster Bubble” The press are just as guilty as the politicians for this state of affairs and they live in a state of denial about their culpability. Leveson has challenged this and the completely hypocritical response from the elements of the press saying that he will curtail their free speech reveals the state of denial or worse still their desperate desire to preserve this unsustainable relationship which is significantly undermining British democracy.

In conclusion, I believe Leveson is totally right, a self regulated body cannot work and so some statutory legislation/regulation is needed. The trick is to do it in a way that preserves the essential components of liberty and free speech that are so vital for a properly functional democracy. A self regulated press has been shown to fail (through countless other enquiries) to do this and so another approach is needed and it needs to have teeth and to be free from political control.

The Olympic Legacy

And so following a very successful Olympics, which despite my usual disinterest I actually rather enjoyed, the political conversation has now shifted towards a nebulous concept – the Olympic legacy. Needless to say, politicians of all shades will be promoting this with the full knowledge that they are unlikely to be held to account for its delivery. This is all about perceptions, not substance and so words are cheap and will no doubt be plentiful on this topic. Nonetheless, the Olympics are likely to have a real impact on the political scene and so it will be worth speculating as to what this actual impact will be. As for it influencing how Scottish voters will vote in the referendum in 2013, or how the UK votes in the election presumably in 2015 there is only one appropriate response – It is the economy stupid!

The first thing of course has to be the ‘feel good’ factor. As mentioned in a previous post, all politicians of all shades try to jump onto major sporting events to try to get the electorate to feel better about them and the world in general. No doubt Cameron’s promise to maintain the existing level of sports funding for Olympic sport is doing exactly that. Milliband’s call for an all-party consensus is another example. However, it does appear that the coalition (and Labour) has very much appeared to have been left out with the media giving lots of print and air time to Boris Johnson. Politically, it very much appears that Johnson has benefitted, with negligible benefits for anyone else in politics although there is a possibility the whole class war thing may benefit some fringe political commentators. From a political perspective, this implies that the power and momentum behind the London Olympics has very much stayed within the London power base, national politics has been very much marginalised. Is this a possible indication of future political power shifts from national to local level? Or is London , as always, unique and so this cannot be seen to be representative of the nation as a whole?

One definitely positive message that came out of the Olympics was the sense of ‘civic spirit’ particularly surrounding the volunteers. Maybe Cameron can take some satisfaction that the Olympics has demonstrated better than anything else, what his concept of Big Society is all about. It will be very obvious that the Olympics was a success that involved minimal government intervention (the call up of the military and the huge amounts of cash pumped in notwithstanding!). However, Cameron will have to be very careful before he makes this claim. GB managed to pull in a record number of medals. But then everyone knows that this is in part because there has been a real push to properly fund Olympic success. While the volunteers and the athletics may have made the whole event really uplifting, it is clear that this spirit can only flourish where properly supported. Big Society as a concept has failed to prove that it is about harnessing and supporting this sort of spirit rather than being more about trying to make cuts and shift the burden onto volunteers or charities. The old adage, “you get what you put in” has very much run true of this Olympics and the Conservatives are going to struggle to get this message across. Simply put, the Conservative brand has not been detoxified and the Olympics may well make the electorate further associate cuts as causing long term damage. The whole argument around the sell-off of playing fields is a very poignant part of this narrative.

On a less positive note, the Olympics has seemed to have encouraged the media to give lots of print to a sort of ‘class war’ and focussing on the number of medals won by people from private schools. This debate is highly divisive and I fear leaving a sour after-note. The reasons for so many medals being won by privately educated people are relatively clear and easy to understand, any solutions for correcting this imbalance are not. As with anything in politics, whenever someone is peddling black and white ‘truths’ the reality is that they are expressing biases and opinions. Nothing is simple to solve even if the problem is easy to understand. It would be a pity for the Olympic legacy to descend into a destructive narrative about the ‘toffs’ winning the medals rather than the focus being on how to improve sports and sporting achievement in the UK in a way that is accessible to everyone. While the coalition may be rightly castigated for having a cabinet widely seen as elitist, this does not mean the Olympic medal holders should be seen within the context of this debate.

If people do not want to see the Eton and Oxbridge brigade dominating the top of government, rather than whinging about it and trying to arbitrarily restrict entry, focus the narrative on improving access from the bottom so than anyone of ability who works hard has a chance. This is true of education, of the Olympics and pretty much any other area of life. If you really want to damage or properly criticise the ‘millionaire’s cabinet’, nothing is more damaging than a credible discussion about their lack of competence. The USA and China ruthlessly focus on supporting competence and success rather than class in their politically polar opposite quest for Olympic glory. The legacy that the British nation has to take away from the Olympics is that it needs to do the same in its own British way. It does not need to be massively state controlled ( China ) or fully capitalist ( USA ) as the GB athletes and volunteers quite vividly demonstrated.

Assange the mad!

If anyone is looking for examples that the lawyers are getting excessively rich in this country then the ongoing Assange saga must surely be a case study for future students? What should have been a simple case of extradition to answer a charge has turned into a complete media and legal circus. I have no views on whether Assange is guilty of the charges that Sweden say he needs to answer, but I find him increasingly objectionable (he was never a saint to start with) and thus it becomes harder to dispassionately defend his rights. For those who put forward the money for his bail, the old saying is relevant here, “A fool and their money are easily parted…” Personally, I just wish he would bugger off to Sweden , get it over with, stop making the lawyers rich and stop using up copious amount of UK taxpayers' money.

I find it incredible that some people are willing to buy his argument of political persecution. It appears obvious that the UK courts (and probably the EU too) do not believe him. Sweden is a country with a proud history in terms of social justice and human rights. The idea that they would knowingly front for the US and through a circuitous route get Assange extradited to the US is laughable and yet people still seem to believe it. Personally I think Assange is safer in Sweden than in the UK. If nothing else, it means the US would have to gain the consent of three governments ( Australia , UK and Sweden ) to extradite him. Of course, he is not safe from Swedish justice and that is probably his biggest fear. His complete unwillingness to clear this issue up on the basis of trumped up conspiracy theories does not imply innocence or rational thinking on his part.

So what is the Ecuadorian Government going to do now? Regardless of rumoured links between Assange and the Ecuadorian president, this is a problem no sane government would welcome. Should Ecuador agree to give Assange asylum, they would not only create a legal and logistical nightmare for themselves, they would also be publicly stating that the UK , Swedish and EU justice systems are sub-standard. This sort of message might go down well in Latin America, but is no route to winning friends on the international stage and showing that the country stands up for those who matter or deserve protection. Assange is rapidly losing friends and he is inviting Ecuador to do the same. If they refuse his asylum claim, they will probably get criticised anyway. I do not envy Ecuador having to deal with this poisoned chalice.

On a final point, I do not think much of Assange. The one good thing he did was invigorate the issue of investigative journalism which was completely failing to get to the truth behind government policies and backing this with evidence. Yet the way Assange went about this through the Wikileaks site was truly reprehensible. He exposed and thus sacrificed his sources (such as Bradley Manning) in his quest for personal glory, he just dumped a lot of classified material for the whole world to see without even filtering it properly and thus risking lives and he didn't even seek to explain the material like a proper investigative journalist is meant to. In short, he is a self centred, egotistical and irresponsible man with a truly unpleasant personality. He could have done so much better, but he has let his vanity and thirst for glory overcome him.

Dealing with the enemy, the media

This is a post I have wanted to write for a while. When I was given training on how to handle the media many years ago, the message was very much that they were usually the enemy and so needed to be handled with caution and suspicion. Sadly, the reason for this is not because the media keep exposing things that government does not want exposed. Civil servants are just as eager as the person in the street for the media to properly expose all that is wrong in Government. No, the reason for treating the media as the enemy is because they are not the fourth estate as they claim to be, with the notable exception of the specialist press and those who still have a very strong investigative journalism element such as the Private Eye. At their worst, the mainstream media are corrupt, dishonest and very political. They now exist to do two things: sell newspapers and promote certain political/social messages or themes. Only by coincidence do these goals align with holding powerful people to account in the public interest and only occasionally can they be judged to be a neutral party, free from political/financial interest and eager to do the right thing. The Leveson enquiry is exposing this reality in a truly landmark way, shattering the myths and showing the ugly underbelly of British democracy. This has been nicely captured in an article in The Guardian by John Harris: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/leveson-elite-shames-new-politics

For any civil servant who has had experience of answering media enquiries, it becomes rapidly apparent that something is consistently wrong. Whenever I read a media article to which I have contributed information to, I can always spot a large number of basic and fundamental errors. Many of these errors are distortion of facts, deliberately done to make a political point, and many others are just as a result of poor research and limited knowledge of the subject matter. This happens so often that it can only be concluded that journalism is no longer about quality writing when it comes to the content of their material, the message itself is far more important. One critical result is that the reader ends up not well informed about that issue and merely reacts to any such articles emotionally rather than intellectually. For someone trained to believe that they should never put anything out in the public domain that is not as factually accurate as possible, even including some spin, this is a complete travesty. It also raises the obvious question asked by many civil servants, “If what they write about topics I know about is complete rubbish, why should I believe anything else written in the rest of the newspaper?” I am sorry to say, I consider very few journalists to be truly ‘professional’ at their craft. The newspaper that is easily the worst for all these issues is the Daily Mail, but then everyone already knows this. Despite that, they remain successful.

There is a darker side to this debate too. Think of any major news story in recent years. As an example I will choose the Soham murders in Cambridgeshire. The press descended upon that story like a swarm of locusts. So what did the local police and local council have to do? They had to put people into handling that media scrum. Now I know giving information to the press is important, but when you are in the middle of desperately looking for two missing girls, people in the office handling press enquiries are not people outside helping in the search. This is a familiar pattern for any major news story there is. Government departments are mocked for having so many press officers and yet no one questions why they are needed. The press is a rapacious beast, it does not care who it tramples over or how many people it takes to handle it. This is taxpayer’s money and one day it could be someone’s life. I can only speculate that this may have been the case for Madeleine McCann, there is a reason why the British police ask the press not to run any stories of a kidnapping victim in the early stages. I hasten to add that this is speculation, the truth of what happened has not come out, but I can only say that the press coverage has sickened me as much as the kidnapping itself. This case has only shown that there are few depth to which the mainstream media will not sink and from the bowels of government they are seen as a hindrance to doing one’s job.

On a more routine note, journalists are the biggest users of the Freedom of Information laws. Granted, this is about government being accountable and so a good thing, but the point I want to make here is that a significant amount of taxpayers’ money is devoted to handling these enquiries by journalists who are willing to ‘distort’ the facts and then try to make money off the resulting story. I wish to emphasise the fact that all too often they are using taxpayer funded resources to make the newspaper money rather than holding the government to account. Some people may consider this a good thing, to which all I can say is look at what the Leveson enquiry is exposing, do you want your tax money keeping these people in business? Again another caveat, I am not advocating the abolition of FOI, I only point out that there is not enough intelligent use of these laws to get at the truth rather than to manufacture a story.

In conclusion, I believe the media has too much power with too little responsibility. There is an obvious and critical need for an independent press in a democratic society. The sad reality is that the UK press is not independent, it is nearly wholly owned by a small number of very rich white men. I hope the Levenson enquiry results in significant changes to the fourth estate and how it operates. Apart from all the harm done by the lack of professionalism by journalism as a whole and the blatant political bias of various news organisations, a situation where the government is not able to tell the truth because it will be turned into lies and journalists report the government’s lies as truths is not one that is democratically healthy.